What does the “Bible alone” mean?

[David1701]

12 hours ago, Nobody said:

In other words, someone made the decision based upon certain criteria we can guess they may have used. But that raises a serious problem in my mind. If the canon of the Bible was decided upon by fallible men using the fallible criteria you mentioned, then how can such a fallible decision result in an infallible book?

The Holy Spirit guided the Church (i.e. the body of Christ) to recognise which books were inspired and which were not.  It is God who promised to preserve his word and he keeps his promises.

[Jayne]

5 hours ago, Nobody said:

Does that not mean then that Scripture has failed to be a reliable guide for them? What good is a map with directions written in Chinese if we do not understand Chinese?

No.  Not at all.  It means that one or both of the arguing persons has interjected their own private interpretation and man-made tradition into the text.  

I've seen that countless times.

[Markesmith]

12 hours ago, Nobody said:

And what happens if after that they still cannot come to an agreement on the correct interpretation of Scripture, despite the best of efforts on both sides?

That’s not what the Bible says see acts 8 the Bible alone was not sufficient God also provided the Holy Spirit and an apostle lead by an angel

[Jayne]

Just now, Nobody said:

I don't understand. If two genuine and honest people can read the same Scripture and come to a different understanding on some essential doctrine, without being able to come to an agreement, how can you say that Sola Scriptura is a reliable guide?

I thought I was self-explanatory.  People who have agendas and their own pre-conceived notions and are hard-wired by false teachings read INTO the Bible what they want it to say.

They are close minded.  They don't even know it sometimes.

I know people who believe that women cannot wear pants or else they go to hell.   They get this from a gross misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5 and hard-hearted preachers who drill this into their heads.  I know their belief is a false one, but they will argue the point incessantly.  I don't argue with these or even try anymore.

I also know people who believe that you HAVE to be baptized to be saved.  If your body hasn't come in contact with water and a preacher - you go to hell.  That's called baptismal regeneration.  It's a lie and a false teaching.  They get it from Acts 2 where the crowd  asks Peter what must he do to be saved. Paul says in the same same to repent and be baptized.

They completely ignore the MULTITUDE of scripture that states that salvation is by faith alone.  Baptism is important, but it does not save.  They don't believe the rest of scripture.

It's not that the Bible is unreliable.  It's that mankind's heart and mind is immature, hard, and listens too much to mortal man.

[Jayne]

1 minute ago, Nobody said:

Ok, thank you. But how do you know that you are not one of those people with "preconceived notions and hard-wired false teachings"? Or me? I agree with you that it happens all the time, and I can understand that it's often caused by a hardened heart or an immature mind. But if I say that about them, and they say that about me, is it not possible that they are right and I am wrong?

You see, I am not interested in why they are wrong, I know that already based on my own opinion. But I do want to make sure that my opinion is right and that I am not deceiving myself. There has to be some objective standard against which I can test and prove my opinion. It makes no sense to prove my own opinion against my own opinion, that is absurd. And neither does it make sense to prove my own opinion against Scripture because Peter tells us that Scripture is hard to understand and that there are people who twist it unto their own destruction. If I am one of those people that twist Scripture, how can I get out of that trap?

I've been wrong and willingly admit it.

To be sure - one has to let scripture answer scripture.  One has to study.  Sanctification - the process of spiritual growth over time helps so much with this.

Our minds are not God's mind.  Our ways not his.  The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible to be written.  Ask him to bring enlightenment.

The more one walks the walk and talks the talk and trusts God, the less this happens.  And....the more one listens to those more spiritual mature, the less this happens.  I've also had to admit when an elder or teacher is wrong.

The Bible says to ask God for wisdom and he will liberally give it.

I've had to admit my error - more than once.

I conduct a community Bible study on Thursday nights [not since the pandemic].  It's not a church substitute.  We dig and dig and search for cross references and pray that God will lead us into understanding.

It's a big help,

I have found out the hard way that a superficial reading of the Bible brings only superficial understanding and knowledge ..... and not much wisdom.

[Markesmith]

I promise you that I am not being a smart mouth, but one knows what or what is not in the Bible by reading it.  There are many of us who read it and study every single year.
 

until the 20th cent most people could not read!

boobks were rare and expensive!

before the printing press a monk would sacrifice his whole life copying one bible

[David1701]

2 hours ago, Nobody said:

I can agree with that. But then, who guided Luther in removing 7 of those books in the 16th century?

The books he removed had been added, erroneously, by the Romanists, so they needed to be removed, to restore the Bible to only those books that were inspired.  The Holy Spirit would have led him to do that.

[Markesmith]

And I thought we had the Holy Spirit to lead the apostles into all truth and then to teach us the truth!

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, Nobody said:

So what you're saying then is that there is no gold standard? That we must continually study and revise our doctrine if necessary, and hope that by the time we die we have enough of the truth to "work out our salvation"? That sounds scary.

I was reading Isaiah the other day, and I think the prophet explained in chapter 35 that under the New Covenant there will be a Rule of Faith that is plain, easy to find, and safe to follow. So I know that such a simple and safe Rule of Faith exists, because Scripture says so. And I have seen enough evidence around me that Sola Scriptura is not that Rule of Faith. It must be something else then.

God bless,

Nobody

You call it scary.  I call it exhilarating to learn more and more of God and his word everyday.  I'm GRATEFUL that I know more than I did 50 years ago, 30 years ago, and 10 years ago.  I'm GRATEFUL that he corrects me and teaches me.

"Rule of Faith"?????  Isaiah 35?????

You are going to have to point me to that.  I can't find it.  In my Bible, Isaiah 35 is about future joy.

If you don't think the Bible is enough - what do you believe is more important and has more authority??  Mortal Man and his traditions?

Pardon me for being  presumptive, but are you and Markesmith Catholic?  If so, that may be why we are butting heads.

I'll be happy to bow out, but first....do show me where Isaiah 35 speaks to a New Testament Rule of Faith concerning the Bible.

[Markesmith]

Scripture is tradition!

that which is handed down

the teaching authority of the apostles!