What does the “Bible alone” mean?

[Deadworm]

"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."

Wrong again!  The books were already in the Septuagint, the Greek Bible of the Diaspora.

[Hawkins]

Faith alone means it is specified in the New Covenant that humans are saved by faith alone but not the work of Law.

Bible alone is that the authority on explaining what the Bible says doesn't belong to a particular physical church such as the RCC. God's Church on earth is composed of many physical churches and denominations under the new era of reformation. These churches with their salvation power can be identified by the statements in the Apostles' Creed. "Bible alone" is rather a denial of the "RCC only" authentication.

[TheBlade]

Well if you search on this.. Catholic pops up allot. So not sure whats really being asked. Is this something to do with "Catholics"? I know how I would understand its meaning..out side of Catholic.

[Guest]

On 8/31/2020 at 11:39 AM, enoob57 said:

@Saved.One.by.Grace

If you research Christian History, you will see that the Canon was a work-in-progress for centuries with some books in and some books out.  In 150 AD, Matthew, Mark and Luke were brought together.  In 200 AD, the four gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, James, 1 & 2 John, Jude, the Revelation of John, the Revelation of Peter, and the Wisdom of Solomon made up the NT; and The Shepard of Hermas was added to the OT.  In 250 AD, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, The Shepard of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews were all disputed.  In 300 AD, the authorship of the Revelation of John was disputed.  The following books were to be excluded: The Shepard of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Gospel of the Hebrews, Revelation of Peter, Acts of Peter, and the Didache were to be excluded.  The New Testament for the West was fixed by the Council of Carthage by 397 AD, called by a German Bishop named Denzinger.  It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.

So is this the Canon you're referring to?

Source: Councils of Carthage

Also used as a source, my personal copy of Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity.

[enoob57]

nope the Jews never recognized these as prophets from God... that's why it is called 450 silent years... Malichi to John The Baptist 

[Guest]

On 10/21/2020 at 4:34 PM, enoob57 said:

nope the Jews never recognized these as prophets from God... that's why it is called 450 silent years... Malichi to John The Baptist 

The Jews don't recognize John the Baptist as a prophet.

[Guest]

Just now, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The Jews don't recognize John the Baptist as a prophet.

The early Christians had a different Canon as I've shown above in my post.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

18 minutes ago, anynmsfmly said:

So,........ Is a deuterocanonical Old Testament Bible, Is it any different from a kjv Christian Bible........ ? ? ?

Here is the skinny on that Any:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

One the KJV Christian Bible, which one do you mean? When the KJV was published in 1611, it that the apocrypha, the books that the Roman Catholic Church still keeps in the Bible. Most protestants just reject them, as inspired by God, so typically pay little if any attention to them, except as an historic curiosity.

As protestantism sought to get back to the Bible, sola scriptura - Bible only, they not only wanted to get rid of the beliefs and practices that Roman Catholicism and added to the faith over the centuries, the considered when they were trying to agree on a protestant canon, that the apocrypha really had no places, since even Jews rejected those books as inspired. 

[Justin Adams]

The reformation scripture is not the same as early church.

[Justin Adams]

While to is good to study second temple Jewish literature and avail yourself of all writings, just because the Rabbis disallowed some writings does not mean we should. They typically got rid of anything that mentioned THEIR OWN 'two persons of the Godhead' teachings and many that referenced the Messiah.

Read BETWEEN the lines and you will be well informed. Remember, the LXX was disallowed in favor of the new abridged Masoretic text. Read and understand WHY.

What we call 'scripture' today is not like the books that Yeshua and the apostles read.