The question read
What Christian on Y/A studies the Bible alone and has NEVER used any of the following?I will post some of the more interesting answers here, along with my own thoughts at the end.
concordance
bible dictionary
bible encyclopedia
dictionary
encyclopedia
bible commentary
sunday school lessons
catechism
etc., etc., etc.,
For those of you who answer in the affirmative, may I follow
up with bible questions?
Answer 1
That person must have the most limited understanding of the Bible EVER... or he or she is a genius.Answer 2
Show me a Christian who's never used any of that and I'll show you a Christian who does not understand their own holy book very well. In no other subject of life can you become an expert on something by reading only one book on the subject, even if that one is the definitive works. I have the complete works of Shakespeare, but no matter how much I read it, it doesn't mean I understand what's going on. I can read Hamlet 1000 times, but until I study a little of historical word usage, I'm going to get some stuff wrong. For example, I wouldn't know that when Hamlet says "get thee to a nunnery", he is not telling her to join a convent, but was in actuality calling his girlfriend a whore. Had I not consulted a different book, I never would have known that a "nunnery" is a term for a whorehouse.Answer 3
Likewise with scripture, if all you ever read is the bible, you will never understand half of it. You NEED outside sources to help you learn and understand.
No... I need that stuff, I need dates, I need customs and languages of the people of the day, I need cultures,My Own Semi-Related Answer
I need history and references.
You do need it to know what a book written in another time, and culture and country and language means.
Whenever people get "uppity" with me about reading study aids or reference works other than the Bible, I always try to ask them a simple question:So then, from a common sense perspective, is there anything wrong with Jehovah's Witnesses using study aids when teaching about Bible based subjects, especially very deep subjects? Absolutely not! The study aids actually help the Witnesses learn more about the Bible than if they just flat out read the Bible on its own. This is part of the reason why Jehovah's Witnesses can run circles around the majority of "nominal" Christians in a debate about Bible theology - they are simply taught better and more efficiently!
Do you ever listen to sermons by your pastor? Yes or No.
Now please tell me, what would the difference between your pastor speaking his sermon to you orally and your pastor writing his sermon down on a piece of paper (with Scriptural references), handing it to you and having you read it yourself? Is it the same sermon and are they the same Scriptures?
Affirmative answers only indicate a logical contradiction in the person's thinking.
I oppose A completely
I am not opposed B
A = B
Therefore, there is an internal contradiction between premise 1 and premise 2.
The only way to get rid of that contradiction is either
(1) Stop opposing A (the use of study aids and reference works other than the Bible)
(2) Start opposing B (all oral sermons)
But of course, this isn't the real reason why opposers make such a fuss about study aids. Their real beef is that what the Witnesses teach isn't the exactly the same thing as what they themselves have been taught. The whole "use the Bible alone" accusation/scapegoat is just a mask which covers a hatred of all differences in interpretation, i.e., "how dare you claim to be right, thus implying that I am wrong!"
But then, what about the entire concept of Sola Scriptura? Does not the above logic render it completely invalid?
Answer: Absolutely Not!
There has always been a bit of confusion surrounding the term, “Sola Scriptura.” What many describe, i.e, using the Bible and the Bible alone, is not “Sola Scriptura” at all, but is rather a more extreme version sometimes labeled “Solo Scriptura.” “Sola Scriptura” is not belief in using the Bible and nothing but the Bible, while rejecting all outside sources, aids, interpretations and opinions. This type of extremism would be a form of absolute personal interpretation. I call this extremism of course, because within such a system there would be even more doctrinal chaos than there already is within the world of Christendom (which is difficult to believe). Every single person would be expected to make up their own seat of the pants theology as they go with no help from any outside sources, including pastoral sermons (because as I explained earlier, there is really no difference between a pastor giving his interpretations of Scripture orally and a pastor writing his sermon on a piece of paper and asking you to read it, is there?). Thus, all would arrive at different conclusions and would thereby invalidate the entire concept of there being one “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)
Real “Sola Scriptura” must be viewed in the context of its original creation: The Protestant reformation. One site gives the respectable definition of:
It [Sola Scriptura] meant that Scripture is the Church's only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.“Sola Scriptura” deals primarily with authority. It does not prohibit or invalidate interpretation aids, nor does it attack the authority of those who may interpret. As the same article mentioned later:
Sola scriptura did not originally signify a radical rejection of all authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures, but rather represented a claim that the teaching authority of the Church is regulated by the Bible, constrained by Scripture in both a limiting and a directing sense.What the Catholics were doing (and are still doing) was propping up their own, extra-Biblical traditions and creeds to the same authoritative level as the Bible. That problem was the target of the original concept of “Sola Scriptura.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses, therefore, actually do adhere to “Sola Scriptura.” None of their literature aids have ever been thought to have equal authority with the Bible, nor have any of the teachings or interpretations been considered inspired or “infallible” in the same sense that the teachings of the Bible are thought to be inspired and “infallible.” The final authority for all JW’s is not even the GB, but rather is the Bible itself.
Keep in mind that protestant churches now ALSO appeal to "tradition" on certain matters, such as the Trinity. In a sense, they give that tradition an equal footing with the Bible, which goes against the spirit of Sola Scriptura.
ReplyDeleteVery nice the way you brought out the Sola and Solo Scriptura there.
ReplyDeleteOpposers do not have a leg to stand on in this regard.
It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communicating to his people on the earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose.
ReplyDeleteSource: 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Page 85
You state: Jehovah’s Witnesses, therefore, actually do adhere to “Sola Scriptura.” None of their literature aids have ever been thought to have equal authority with the Bible, nor have any of the teachings or interpretations been considered inspired or “infallible” in the same sense that the teachings of the Bible are thought to be inspired and “infallible.” The final authority for all JW’s is not even the GB, but rather is the Bible itself.
Channel of God, how do you define that statement. "infallible or Inspired" ??
To the Anonymous above (Guessing BigGuy):
ReplyDeleteThank you for bring out the point of percieved inspiration and infallibility. Since this is really a separate issue, I will be dealing with it in one of my future posts (the biggest to date actually-even bigger than my "Michael" or "ThirdWitness" posts).
But just to satisfy you for the moment: pulling snippets of quotations from books that very few people have access too and can verify is a common tactic among opposers, and should always raise eyebrows immediately. Unfortunately, I too can also do much the same thing, except my quotes give a clearer picture.
“This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.” (The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, pp. 157-8)
Similar to the Bible, vague or unclear statements must be interpreted in light of clearer statements and broader contexts. The quote I give cannot get much clearer.
hi obiwan. this is surfari, so you don't have to guess.
ReplyDeleteok, i guess you have a point here. i've had to use other aids to find out the meanings of words etc. i didn't even know what a pharisee was, for instance. ammonites i thought were extinct nautiloid sea creatures, who had to fight the israelites.
and history books. ever looked up 607 bc?
but the watchtower does not claim to be an aid. they claim to be an ezekiel class prophet who declares the things to come.
watchtower 1 april 1972. sound familiar? later than your quote, newer light. don't bring that old stuff.
they claim to be be the sole communication channel between god and man. jehovah himself is the editor.
the latest take is that they are a non-inspired prophet, but a prophet nonetheless.
so if an ezekiel class prophet brings a communication from god, saying armageddon in 1914, then armageddon had better happen in 1914.
and if abraham is supposed to resurrect in 1925, he better show up to beth sarim.
you and i both know that none of this happened. nor any of the other "suggestions".
i'm left to conclude that they are not the ezekiel class prophet they claim to be. i cannot look at that and attribute the failures to the watchtower editor, god.
yhwh is not the bumbling fool who directs the watchtower and needs to give new light to cover up failed prophecies.
lies of a false prophet.
i don't follow a false prophet.
conversely, if they're just a bible aid, and fallible, why are you dedicating your life to them? would you die because a bible aid said no blood transfusions?
no. if you are a baptised jw, you were baptised in the name of jehovah's organisation.
very biblical.
no one would be baptised in the name of a bible concordance, or dictionary, or encyclopedia, or anything else on the list.
father, son, spirit. any organisation in that formula?
where did you get the "organisation" bit added on? watchtower?
why would i accept the add on watchtower bits, when i can read for myself and it doesn't say that?
so, either they are a prophet, in which case false and to be avoided.
or they are just a bible aid, in which case i reject them in comparison to the bible. your aid is clearly incorrect, as seen by it's chronologies regarding 1914.
lose lose for watchtowerites.
Congratulations Surfari, I have created a full article solely in your honor, as a response to your comments above.
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the brand new post, "Response to Surfari"
I don't know if this blog is still active but here goes...
ReplyDelete1) Unless someone is reading the original copies of Scripture (in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine), then they are getting someone else's interpretation as to what it means. In other words, if they are reading the Bible in their native language, they have already accessed a 'Study Aid'!
2) The Scriptures are full of admonitions to those in responsible roles (e.g. parents, Levites, elders, etc.) to teach God's Word along with its meaning. (Lev. 10:8-11; Deut. 4:10, 14; Deut. 6:1, 6, 7; Deut. 11:19; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24; Matt. 28:19, 20)
Since teachers were the original 'Study Aid', that means that there were 'Study Aids' before there was Scripture! How did Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and all other faithful men/women before the Torah was recorded learn about Jehovah? They were taught. Even after the Torah was penned, the vast majority of the Israelites did not have a personal copy of Scripture to refer to. They had to rely on those appointed to teach God's Word to them.
So, Jehovah himself, through his inspired Word, is informing us that 'Study Aids' are required to help us understand its contents.
See also Acts 8:26-35.