Open Discussion at the IM Mic: How Much Can The Bible Do “Alone?”

124 thoughts on “Open Discussion at the IM Mic: How Much Can The Bible Do “Alone?””

1. I though some of this was very applicable, even though no one is still reading this. Of the 55 propositions, these are the most relevant no this discussion. My emphasis

   from Synod on Sacred Scripture Propositions”

   Proposition 43: Bible and distribution

   The synod desires to recall how necessary it is that all the faithful have easy access to reading the sacred texts. In this connection, a general mobilization is required so that the sacred text be distributed as widely as possible, and with all the instruments that modern technology offers, above all for those who are differently abled – to whom our attention should go in a special way.
   A similar commitment is required to an exceptional form of collaboration among the churches so that those with greater means express greater solidarity in meeting the needs of the churches which are in greater difficulty. The synod fathers recommend supporting the efforts of the Catholic Biblical Federation for greater access to Sacred Scripture (DV 22), so that the number of translations of the Sacred Scripture may be increased and their distribution may be widespread. This should also be done in collaboration with the various Biblical Societies.

   Proposition 48: Bible and inculturation

   Revelation was expressed by taking from the diverse human cultures the authentic values susceptible of expressing the truth that, for our salvation, God has communicated to human persons. (DV, 11) In fact, the Word of God, as revelation, immersed in the cultures the consciousness of truth that otherwise would have remained hidden, and which created progress and cultural development. The mandate which the Lord gives to the church to announce the Gospel to all creatures (Mark 16:15) implies the encounter of the Word of God with all the peoples of the earth and their cultures. This presupposes the same process of inculturation of the Word of God which happened in revelation. For this reason, the Word of God must penetrate into every environment in such a way that the culture produces original expressions of life, or liturgy, of Christian thought. (CT 53) This happens when the Word of God, proposed to a culture, “makes fecund from within the spiritual qualities and the traditions of every people, confirms them, perfects them, and recapitulates them in Christ” (Gaudium et Spes, 58), arousing new expressions of Christian life.
   For an authentic inculturation of the evangelical message, a formation of missionaries must be assured with adequate means for knowing the environment of life in depth, as well as the social-cultural conditions, in such a way that the missionaries can insert themselves into the environment, the language and the local cultures. It’s the responsibility of the local church to reach an authentic inculturation of the gospel message, naturally paying attention to the risk of syncretism. The quality of inculturation depends upon the degree of maturity of the evangelizing community.

   Proposition 49: Missio Ad Gentes

   The Word of God is a good intended for all persons, which the church must not conserve for herself, but share with joy and generosity with all people and cultures, so that they too may find in Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life. (Jn 14:6)
   Looking to the example of St. Paul, to the apostles and to so many missionaries throughout the history of the church who have carried the Gospel to the peoples, this synod reaffirms the urgency of the mission ad gentes also in our time. It’s an announcement that must be explicit, not only inside our churches, but everywhere, and it must be accompanied by a coherent witness of life which renders the content of the announcement credible and reinforces it.
   Bishops, priests, deacons, persons of consecrated life and laity must be close also to those persons who do not participate in the liturgy and who do not attend our communities. The church must reach out to all with the strength of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:5), and continue to prophetically defend the right and the liberty of people to hear the Word of God, seeking the most effective means to proclaim it, even at the risk of persecution.

   LikeLike

2. Michael,

   Key words in that quote include “proper footnotes”, “adapted to their situation”, and “wise distribution”. There is nothing in that paragraph that disagrees with anything I said, at least.

   LikeLike

3. Michael, you seem to be talking about the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture. According to Theopedia:

   The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the “perspicuity of Scripture”) teaches that “the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will.”

   Regards,

   Eduardo

   LikeLike

4. From Dei Verbum (Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on scripture):

   “Furthermore, editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.”

   Sorry to the “waste of time” committee. Looks like the RCC was out in front of a few of its members.

   LikeLike

5. I’m late to this discussion, but here’s a Lutheran perspective (not angry, but still Lutheran) on the original question (How much does the Bible need the church in order to do what the Word of God can do?):

   men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith … that we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel (Augsburg Confession, articles 4 & 5)

   Note that it is not “the Bible” as such through which the Holy Ghost is given, but the Church’s ministry of Word and Sacrament. For us, then, the Church is absolutely needed for the Word of God to do its (His, really) work, because that is the purpose for which He founded the Church. But it is not the Church as an institution or as an authority that is needed, but the Church as the liturgical assembly in which the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered.

   Or as St Cyprian so much more succinctly put it, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

   There is nothing wrong with distributing Bibles, and I have no doubt that people sometimes come to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord through the reading of those Bibles. But two points must be made. First, those Bibles would not exist had the Church not guarded and handed down the Scriptures in her Tradition through the ages. So even he who is converted by reading the Bible “on his own” has actually been converted through the ministry of the Church, and is the recipient of her Tradition. Secondly, he who is “converted” through solitary reading of the Bible has not united himself to Christ until and unless he joins himself to His body, the Church.

   LikeLike

6. The Bible .. alone … has proven to be the most dangerous book in the world, starting war after religious war.

   The Bible .. together with the Spirit of God to bring supernatural wisdom, guidance, and instruction .. turns the Bible into a love story and brings Heaven to Earth

   LikeLike

7. What financial planning have you done for yourself?
   My trading

   LikeLike

8. What has been unstated by all the commnters is everyone seems to have made the presumption that all the people receiving bibles are literate. Keep in mind that literacy is largely a post-World War II phenomenom. Before the second world war, few European countries had literacy programs. Most of the answers above seem to take for granted that Bible recipients are literate.

   The U.S. literacy rate is about 95%. This means that among our 300 residents that about 15-16 milllion cannot read. That about the same number of people as are registered as members by the Southern Baptist Convention.

   The world literacy rate is about 80%. Based on a world population of about 6 billion, that translates into about 1.2 billion people who cannot benefit from a written Bible.

   For the individual wanting to bomb Afghanistan with Bibles, only one person in three or four would even be able to read it and that person would likely be a male. Afghanistan’s literacy rate is around 28%; 43% for males.

   As Fr. Ernesto stated, its better than nothing. Hopefully those Bibles are full of pictures.

   LikeLike

9. I really enjoyed NT Wright’s little book which was interestingly called “Scripture and the Authority of God” (stupidly called “The Last Word” by the American publishers), published by SPCK. While Wright was talking about authority and not our own topic, he taught me to reframe the question as so:

   Instead of asking, ‘what is the Bible’s authority,’ let’s ask instead, ‘how does God exercise his authority in the Church through the Bible?’

   My response to the question on the thread is similar to Alan’s, but informed by Wright’s reframing: What are the normative ways that God was to use (and does use) to form people as Christians? The Bible can do nothing on its own, and does nothing on its own. A good Calvinist would say the same about himself, wouldn’t he? :0) Clearly, demonstrably, God uses the Scriptures outside of the Church to bring people to knowledge of Himself. He also uses dreams and visions to bring benighted Muslims to himself, where the Church as such cannot reach. God is not limited by his own preference of tools, but I would say that normally, God wants to birth people into the Community and bring them up in a healthy fashion. In the same way that its unfortunate for kids to be brought up in orphanages, it does mean that they shouldn’t be given food. Offering the Bible but not the Church is something God does and something God uses, but it’s not normal or preferable to the whole package.

   LikeLike

10. “My point was simply that having a group of people around you to teach you what the Bible “really” means is in no way a garauntee of Truth.”

    But is there even a guarantee of Truth in the first place?

    How could a reader, any reader, distinguish a false interpretation from a true one?

    LikeLike

11. I may be wrong, but I think swine and dogs refer to any unbeliever, a Gentile in the context of the Gospel, not necessarily one overtly hostile to the God of Israel. The Syro-Phoenician woman who begged for the crumbs that fall from the table was called a dog, and she was rather interested in Jesus.

    St.Peter comments on the pig and the dog in his 2nd letter: “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.'” This doesn’t quite refer to an unbeliever, so much as a neophyte or recent convert.

    Nevertheless, I would still say with Paul: “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” Perhaps all theoretical objections ought to be dropped for the sake of the abundance of positive anecdotal evidence that we all know exists. Praise God.

    LikeLike

12. Alan,

    I mentioned listing out the sins of the RCC because two different people had already thrown their rocks at Protestantism, not to mention the flat out accusations of heresy by the RCC camp in this thread and the one before it or two back. Sorry, I felt the need point out that there’s enough sin and twisting of scripture to go around.

    My point was simply that having a group of people around you to teach you what the Bible “really” means is in no way a garauntee of Truth.

    If I wasn’t clear enough before: sure give out the Bible to anyone who wants a copy. I don’t consider that “pearls before swine”. Giving the Bible to a rabid atheist, spittle flying from his lips as he angrily denounces Christianity ( you notice they never go after Islam except for from a safe 2 or 3 thousand miles) is pearls before swine. Sure, God could use it but most likely not.

    DD

    LikeLike

13. Posted by Sal:

    Today I was privileged to spend the entire day at the “Little White House” in Warm Springs, Georgia. For you youngsters, that was the retreat of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the place where he died. He was the only U.S. President to have been elected to 4 terms. And this was in spite of the fact that he was crippled by polio. At the museum there is a very small white Bible under a glass case, with this inscription:

    “To the Armed Forces: As Commander-in-Chief I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength, and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul. Very sincerely yours, Franklin D. Roosevelt”

    These small white Bibles were handed out to members of the armed forces during World War II. And I thought of my father, uncles, and cousins who fought during that war, some of whom did not return alive – or at all – and what it must have meant to have a Bible with the inscription and FDR’s personal message and printed signature on the first page. This gave a whole new meaning to your previous discussions of mass distributions of the Bible. The current post is amusing, though not being a theologian, I don’t recognize most of those names. But the sobering experience of viewing that little Bible in the glass case today gave me a new insight into what it must have been like to face World War II with the word of God in your pocket. And it is still difficult to laugh this evening after all I saw today. I hope the U.S. soldiers buried in the thousands of graves I saw at the American cemetery in Normandy had been given these Bibles.

    LikeLike

14. Michael-

    Getting back to answering your original question, at least if I can remember it-

    1. Get the Bible into as many hands as possible, for many have come to saving knowledge of Christ via the Spirit and reading of the Bible alone;

    2. Anyone reading the NT, especially, would realize that Scripture warns against going it alone, and that all those epistles were written to the saints gathered in various places.

    In this fashion the Bible provides a self-corrective to our concerns someone will read Scripture on his own and get some crazy idea that is left unchecked.

    Parachute a million copies of Scripture into Mecca and hope for the best? No. But the very reading of Scripture will, by the power of the Holy Spirit, lead a man to seek out fellow believers wherein he can get the further teaching and live out the faith in community that everyone (I think)agrees is the best goal for any person not yet saved.

    YBIC
    Sean

    LikeLike

15. Alan:

    The sins of the RCC or the Puritans or evangelicals etc isn’t the topic of this thread. But I didn’t feel that Clark’s post was inappropriate because of what it said, which was, “Given certain past events, why are you surprised at this response?” His history was open for disagreement if anyone wanted to disagree with his historical case.

    Not accusing you of this, Alan, but there is a habit of some on this blog to act as if I may say anything critical I want about evangelicals, but woe unto he that speaketh of well known facts of RC history.

    I don’t think anyone can accuse me of having thin skin on evangelicals foibles. I have hundreds of letters of people telling me to shut up about Osteen, etc for the good name of good evangelicals. Of course, I won’t be shutting up about Osteen or materialism, etc. That’s who we are.

    And you folks have a history that has to be acknowledged; a history that significantly plays into how issues like the distribution of the Bible to the public are viewed.

    Peace

    MS

    LikeLike

16. I’m your atypical Catholic. I think that we, meaning all Christians, should do what we can to spread the Good News about Jesus the Christ.

    I think that most methods should be used, (I tend to be bothered by the methods that are aimed at other faith’s most important holy days.)

    Yes, the Bible should be distributed as much as possible, especially if the person handing them out can talk to the recipent.

    Can it be effective, yes. You don’t know how many missionary stories that I have read that show a unique entrance point for the Gospel to enter untouched peoples.

    Can we do it better, yes and one way that I would love to see it tried is for Catholics and Baptist to get together to spread it. Sure there are a lot of doctrinal disagreements, but the basics we agree on.

    LikeLike

17. I hesitate to even get into this again but I’m nuts, what can I say.

    And what do the “sins of the RCC” listed out, have to do with Scripture distribution, primarily?

    Right, the Catholic Church is guilty of all manner of sins, done by the high and the low alike, for the whole history of the Church. Hell, there are probably still some sinnin’ goin’ on.

    Here’s the deal: The question has been asked about Scripture distribution – well, really the question was asked: “How much can the Bible do alone?”, which is a different question, much more complicated to answer, hence the nutty battle above.

    Scripture distribution: Everyone, and I mean everyone in this thread, seems to basically AGREE that giving Bibles away is, at its base, a GOOD thing, a thing that should be done. We do NOT agree on the reasons WHY one would distribute Scripture – can I say SO WHAT? I just did.

    The need for the/a/some church/Church/community to grow people into the kind of Christians they should be (with Bibles): Everyone, and I mean everyone in this thread (I said that again didn’t I?), seems to basically AGREE that it is not ideal for someone to only ever have been given a Bible without ever then having or moving into the lived life of the Christian community (aka, church) in order to be properly and fully formed as a Christian person. We do NOT agree on the form that “church” should take, what it should teach (in full), how the Bible should be used in it or what should be fully believed about the Bible by it – again, dare I? SO WHAT?

    If this has to be a Catholic/Protestant thing, OK fine – then, with our respective and varying ecclesiologies and theologies of Scripture, evangelism, preaching, etc., will we ever fully agree on this subject? Very likely not. O–K, so let’s not. Can we try to understand the others’ reasons for doing or not doing what they do or don’t do and why?? Looks like that’s a hard row to hoe. God help us, please.

    Either way, and in all that – there really is (shouldn’t be) no reason to drag out all kinds of ecclesiastical dirty laundry – IN EITHER DIRECTION. It’s pointless and discouraging. It give off a bad smell to those around us.

    Peace.

    LikeLike

18. iMonk:
    My point is that Catholics do not always hide Scripture under a basket, or always heavily censor it with interpretation and commentary. I realize that the most liberal Episcopalian reads as much Scripture in his liturgy as does the most conservative Catholic, but there is a fundamental reason why that Scripture is read in the liturgy in the first place, and it is because we do fundamentally believe that the Scriptures can do a lot of good on their own, to relate back to your original question.

    The Scriptures just make more sense in an ecclesial context. It’s like a fish in water. If you just want the meat, you can buy it in the supermarket, but if you want the living fish, you need it from the water.

    LikeLike

19. Clavem:

    I’ve made the point about the paltry and impoverished evangelical approach to scripture in worship for years. Let’s not revisit that.

    In what way does the use of scripture in worship imply that one necessarily believes what it says or has confidence in its content?

    Liberals who deny the Gospel typically read lot of scripture too. Your conclusion doesn’t follow your premise.

    This is about the use of scripture outside the church. Scripture distribution, primarily.

    MS

    LikeLike

20. To play the Devil’s Advocate for a moment, let us note that during a typical Mass, one hears 3 half-chapters of Scripture, read without any commentary to whomsoever will listen. A homily follows but generally, the words are allowed to speak for themselves.

    In most Baptist, non-denom, etc… services, one very rarely hears Scripture read. A handful of isolated verses are surrounded by a very comprehensive sermon. More often, it is “Open your Bibles and turn to this one verse, and then hear me comment on it for 45 minutes.”

    That may exaggerate but I think it is generally true. Who, in this case, shows more trust in the divine words themselves, and who feels more inclined to support Scripture with dense ecclesiastical interpretation? Didn’t Calvin forbid “dumb readings” (as the Catholics were wont to do) in his services?

    LikeLike

21. Okay, late posting, got stroppy.

    I do apologise.

    Think I’ll go and prostrate myself before an idol, or something.

    LikeLike

22. I think our disagreements reflect our soteriology.

    Protestants believe we are saved by grace through faith. And faith comes by hearing God’s Word (from the Bible).

    Catholics believe we are saved by grace received from The Church (we’ll pass on ecclesiology for today). Hence, the Bible takes second place to the traditions and dictates of authorities.

    There, I’ve said it. If Michael likes, he can send all the Catholic apologists to my blog to continue the fight 🙂

    LikeLike

23. Martha, do you really want me to name all the sins of the RCC? The fact that Protestant denominations don’t officially agree on things proves exactly what?

    For the record, I think a community of believers is needed for someone to grow in Christ. I also believe that if any community places the cannonical written word of God in a secondary position to the whims of the Church is heretical, regardless of whether that heresy has been taught for 1 year, 100 years or 1000 years.

    If someone is doctrinally sound but lives an unregenerate life, are they really a Christian? If a community is “doctrinally sound” but not only allows members to live unregenerate lifestyles but will sell them the means to “get away” with it, is that really a community we can trust to teach new converts what it means to follow Jesus? There are Protestant churches doing some of that now…accepting gay marriage or passing out condoms. The RCC has done it through out it’s history.

    I reject the idea that a church who reads “If we confess our sins, he is faithful to forgive us” and adds that the ONLY confession that counts is to a priest can be considered the final authority on what the Bible says and means. I don’t care which name is on the door.

    Also, Giovanni, the RCC SAINTED Thomas More for burning heretics at the stake for claiming the Bible took precedence over the Pope.

    DD

    LikeLike

24. Lisa:

    Fair call, but I don’t see Clark piling on adjectives like knavish, etc. He’s a high school history teacher and he appears to be citing history in a factual manner. Anyone is welcome to dispute his facts, but I don’t see any animosity at all. If someone says that sola scriptura led to the Salem Witch trials, I am not insulted by the historical citation.

    So I hear you, but as I said to Martha, she’s free to disagree with him factually.

    LikeLike

25. “How much can the Bible do alone? ”

    I guess the only answer that makes any sense is

    “as much as God wants it to.”

    Who are we to limit the power of the Holy Spirit? Can not the creator and sustainer of all things do what he damn well likes with whatever tools are available? If the scriptures are the written words of God Almighty, who are we to say “no, they are too dangerous to be read”?

    Of course they’re dangerous. That’s the point.

    (Sorry IM—I don’t have the time nor the patience to read all 95 comments. That’s one of my trespasses. Please forgive me).

    LikeLike

26. Noooo, pleeeeeaase!!! Not the angry Lutheran!!

    OK, anyway – what I’m observing, and I’m mostly observing in this thing… I started it off I guess, and added one more comment and an e-mail maybe. What I seem to be seeing is this turning more and more as it goes down the page, into a Catholic vs. Protestant fight. And honestly, Martha didn’t have to look for an argument – it was already happening.

    Would it be a fair analysis to say that several have taken the opportunity to bring up some of their issues with Catholicism by recounting past horrible events – using them as ammunition to knock down anything they see as a “Catholic argument”? It seems fair enough to say that’s happened here.

    Should we all maybe chill out, look at the statements, see that there are indeed some disagreements going on, and that both “sides” have possibly overstated the other “side’s” case a bit?? And it might be understandable, if we step back and think for a second or two, why both sides see what they see in the other’s statements, considering their respective backgrounds and theological glasses – it just miiight be.

    Mostly though, chilling out would probably be good. Peace to all in this house.

    LikeLike

27. Good stuff as usual, Michael. But I am amazed at how many commenters completely misinterpret what you wrote. To disagree is fine – have at it. But some seem to misread you so badly that they end up sounding like someone trying to explain why a joke they didn’t hear isn’t funny. Astounding.

    Still, some of us read it and totally agree with you. Keep up the good, thought-provoking, and edifying work.

    God Bless.

    LikeLike

28. To Noah:

    I agree, in the end we will all have to answer to God for what we have done.

    And I got to say looking at History and the disunity of Christianity and even the disunity within the Catholic Church about the Holy Scriptures it seems to me that its a resounding, NO.

    And not because the Holy Spirit does not work in us, but because we are, again I must stress this point, fallen creatures. We lack the power to save our selves, and that is what you are asking of a person to whom the Scriptures are given without instruction.

    Yes we are still fighting the same battle because even though most people can now read, they still don’t seem to understand.

    To Clark:

    For one thing the Catholic Church has never condemned anyone to be burned because of their believes it is the temporal power that always seemed to think that it was easier to get rid of them than bring them back to the faith.

    Could we have done more to save heretics? Yes, we can always do more when looking back.

    Clark the truth remains true no matter how much time passes. The fact is that the personal interpretation of the Bible changes with every age.

    LikeLike

29. De-lurking to express my surprise that Martha gets a hand-slap, but not Clark.

    ?????

    LikeLike

30. Clark:

    I know all that quite well. I just never anticipated that scripture distribution would be viewed as its been viewed by commenters and emailers alike. I was living in the delusion that no one would have an issue with getting the Bible out there for the public to read and the Spirit to use.

    Martha:

    I think you’re looking for an argument that’s not going to happen on here. You’re welcome to ontinue reacting to this discussion, and I appreciate your point of view. But it’s not really that big a deal to us that we aren’t in agreement on everything. If you want a live Protestant to re-fight the reformation with, I’ll call up the Angry Lutheran at the BHT. 🙂

    UPDATE: OK. Your last post needs to back up a bit. If you want to respond to Clark, do so reasonably. If he’s in factual error, say so. Or don’t. I’m about to close this thread if this continues.

    LikeLike

31. And please remember, the very same folks who wanted to put the “undiluted, unfiltered, uncensored Bible” into the hands of “common, ordinary, uneducated folk” were quite willing to fight amongst themselves over the interpretation of the plain word of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    So it’s not quite as simple as knavish priestcraft keeping the pure word of grace from the simple peasantry in order to maintain the grip of the hierarchs through intimidation and inducing superstitious terror, but along came the bold Reformers and suddenly everything was buttercups and daisies.

    LikeLike

32. Okay, if we’re going to start throwing nasturtiums at one another…

    … the plain, ordinary, uncensored Bible. Uh-huh. Which is why we’ve got all you guys tearing out one another’s hair over infant baptism, is baptism necessary at all?, liturgy – oh, noes!, how to pray, when to pray, what to pray, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, revelation ended or ongoing, the Rapture, pre-, post- and whatever milleniumism, the Lord’s Supper, drinking, dancing, gaming, free will versus irresistable grace, elders, deacons, bishops, priests, ministers, deaconesses, headship of the husband, the position of women in the church, is there even such a thing as the church, Arminians versus Calvinists versus Erastianists versus the whole alphabet soup.

    Come back to me when you all can agree on something other than “Whatever Rome says, it’s WRONG!!!” 😉

    LikeLike

33. To Giovanni:

    I guess it is a good thing I am not accountable to you or have to answer to you 🙂

    Giving away Bibles in any venue is the beginning. Of course there is more that comes. But the question is, “Is the Bible alone, with the conviction and illumination of the Holy Spirit, enough?” And I gotta go with YES.

    Wasn’t there a time in history when some people said that the undiluted, unfiltered, uncensored Bible couldn’t be handled by the common, ordinary, “uneducated” folk?

    It seems that we are still fighting the same battle.

    LikeLike

34. It has long been the position of the Catholic Church that they must interpret the Bible for the masses. Recall a time when only clergy could even read the Latin Vulgate. Recall a dark time in history when guys like Jan Hus were burned at the stake for saying the Bible alone should be the highest source of authority, not the Pope and not Church tradition. You’re well aware of all of these things. I’m surprised at how surprised you are. Evangelicals hand out Bibles and the Roman Catholic Church, even in this day and age, believes that a Bible reader needs the authority of the Church to interpret it. I would have expected as much, and kinda’ thought you would.

    LikeLike

35. Actually, I’d argue that some of the best things one can experience in life are irresponsible, good uses of time.

    LikeLike

36. It’s irresponsible, but not a waste of time. In fact, it may be the only activity in history that is an irresponsible, good use of time.

    You had me at “like running with scissors.”

    LikeLike

37. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that distributing the Bible is a waste of time.

    We’re saying it’s a start, not the end.

    LikeLike

38. Brooks nobody here thinks that is a waste of time. My thoughts are two:

    1. It is irresponsible.
    2. It is not enough.

    In the cases in which this is all that can be done, go ahead and do it (in my opinion). But include guidelines in how to read it, what it is and where it came from.

    Many have been brought to the Faith because of it, but many have been led astray because of it as well. Because people were not there to give them proper guidance in how to live and preach the Gospel.

    LikeLike

39. The Bible is the word of God, it’s ridiculous to me that so many people here think that placing this in the hands of the lost is a waste of time. It’s like having the cure to cancer in written form, and not distributing it to all those who are sick. Sure, some may not understand what is going on without the help of some sort of spiritual leader, but I think it’s worth it to give them a chance.

    LikeLike

40. 2 Peter 3:16 – He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    1 Timothy 3:15 – . . . if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

    Those are not the only two verses I could cite, and they must be read in context. [And, I would also cite some of the Early Fathers as comparison readings.] Nevertheless, put those two verses together, and you get an idea of where we get the idea that the Scriptures are dangerous (to their own destruction) if just thrown loosely around without the Church (God’s household) being there to ensure that the reader does not depart from Truth.

    Thus, while there are people who come to the Lord through the Scriptures without human intervention, though I would argue they are actually quite few, there are many more that have read the Scriptures without guidance to their own destruction. The Bible is not self-interpreting because Peter tells us so. Neither does the Holy Spirit intervene to guarantee the individual the correct interpretation, as Peter tells us.

    What we are told, is that it is the Church that is the pillar of truth. It is the Church that will prevail against the gates of hell.

    Mind you, what I have said is very condensed shorthand, but it gives you the general drift.

    LikeLike

41. And if that last bit sounded offensive, such was not my intent. The Bible is the Word of God in a way the Hindu sacred books are not.

    I hope that at least is clear.

    LikeLike

42. Okay, coming at it from the other way round:

    I’ve been proselytised by the Hare Krishna when a lot younger. Got the free records, books, the lot.

    Read them, enjoyed them, liked them a lot. Gave me a deeper understanding of Hinduism, building on my pre-existing interest in mythology and other cultures.

    Saw and recognised some elements in the devotional life that I could relate to, as an Irish Catholic.

    Did it convince me to become a devotee of Lord Krishna?

    Heck, no.

    *That’s* the kind of thing I (and I imagine urban otter) is getting at when we’re arguing that simply handing out a Bible and hoping that something will happen is not the be-all and end-all.

    Of course, I agree that there is a massive, huge, unquantifiable difference between Krishna and Christ. That’s not the point – the Hare Krishna were doing the same thing as the “let’s all send a Bible/our sacred Scriptures out to the unchurched and the Lord will convert them as soon as they read his word.”

    LikeLike

43. To Noah:

    I believe 1 and 2 are noble endevors in full compliance with the Gospel message.

    I find number 3 irresponsible and number 4 very good.

    Sending Bibles to Muslim countries is again a great first step but it is not enough not only that it is irresponsible without having the local Christian communities being part of the efforts. Two reasons:

    1. Influx of those that may be curious about the Bible and what it has to say.

    2. Backlash from the local religious mayority that may react towards the local Christians with violence.

    LikeLike

44. I think the answer is that it can do both everything and nothing. It is the only means by which we really can know spiritual truth, but as itself, as a mere document, it will do nothing. This could be simply repeating of what’s gone before, but,

    “But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you.” (1 John 2:27)

    “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” (1 Cor 2:11-12)

    The Bible by itself will produce nothing in us, but we don’t need an authoritative body to provide us with an authoritative interpretation. We need the Holy Spirit to teach us, because otherwise, we won’t receive it, won’t understand it. Even if we (hypothetically) had an authoritative, apostolic tradition to provide us with definitive interpretation, without the Spirit, we would not understand nor receive it. It would continue to be foolishness.

    I think one of the main problems I have in sharing the gospel is that I tend to avoid direct interaction with Scripture and focus so much on the apologetical aspects of philosophy, whereas what really is necessary is for the Spirit to confirm the truth of the gospel, the truth of Scripture. What is needed is not the best answers to the most important questions. What he needs is a new heart, and the only way he receives that is by hearing with the gift of faith.

    LikeLike

45. Giovanni our history is different than Roman or Western history. Remember that the Roman Empire lasted until 1452 for us. The Emperor ruled until then. It was never called the Byzantine Empire. That was a name given in the 1800’s by Western historians.

    But, by the 700’s, vast parts of the East were under the yoke of Islam. In the West, Guttenberg invented the printing press and the Bible was printed. But, I know a Jordanian priest in his 40’s who tells of how his grandfather tells tales of Bibles and hymnbooks being forbidden to be printed by the local Islamic authorities. We did not so much legislate against the Bible as had it not easily available.

    For us, the sacraments, the hymns, the prayers, the readings, the icons, all helped to preserve the Faith, for we did not have much access to the written Word. As late as the 1800’s (when Greece gained its liberty again), less than 5% of the priests had any formal seminary training. So, you see, we did not reach the same conclusions as the Roman Catholic Church. Our sins were often different.

    LikeLike

46. As a simple minded Baptist, I believe the Bible is “living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword…” I also believe that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”

    So, last Saturday, I and a few others from my church went door to door in our East Texas town passing out Bibles telling folks that there is a lot of bad news in the world, but God’s Word provides Good News we all need to hear. We did it because we believe the Bible makes a difference in the lives of people.

    Tonight, the youth group from my church will go a minister to the homeless at a local shelter. They will prepare a meal, sing some songs and a Gospel message will be preached. And everyone there will get a Bible.

    This coming Saturday, our church will have a Totally Free Car Wash just to show people in our town we love them and care about them. For those who stop, we will give them a Bible.

    In a few weeks, a Gideon speaker will be in our church talking about distributing Bibles to schools, hotels, prisons, and around the world. We will take up an offering and give money to buy Bibles to be given away.

    I thank God for teachers and preachers, the prophets and apostles. We need Spirit-guided Biblical instruction. But I have full confidence that the Holy Spirit can and will bless the Word of God.

    I’d join you Michael in sending a Bible to every Muslim, and Hindu, and pagan, and every other person in the world if I could. And I know God would bless because He promised He would, “So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”

    But then again, I’m pretty simple-minded that way.

    LikeLike

47. Willoh, my point in bringing up the Upanishads was not to discuss the alleged holiness of various books. My point is that the Bible is first of all a book. Books are made up of words. Words require interpretation. Interpreting is done by people. Words do not interpret themselves.

    You cannot give any book to a reader who is completely unfamiliar with the culture that produced it and expect the reader to understand it. If you doubt this, give it a try. The need to understand the tradition in which a book was written is most easily demonstrated by trying to read another tradition’s religious books. If that offends you, try reading another culture’s history books or novels. Either way, you will discover that without interpretative context, parts of the book will be difficult to understand and other parts impossible. This applies to the Bible as well. You read the book, but are unaware that you have missed the point. Exhibit A: Benny Hinn.

    An American might have an easier time interpreting the Bible on his own because he lives in a culture founded on JudeoChristianity, even if the culture has become post-Christian. But people of cultures based in other religious traditions are at a significant disadvantage.

    In an increasingly illiterate society, I have little confidence in anybody’s ability to read anything.

    And on the other hand, literacy is not necessary for salvation. The primary mode of transmitting the gospel is oral. It would have to be. “Go and preach the gospel…”

    But like I mentioned before, Mr. Spencer’s argument is not what mankind can do, but what God can do. I don’t feel qualified to say what God *cannot* do, therefore I wouldn’t rule out the practice of handing out Bibles. But I would venture to say that a cold reading of the Scripture is not the usual means of transmitting the gospel. God does, however, work in unusual ways.

    LikeLike

48. I…already said that Michael. Repeatedly.

    LikeLike

49. Okay, let’s have at this again.

    Original question: “How much can the Bible do alone? (That’s a little tricky, because the Bible is never completely “alone.” I mean how much can the Bible do without someone there to teach or explain it?)”

    Can the Bible do everything? almost everything? very little?

    So define ‘everything’ – what exactly do we mean by that?

    Can the Bible alone lead you to faith in God? Yes, I think we’d all agree broadly with that (subject to caveats along the lines of “through the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, reading Sacred Scripture can convince you of its truth and the necessity for salvation”).

    Can the Bible save your soul? No, God alone can do that.

    If you (this is general “you”, not particular “you, Michael”) disagree, why do you say it can do it all on its own?

    If it seems like we Catholics are subjugating the Bible to the Church, from this perspective it seems like some are saying the Bible and the reader on their own, nothing else, that’s it, are all that’s needed.

    Both viewpoints exaggerated, doubtless 🙂

    LikeLike

50. I always thought that the scriptures were for God’s people. Both testaments were written by believers for believers.

    The gospel is supposed to be preached to everyone indiscriminitely. But handing someone a Bible is not the same as preaching the gospel. Full stop.

    LikeLike

51. This argument is never going to be resolved, because we come from a Christian background.

    Even the secular states we all live in nowadays are the heirs of Christendom, and it has saturated the culture in ways we don’t recognise or think about, so there is a background and cast of thought that influences us all.

    It’s never a case of ‘merely’ reading the Bible when he/she had not done so before and then deciding/realising “I’m a Christian” – so much of the preparatory work ploughing the soil for the seed to fall into has been done already and we don’t know it.

    It’s not like someone growing up in America or Ireland or France has never, ever heard of Christ even as a name or is completely, totally, unfamiliar with Christianity and what they assume it stands for or its values.

    I don’t know what it’s like in somewhere like, say, China or Java or wherever – in a society where there is no knowledge of Christianity at all. A Bible there very probably is the first contact with the person of God that someone has. Very probably the only contact they will be likely to have. Reading a Bible can lead to declaring “I believe this, I am a Christian.”

    But once again, you cannot just expect to leave the new believer alone with the Bible and that’s all that’s needed.

    Which yeah, probably not being argued – but that’s our point here: you need something to help. You need someone to get Bibles out there in the first place. You need someone to answer questions about what is Paul saying or do I have to do this or how can I be baptised if there is no-one to baptise me? Do I have to be baptised? It says here I do, but what if I can’t be?

    In short, you need a community. You need a church (and we would argue, you need the Church). Because your new believer can come to some pretty strange beliefs off his own bat, or lack some basic beliefs – that’s what happened with Apollos, who was a believer, who taught and preached and converted others himself, but who needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

    LikeLike

52. Martha:

    “The “Sola Scriptura” point – I have to disagree with you somewhat, Brigitte. The Bible has been set up in opposition to the Church (and I think this is the large part of the problem where our clashing interpretations are coming from), in that it has been stated at times “If you can’t find it in the Bible, it’s wrong!” and moreover, that the visible church is a lesser matter: read your Bible and that’s all you need.”

    If the Bible says one thing and the church says another thing, or something that’s not in the Bible, is the church right? How do you know? Or has the church set itself up in opposition to the Bible? Can and have church councils erred? — This has nothing to do with the thread, as I said before.

    I think one does wrong by constantly pointing out how the Bible only causes divisive (clashing) interpretations. Catholics are not so unified in their understanding as they make out. The dialogue needs to continue.

    LikeLike

53. Martha et al: Again, we’re hearing extreme versions of what’s under discussion.

    Handing out scripture is one thing. Saying “I’ve done my thing” is another.

    Please direct me to those involved in scripture distribution who make the case that scripture distribution fulfills the Great Commission or is the fullness of evangelism.

    Seriously friends, this hasn’t been a good issue for some of you. There are great ministries engaged in translating and distributing scripture and some of you are so pained to make the point that the Bible must have the church to be a useful word that you’re starting to sound as if you oppose what no Christian can reasonable oppose: all people reading the story of Jesus.

    If you have a case to make, accept the premise that the Bible is being distributed by good people who want to do good evangelism and build good churches. Then admit that, as Catholics, this isn’t your strong suit. You may believe all the right things sisters and brothers, but when it comes to practice “a little confession might be good for the soul.”

    peace

    MS

    LikeLike

54. Sam Urfer: Amen!

    LikeLike

55. “A “preacher” is not some magical, mystical guy blessed by the pope. He “preaches” (reads) God’s Word.”

    nedbrek, the irony here is that the very man who wrote the Epistles you quote didn’t have Bibles to hand out or to read to the congregations from, so he had to do it by preaching (teaching by word and example).

    The Epistles started out as exactly that – pastoral letters written to the various churches to deal with the issues they were struggling with, to rebuke, instruct, hearten, encourage, and teach them by reminding them to stick to what they had been taught and to stop doing that dumb thing they had gotten into the habit of while his back was turned.

    If Sunday morning in Ephesus or Corinth was not like the Mass, neither was it “And now let’s all read from our KJV (or ESV)”.

    Yes, the Bible is important. Yes, it’s the Word of God. Yes, it can bring you to faith. Yes, handing out Bibles is a good thing. Yes, handing out Bibles is an important thing. Yes, a thousand times yes, it is the grace of God freely given according to His will that saves us and faith that comes from God – if He does not grant us that gift, we’re not going to be convinced whether it’s the Bible or the Pope in front of us.

    No, simply putting a Bible in someone’s hand and saying “There, I’ve done my bit” is not the whole of it.

    LikeLike

56. Nedbreck:

    *sigh* good job attacking a strawman argument. Noone here was arguing against the Bible, just that giving people the Bible and then not explaining anything to them is less than ideal as a strategy for evangelism. That’s it, full stop. Not that people shouldn’t read the Bible, but that Christians have a duty to explain it to others, not just drop it like it’s hot and hope for the best. I’m not even saying that doesn’t work, because it has. But it is not the best way to witness to someone. Nothing can be a substitute for living a Christ-like life in terms of bringing someone to Christ. Not even the inspired word of God, which is a supplement and a help *to the believer*, as 2 Timothy so eloquently states.

    As for your verse citations, 2 Timothy 14 makes it clear that it’s not Scripture *by itself* that Paul is talking about, but in community. Again, you say that Scripture *alone* is not what you are saying, but why do you not see that we are not saying the opposite? In fact, I’m having a hard time understanding why precisely we are arguing?

    Incidentally, Paul wasn’t talking about the Bible in Romans, seeing as the Gospel he speaks of would have been oral at that point in history. No Catholic (no Christian, really) is going to say we shouldn’t share the Gospel. But airdropping Bibles in Afghanistan is not the same as witnessing to the lost. I’m sorry, that’s just how I see it.

    LikeLike

57. Nedbreck: Amen!

    LikeLike

58. I know a man who one day picked up the Bible, and decided to read through the Gospel of Matthew in one sitting. He had never read any other portion of the Bible in his life.

    After he finished reading Matthew, he said to himself, “Well, I guess I’m a Christian now.” Nothing dramatic happened, it was surprisingly nonchalant. But he’s been a lover and follower of Jesus ever since.

    LikeLike

59. So, is the fear that reading the Bible outside of the context of the Church can lead to heresy? Or is the fear that you really can’t come to Christ without the Church?

    As far as the former issue goes, I think the fear of heresy is a bit overblown. Yes, heresy can be dangerous. But when I was taking my graduate class on historical theology, I was struck by how often the line between orthodoxy and heresy was more political than theological or biblical. And besides, the Bible doesn’t really give us a systematic theology. That doesn’t mean that orthodox theology is irrelevant; it just means that it’s *less* relevant that we sometimes believe. Also, heresy can always be corrected.

    And to the latter fear, I simply think it’s misplaced. The fallibility of man (and hence the fallibility of the Church) means that as often as Christ works through the Church, He also must often work in spite of the Church.

    Finally, if the issue is simply a cost/benefit analysis, the various bible societies have made it incredibly cheap to print Bibles these days. I think the cost/benefit argument is a weak argument at best and a red herring at worst.

    LikeLike

60. The major point is, as Moonshadow has shown, to be converted to Christ in our heart whether that is by reading the Bible, or participating in the Body of Christ in our local church. Reading the Bible by itself, intellectually agreeing, and doing nothing at all to change our life is no good, I imagine we all agree?

    The “Sola Scriptura” point – I have to disagree with you somewhat, Brigitte. The Bible has been set up in opposition to the Church (and I think this is the large part of the problem where our clashing interpretations are coming from), in that it has been stated at times “If you can’t find it in the Bible, it’s wrong!” and moreover, that the visible church is a lesser matter: read your Bible and that’s all you need.

    Now, I definitely think the Bible should *not* be set up in opposition to the Church, or vice versa; as I’ve said, it’s not an ‘either/or’ thing.

    Though yes, we’re probably wandering far afield from “Bible distribution on its own: good, bad, or indifferent?”

    LikeLike

61. Let’s ask the Bible:
    2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (read vs 17 too!)

    Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek”

    Romans 10:14 “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

    A “preacher” is not some magical, mystical guy blessed by the pope. He “preaches” (reads) God’s Word. You can preach to yourself, by reading the Bible, or preach to others by reading the Bible to them.

    You don’t even have to believe, but some in the audience, upon hearing will believe.

    The tracts I use have just a few Bible verses, then say – “Get a Bible, read it every day, do what is says.” That’s all that is needed.

    LikeLike

62. Father Ernesto, I still have contention with you at least on number 5.

    I don’t know about the East but at least in the west, it was not done because the Church forgot. It was done because the Bishops decided to do it that way, it was done because of the heretical sects that arose from the manipulations of the translations. Again the word of God becoming a tool of corruptions rather than a guide to salvation. Instruction must be a part of evangelization.

    LikeLike

63. Lynne, most of us who are pastors would be pounding our head on the wall after reading your paragraph. Many is the time that my wife and I have either giggled or sighed after a young believer comes to us, all excited, and tells us of a great discovery, as though it were the most new thing. Then that believer leaves and my wife and I smile or sigh over the fact that I preached that same thing in a sermon several months before. It simply took time for it to sink in.

    You were raised in an Anglican parish. You went to Sunday School and were taught Bible. You then were taught about the Prayerbook and worship. After your “conversion,” you realize that you agree with much of the Prayerbook. You end up in an Anglican setting, having attended theological school, and wishing to share the Word of God as you are able.

    It sounds to me like the Church did its job. You simply did not have that moment of inner realization until that night when you were 16. To me it appears obvious that not only was the Gospel presented to you, but that you were also correctly taught the wineskin since you are still in the wineskin you were taught! That everything seemed different to you afterward and that looking back it seems as though you knew nothing is not a surprise. You have just given a perfect description of what happens before and after the Holy Spirit lifts the veil from your face.

    And, you have also given a perfect description of a Church that did its job, but could not force the Holy Spirit to lift that veil from you until He was ready. The proof is the fact that, when all was said and done, you ended up agreeing theologically with the Church that raised you and are serving within it. That is called success by us pastor-types.

    Now, if only you would become Eastern Orthodox. GRIN.

    LikeLike

64. Hey Michael,

    Didn’t Paul hand out Old Testatments to the churches he planted? Oh, no thats right he didn’t. LOL!!! Seriously we have replaced the person and work of the Spirit with the scriptures. We have now a trinity plus one. The new verse in John should read “and the scriptures when they come they will lead you into all rightouesness”. It is funny that God gave us Himself in the indwelling of the Spirit and then gave us to each other. In this the bible was always to be interpreted by the community of believers, not alone. This handing out of bibles only perpetuates the evangelical misnomer “just me and Jesus”.

    The scriptures are important but I believe the overemphasis on “sola scriptura” also contributes to this. It has never and will never be scripture alone. It has and always will be scripture plus tradition at least the Catholics admit this. Just ask the Covenenatal guys and the Dispensational guys is it scripture alone? Finally we may should become living epistles. It is much easier to hand somone a bible than it is to invite them into your home, take them to luch or dinner (on you) and spend time with them. Listen I find it hard in my own home so I am not self-righteous here. But I am learning that time spent is more critical than handing someone a bible and community is key not a commentary.

    My two cents Michael.

    LikeLike

65. It is helpful to me to apply Isaiah 55:9-11 in context and 55:11 specifically: “…so My word that comes from My mouth will not return to Me empty, but it will accomplish what I please, and will prosper in what I send it to do”(HCSB). What was true of ancient Israel can be true today in principle.

    I value Scripture distribution. This does not negate the many other tools the Spirit will use, but it does affirm that Scripture is one of those valuable tools in His hand to accomplish His purposes.

    LikeLike

66. I was converted (to Catholicism ) in part through reading the Bible and watching Protestants preach. St Augustine finally committed to the faith by reading scripture. Obviously it does matter to Catholics and should be disseminated widely. The Evangelical courageous zeal for conversion is one their best features: I have every confidence it has saved souls.

    Every precious gift of God has been corrupted by sin and the Enemy. However the possibility of corruption is no reason to cease offering the gift. God allows sin because He respects our freedom and seeks our voluntary service. If we seek to imitate Him in our little way we must also respect the person to whom we give Scripture and trust that the Holy Spirit will nurture the seed of faith whenever the recipient cooperates.

    LikeLike

67. According to John 1, Jesus is the Word of God. “The Word became flesh and dwelt amoung us.” The Word inspired the writers, and it is an accurate record of the Word’s work in this world, and is a valid source of religious authority. However, it is secondary, but not in opposition to the Spirit of Jesus Christ which is still at work in this world.

    LikeLike

68. This has to be one of the most frustrating threads I have ever read.

    Yes, we need preachers and teachers. No one has denied it. No one. Yes, we need the church.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc. All preachers and teachers. All part of the church. They wrote stuff down. To preach the Gospel to us and teach us.

    And we can’t in turn read what they preached and taught and come to faith? What is the difference between Father X preaching from the pulpit and Paul preaching on Mars hill? Why is the former better (and/or less “dangerous”)than the latter? Is Paul any less part of the church than Father X? Are his words any less authoritative? Is his preaching any less inspired?

    LikeLike

69. Article 6 of 39:
    Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation

    Sounds good to me. I vote for a Bible for everyone. Geeks get three.

    LikeLike

70. God has converted many people through bible reading alone. But if one reads it alone, one would certainly read all about the church, no?

    “So what do you think? Should the Bible be distributed to the general public?”

    It all depends on any number of factors in any given situation. But as a goal in and of itself?

    “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth. Go therefore and pass out bibles to all the nations, and pray…I guess.”

    LikeLike

71. I suspect many Catholics would follow the reasoning of Augustine, who replied to the Manichaeans:

    “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.viii.vi.html)

    If I believe the Scriptures on the authority of the Church, why would I adopt a evangelistic methodology that puts the Church in a secondary position? The Word of God may be sharper than any two-edged sword, but do you give a two-edged sword to an infant?

    The question is not what the Scriptures can do on their own. They are extremely powerful. The question is, as an institution, is the distribution of raw Scripture in accordance with our ecclesiology? For Protestants, yes, for Catholics, no.

    Speaking of Augustine, he comments on the Pearl Before Swine verse, saying: “We must be careful not to reveal anything to one who cannot bear it, for it is better that one make a search for what is concealed than assail and despise what is revealed.”

    Still, I’m very glad we have the Gideons’ ministry. Most hotel nightstands are way too small to fit a priest.

    LikeLike

72. Martha:

    “I’m not going to get into Luther deciding which Scriptures he agreed with, when he was deciding that the Scriptures alone were all he needed ;-)”

    “Sola scriptura” has nothing really to do with the topic of this thread. Sola scriptura does not answer the question: Does scripture distribution do good? Sola scriptura is about authority and source of dogma.

    Also we are not discussing critical methods or anybody’s preconceived notions about Luther (usually having read next to nothing of his writings.) I don’t mean to sound terse. There is so much depth there, with Luther, I wish people would spend time reading him.

    Luther was fully into the church. He would have agreed with the old saying: you can’t have God as your Father, without having the church as your Mother… Yet, the Bible is not a sealed book. It is eminently readable and makes pretty good sense, contrary to most negative reports. Neither does it contradict itself all over the place… And it is God’s Word, which does not return empty. It is alive and active. Don’t we know this from our own life?

    Every believer, however he came to believe, will obviously want to be fully integrated into the church.

    LikeLike

73. Ok, this little Anglican has to come down strongly on the “Bible alone” side, simply because that was how I became a Christian. I went to sunday School where we were given bible stories but never (so far as I have any memory) a clear presentation of the gospel. Then i spent my teen years in a fairly “high” Anglican church where we learned much about the history of the prayerbook, sermons on the collect of the week etc, but never a clear statement of the gospel. I became a Christian alone in my room with my Bible at age 16 (of course the Holy Spirit was really doing all the work) It was several years before I heard a clear gospel sermon, by then, by the grace of God I had it all figured out. I must add that, after the event, the Anglican prayer Book did much to clarify and confirm my thinking, but that came second. No one EVER evangelised me.
    Mme on my own, with a Bible came first, and, it still does. I have a degree in theology, love to preach and teach when I am able (I won’t hijack the thread with complaints about the limited opportunities for a female to do so!) but you know, the more I learn, the less blind faith I have in preachers and teachers, and the more I check out whether their insights are actually true to the scriptures. The word of God, when made alive by the Spirit of Gpod, is powerful beyond our imagination.

    LikeLike

74. I suspect that this is a little late for me to join this discussion. But, let me make a couple of comments from the side of philosophy. As I read the debate I see a couple of questions that might be more clear if we rephrase them as questions, Socratic style.

    1. Can the Holy Spirit work through the Scriptures to bring someone to Himself? Since God is omnipotent the obvious answer is, “yes.” This question is almost a tautology. That is, it is true simply based on the definition of the words.

    2. Has the Holy Spirit used the Scriptures to bring someone to a saving knowledge of God without the need for direct human contact? There are enough testimonies extant that there is enough evidence to say, “yes.”

    3. Has the mass distribution of Scriptures led to at least some conversions? Again, based on the extant testimonies, again, there is enough evidence to say, “yes.”

    4. Is the translation of Scriptures into other languages a worthwhile pursuit? Well, Israel and the Church’s answer has been, “yes,” since the translation of the Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagint), and the translation of the New Testament into various languages. Among the translators were SS. Cyril and Methodius, who presaged the ministry of the Wycliffe Bible Translators in the 9th century when they invented an alphabet so they could write down the language of the nomads among whom they ministered.

    5. Did the Western medieval Church forget that heritage for a time? Yes. Did the Eastern Church do so as well? Yes.

    So far so good, it is the next questions where the disagreements come in.

    6. Is the mass distribution of Scriptures, outside of a Church context a worthwhile thing?

    There is not a fully clear answer to that question. Frankly, it becomes a cost/benefit ratio type of question. And, it is here where we often use philosophical argumentation.

    Some will use the quasi-emotional, quasi-mathematical argument that even one soul won for the God is worth it because every life is of infinite worth. However, please note that once you attach the term infinity to any argument, it becomes a mathematically null argument. You can prove anything with infinity.

    The counter-argument also tends to be a mathematical argument. That is, the quantity of harm done by simply throwing Bibles around, outside of a Church context, is larger than not doing it and trying to get an organized mission in. In passing, however much there may be a dislike against “Catholic” theology (either Roman or Eastern), we did go around the world taking the faith with us.

    Don’t forget that Russian missionaries made it down the west coast of North America to within about a thousand miles of the Spanish advance north. And, before you talk about Conquistadores and Russian Empires, you might want to read the story of the British Empire. The amazing part is that the Faith was spread in spite of the various empires involved in its spread.

    But, when all is said and done, there is simply a philosophical difference, as you pointed out when you began this blog. We do not agree on the wisdom of of mass Bible distribution. We do not agree on whether the individual with his/her Bible, outside of a Church context, is appropriate or even good for the Kingdom of God.

    7. Is sola scriptura an appropriate principle or not?

    We say, “no,” Protestants say, “yes.” Much ink has been spilled over this. And, it is probable that this is part of the difference between the value Protestants place on mass Bible distribution and we place on mass Bible distribution. Because this is a basic philosophical difference, it is probably not amenable to mathematical style arguments or to anecdotal arguments.

    LikeLike

75. I’m going to break ranks here and speak from my personal experience: that reading the Bible alone opened me up to spiritual conversion to Christ, ‘though I subsequently remained in the Catholic Church.

    The added twist is that I was reading the Bible in French, not my native language.

    I still feel this way. I still have this humble expectation that reading Scripture will continue to change my heart. (My PCA friend tells me I’m all wet.)

    But I probably got this idea from hearing Fr. Eugene LaVerdiere lecture on Revelation … he was such a gentle soul even when someone in the audience challenged his historical-critical interpretation. I thought, “There’s a man who spends a lot of time reading Scripture.”

    peace.

    LikeLike

76. “I think the magisterium and infallible authority of the church appeals to a certain type of personality.”

    True, Patrick, I’m so much happier since I got the Vatican Mind-Control Chip implanted 🙂

    *ahem* Yes, authority and reassurance are one way of looking at it. Another way is that we need teachers.

    I’m not going to get into Luther deciding which Scriptures he agreed with, when he was deciding that the Scriptures alone were all he needed 😉

    LikeLike

77. Interesting. I want to start with the caveat that the God we worship can, has, and still does use any number of things to bring people to him. That includes visions, dreams, other Christians, ‘natural’ creation, and yes, Holy Scripture. God does not fit within any constraint we can define. We are given certain tools and directions as the Church and those are what we must employ. But none of that means that God is limited to the tools and instructions he has given us. If you worship a truly transcendent and ‘other’ God, this must be a given.

    With that said, Holy Scripture absent any teacher or illumination (and I include angelic teaching or teaching from those in the communion of the saints who currently are asleep in the Lord in that mix), history shows that Scripture alone is more likely to turn to heresy than to faith. That is the lesson from the earliest centuries and the earliest heretics. And it continues through to today.

    With that said, evangelicals have simply recovered the ancient Christian practice which the Orthodox have always followed. From ancient times through to the present (most recently with the native Alaskans), the first order of business with Orthodox missionaries has always been to translate the Liturgy and Holy Scripture into the native language of a culture, even creating a written form where none existed. In recent centuries Orthodox missionary efforts have been greatly curtailed, by both Islamic and Communist regimes. So it’s not surprising that it’s a little known fact in the West. But it’s the medieval Roman Catholic Church that fixed the liturgy and Scripture in what became a dead language. In fact, it was the Orthodox impetus toward translation that led to the Latin translation back when Latin was the nearly universal language of the West.

    Go figure. The history of the Church is pretty fascinating.

    My answer? Scripture distributed alone is better than nothing. But not by much.

    LikeLike

78. Simply stunning.

    John the Baptist said God was able to raise up children of Abraham from the stones.To raise up a community of believers from an unbelieving people who happened upon a copy of the scriptures is well within His ability and has probably happened in more instances than we would think. God is able to do far more than we give Him credit for through the written scriptures. This whole authority thing runs deep between the heirs of the Reformation and the RC church. I did my senior thesis in college on Luther and Erasmus. Their entire disagreement boiled down to authority. Erasmus said that if the Church had sided with the Arians against Athanasius, he would be an Arian. Luther said the Scriptures alone were infallible in regard to faith and doctrine and Popes and Councils be damned if they controverted the Scriptures. To this day the issue divides us.
    I must say that it is refreshing to see our RC brothers man up and be real RCs.

    I one visited a church with a friend who is a psychologist. It was a great worship service. The bible study afterwards was magnificent. The Pastor was a brilliant theologian and an amazing communicator. There were maybe a dozen people in the class. I commented to my friend that I was shocked to see so few in attendance. He replied “Most people want to be told what to do, this guy ( the Pastor) isn’t doing that. It doesn’t surprise me that so few are here.” This goes right to the heart of the need for certainty and security, and I think the magisterium and infallible authority of the church appeals to a certain type of personality.

    LikeLike

79. I’m pretty much in agreement with the Quaker view on this (I think). Without the Holy Spirit, the scriptures are like a dead thing, and can even be a dangerous thing. There are many examples of Catholics killing Protestants and Anabaptists, Protestants killing Catholics, Protestants killing eachother, Catholics killing eachother – every man jack one claiming the Bible told them to.

    But, if one does have the spirit, then that is sufficient. Jesus said, “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.” John 16:12-15

    The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. All the preaching, teaching, books, Bible commentaries, and Bible translations won’t do jack without the Holy Spirit.

    Though, on all the various different Bibles that are out there, I must confess that I have a Bible that I bought for no other reason than I thought it was pretty.
    .

    LikeLike

80. URBAN OTTER there is a vast difference in structure, form and most especially content in the Upanishads and the Bhagadvadgita. Don’t forget that we speak here of 66 books [shows I’m not RC] . I really believe Mathew, MARK, Luke, or John could guide someone to salvation, just the red words would work really. If the Holy Ghost will quicken, that is.
    This is a great thread but do not get some other “holy” books in the mix. Please.

    LikeLike

81. Two (Scriptural ) ways of looking at mass handing out of the Scriptures.

    The farmer broadcasting the seeds everywhere in his field.

    The Good Shepard leaving the 99 sheep that are safe in the pen, to go looking for the lost one.

    LikeLike

82. Ack – I don’t know what we’re arguing about here.

    Catholics – we need to read the Bible more. And not just read it; integrate it into our worship and personal prayer lives. The Pope says so, after all 🙂

    Evangelicals – just plonking the book into some poor divil’s hand isn’t enough on its own. But you know that already 🙂

    LikeLike

83. “I do not believe the Bible alone grows fully furnished reformation theologians.”

    I think we all agree that the Bible alone does not grow any kind of theologians 🙂

    The point is, I suppose, that saying “the Bible alone” has a lot of assumptions behind it, such that we don’t mean “the Bible alone” in the sense of “Here ya go – read that, figure it all out for yourself, and away you go!”

    When you give Bibles to your Thai kids, maybe two or three will come back to you and want to know more. Maybe they’ll want to visit a church. Maybe they’ll want to be baptised. The Bible will be the seed for them, but not the whole thing.

    I don’t think any of us expect or would accept that someone would blithely say “Oh, yes, I’ve read the Bible and I’m a Christian now!” “That’s great! When are you going to be baptised? What community are you involved in?” “Oh, I don’t need any of that. I just sit at home and read the Bible.”

    Even when you’re handing out Bibles, Michael, is there a particular Bible you hand out? One you think is better for the purpose than another? One you think is a better translation?

    Just look at the whole thing about the translation of “almah” in Isaiah – does ‘maiden’ mean ‘virgin’ or just ‘young woman’? And does that therefore mean that this is not a prophecy of the Messiah? And what about the Virgin Birth? There are those who would deny the divinity of Christ, and hang arguments on just such things as “the correct translation is not ‘virgin’ but merely ‘young woman’ so obviously it’s not about a woman becoming pregnant by God.”

    LikeLike

84. There was a guy in my church who had a Bible that he rarely opened, yet he still knew the words of scripture, having memorized from Bible-on-cassette tapes.

    I once asked him why he needed someone to read the Bible to him, and he said, “Well, because faith comes by hearing, of course!”

    LikeLike

85. I don’t that God acts without his Church just read the story of St. Francis of Assisi.

    “Tell me who is greater the Lord or his servant?”

    I guess what I am saying is that if you are going to distribute Bibles without even talking to the person you are giving it to, include a pamphlet with guidelines as to how to properly read it.

    LikeLike

86. “I simply reject the notion that without the church, God doesn’t use scripture to convert and teach. I don’t accept that and I shouldn’t be surprised that so many of here do, since the quest for certainty is a major impulse for a lot of good folks who comment here.”

    Simply from a secular point of view, expecting a reader to successfully extrapolate Christianity from reading the Bible without prior exposure to some basic Christian tenets seems quite a stretch.

    It’s like giving a copies of the Bhagadvagita and the Upanishads to an American evangelical of European stock and expecting him to both understand Hinduism and adopt it. I am certain that a reader could make a religion out of these books, but I doubt it would be Hinduism.

    Left on his own, a reader’s ability to understand any text is limited by his education and prior level of knowledge. That’s why we have classes in Literature, otherwise we could just hand out great books to our high school students without further comment.

    But I take it that your argument isn’t what mankind can do, but what God can do.

    LikeLike

87. Grant, you are right but it is not the Scriptures that are in dispute it is those “interpretors” that we seek to bring to the faith and their discerning of the text.

    LikeLike

88. Of course, giving the Bible to someone is an important step in evangelization if there is no other ways to convey the faith.

    However I would say that your “witness” (I think that is what you call it) to that kid would be an even stronger way to convey it, not only that but giving instruction on where to go if they have questions would even be a better way to do so.

    LikeLike

89. I grew up in a Christian community with lots of preaching to listen to and lots of beautiful lives to emulate.

    But the preaching was wrong, inconsistent, and was essentially frightening me instead of liberating me.

    I am a reader. And the Bible, itself, taught me to know better than what I heard preached at times, even as a young person. When I finally stumbled upon Luther’s writings, I arrived at grace more firmly.

    Anyone who can read, can benefit immensely and eternally from reading the Bible, even by him/herself.

    LikeLike

90. Uh, whoops. Make that Arminian.

    LikeLike

91. Just to throw in my own (obnoxiously Protestant) opinion, and hopefully not add any flame to the fire.

    I agree with iMonk on this one, pretty strongly. But I am curious; there seems to be a distinction between whether or not one can become a Christian simply by reading the Bible (and the work of the HS), and whether or not one can live as a Christian alone and only with a bible.

    To the first, I’d say absolutely; if the bible is, in some weird way, an infallible and complete revelation of God, I think it would necessarily be able to bring someone to salvation alone (HS included), as well as instill a reasonable theology. To me the fact that scripture is misinterpreted seems to weigh against its interpreters, and not against scripture.

    To the second, I’d say absolutely not, barring physical barriers to community. Redemption just isn’t individualistic.

    My first comment on IM; again, I’m coming from a strong protestant background and generally reformed theology at the moment, though that may change. Then again, maybe God predestined some to become Armenians, and some chose to become Calvinists.

    LikeLike

92. Martha: I do not believe the Bible alone grows fully furnished reformation theologians.

    Alan: I spend all day at OBI trying to birth these kids into the church. But if a kid from India takes home a Bible to his Hindu family, I pray they all read it and get converted.

    Folks, you don’t need to explain anything else to me. When I give away some Bibles to new Thai kids in a few days, I’m sure I’ll have all of your support 🙂

    LikeLike

93. iMonk,
    For the record I was only agreeing with what you said, not trying to pigeon hole you to an either/or.

    LikeLike

94. Okay, Michael, it’s very clear we’re all coming from different perspectives on this.

    Yes, of course, someone can pick up a Bible, read it, and say “I want to know more” and indeed can say “I believe this is true. I believe this Jesus was indeed the Saviour. I believe He is my Saviour.”

    But what happens next? What does that person do when he or she wants to live a Christian life? What happens when he or she needs guidance – and we all do?

    I’m glad you expanded on what you meant; that you aren’t saying the Bible sits in a vacuum all by itself and that the community of believers is necessary.

    I think the Catholic view is that we’re not so concerned with physically putting a Bible into someone’s hands on its own since we think of it as part of the Church, part of the whole package. It’s not an “either/or” thing here, either.

    One impression some Protestants give (and I’m trying to be careful how I phrase this, since I don’t want to sound like I’m saying “This is what you, Michael, are saying” or blaming anyone or ascribing views to people that they don’t hold) is that they really do think that you can give a Bible to a man living on a Polynesian island, let him read it, and he will naturally come to the exact same conclusions as you do on – oh, the Lord’s Supper, Infant Baptism, Regeneration, the Millenium, etc. etc. etc.

    But if your man on the Polynesian island doesn’t agree with you – then what?

    You see, I’m intrigued because I looked up what an Arminian was, and that led me to looking up what Erastianism was, and that led me to “Okay, so what exactly was the difference between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli on the Eucharist?”

    Forgive any ignorant errors; Wikipedia is great for quick and dirty references, which is about all I did: Luther (I think) very broadly agreed that it was the Body and Blood of Christ; I’m not exactly sure what Calvin thought, other than some kind of spiritual grace depending on the faith of the true believer; and Zwingli seems to be ‘it’s a memorial meal only.’

    And it seems to me that Zwingli really did say something along the lines of “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”, when it came to “So how do you interpret “This is my Body”?

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli

    He attacked the idea of the real presence and argued that the word ‘is’ in the words of the institution — “This is my body, this is my blood” —means ‘signifies’. Hence, the words are understood as a metaphor and Zwingli claimed that there was no real presence during the Eucharist. In effect, the meal was symbolic of the Last Supper.”

    So y’know, there we have three scholars/ministers all coming from the same backgrounds more or less, all reading the same words, and coming up with three different interpretations.

    LikeLike

95. I’m reading all this and the last deal and it sort of seems like this has “become” a Catholic against Protestant thing. I’m not sure that’s inherent to the discussion here. Not nearly all Protestants would agree that Scripture distribution is a ministry they would so heartily defend or get so upset about.

    I think the communication is a bit muddled on this deal. When you say that God can use Scripture as he sovereignly chooses, it sets up a very seemingly distinct set of parameters -> either God CAN or God CAN’T use things like HE wants. Oh my. Do we want to argue about that? And it’s not about Calvinism?

    Here’s my thing – and I’d have said this when I was a big ole emerging church leader – God is “sovereign” – He is the King. No doubt. But the King chose to use the Church, and I’m not talking about ONLY the Catholic Church. There may be a difference there, but that’s not really the heart of this conversation – not really.

    We’re talking about, and you seem to basely agree, that it’s not really the best thing in the world to have people birthing themselves as Christians without being birthed into families, or the family – because that’s how and where children should be raised, fed, nutured and developed into healthy adults. If you agree that this is true (and this does NOT make you into a Catholic or agree with its ecclesiology, it doesn’t), then whether or not God may use an un-personed Bible to bring a light into someone’s soul is neither here nor there. Most of us seem to give some consent to the fact that this could happen. OK – still, we seem to also agree that Christians should really be born into the Church, a church, whatever. That’s what it ends up being about – not about how the goofy Prots throwing pearls around or the big, monstrous Catholics wanting to go back to chaining the Bibles to the pulpits. That all seems to be our respective issues getting in the way.

    LikeLike

96. Alright then. I wasn’t trying to win any “points” so much as get closer to truth. Let it speak for itself.

    May God grant you everlasting peace, and may His Spirit guide you on your journey,

    Sam Urfer

    LikeLike

97. OK Sam, I guess this isn’t going to get us anywhere.

    I have not even suggested you had problems with reading the Bible. I’m well aware that your team suggests we all read it a lot more than my team typically does. Point for you.

    But the matter of distributing scripture to the public has garnered the comments you’ve read on this thread and in the post it was derived from. I don’t have to repeat them. There they are. Anyone can read them and make up their own mind how the representatives of each tradition on this board feel about that one.

    It’s had real impact on me today, I can tell you that. I’m stunned at what I’ve heard.

    Hasn’t changed my respect for anyone, but certainly makes me reconsider at least one stereotype I’d heard all my life.

    peace MS

    LikeLike

98. You’re not posting against teachers and preachers, fine. We aren’t posting against reading the Bible. It’s not a black-and-white issue, and I’m actually well-inclined to endeavors such as Wycliffe, though it would be nice if they translated the whole Old Testament for indigenous people who don’t know any better.

    I also believe that God can use the Scripture as he soverignly wills in peoples lives, but that is also true of everything else in the entire universe. The Scriptures main purpose is to build up the Church, and that is done in community.

    LikeLike

99. Martha,

    Again: I’m not denying the value of anyone explaining the scriptures. It’s what I am doing with my life. I obviously believe in it.

    I simply believe that God may choose (MAY) to sovereignly use the Bible without those teachers, etc.

    I believe the WCF that scripture is clear enough to be understood and the HS can illuminate scripture as he chooses.

    But AGAIN, I’m not arguing AGAINST teachers and preachers. I don’t know why that keeps being posted.

    peace MS

    LikeLike

100. This is actually one of the issues I came home from Protestant college with and promptly got into a huge fight with my Catholic dad about; if I remember correctly, I was arguing your side of the Patagonia example.

     Of course, that’s because I was an idiot.

     (KIDDING!)

     I am going to sit this thread out before I eat my entire leg though, promise. There are issues in every theology that makes it’s proponents repeat themselves in rapt wonder about ‘mysteries of God’ in the same voice your dad uses to tell for the millionth time his lamest story that ends with “isn’t that what life is like?” – this is clearly one of Catholicism’s biggest “isn’t that what life is like?” issues.

     LikeLike

101. God uses “everyone” not just scripture on its own as he sovereignly chooses.

     That is not my point of contention. The point is that something as powerful as the Holy Scriptures needs to be taught rather than leave someone on his own to figure it out. The thought that may develope could become corrupt.

     LikeLike

102. Well to be honest the “running with scissors” was mine.

     2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

     LikeLike

103. iMonk, sorry if I (or us Catholics) gave that impression. I’m reading increased levels of tachyon emission: we may be caught in some kind of temporal loop originating in the last thread. Our bad.

     LikeLike

104. Giovanni:

     ***Applause***

     Glad someone from your team decided we could beat “running with scissors” and “pearls before swine.”

     peace MS

     LikeLike

105. Michael, what I see isn’t a difference of fundamentals, so much as a difference of emphasis. You admit the real danger of false teachings, but that it is worth the risk in the end. I admit the real possibility of good, but feel that history and common experience don’t neccesarily back it up as a top priority for the Church to engage in. I don’t see the difference as that big of a deal, and find your reaction rather strange.

     As I said earlier, I was raised with a culture of Bible-sharing, with Gideons in my home congregation. It’s a good group that does good work, but passing out Bible’s is not as important as actually living a Christian life (which Gideons to their credit actually do, in my experience). Reading the Bible is still one of my primary personal devotions, and is invaluable to me. My grounding in Scripture is something from my Protestant background I’m infinitely grateful for.

     LikeLike

106. Do you actually think I am arguing for the Bible only OVER and INSTEAD of missionaries?

     Am I really that unclear? Expressing confidence that God uses scripture alone as he chooses is that provocative?

     If we want to argue for explanations for the origins of the bizarre, we don’t have to send a Bible to Patagonia. We can just ask how Mary’s house got from Nazareth to Italy, or how Benny Hinn knocks over people with his coat and on and on.

     Some of you can’t seem to control your desire to make me say “either/or” and some naive “best case” scenario.

     I’m well aware of the possibilties. But I believe God uses scripture on its own as he sovereignly chooses, and that’s a big Catholic/Protestant difference.

     If you want to know why God allows error we’re going to have to argue Calvinism….which we’re not.

     peace

     MS

     LikeLike

107. I think on this one iMonk, I’m with you. Though I do wish Gideons would put out a readable English Bible. Reading scripture on its can do a lot to lead one to the faith. I might be better with a little guide at the beginning or something. But the naked Bible can has and will bring people to faith. This in no way negates the need, and usefulness for faithful pastors and teachers, though.

     LikeLike

108. Look calling the mass distribution of Bibles a waste is an exageration. Man will profit from the Holy Scriptures no question, however a man not properly instructed “may” be led away from the Faith by his own machinations.

     For let us remember at all times that we are human beings and as human beings we are fallen creatures. We lack the wisdom to discern our own intentions, for the evil things that we do are not so much created as they are perversions of things that God made good.

     If giving Bibles away is the least we can do, then so be it. However giving Bibles should never be an excuse for not teaching and preaching the Word.

     Simply put the Bible is not nescessary for salvation. The Body of Christ is nescesary for salvation.

     To answer your questions:

     Yes, the Holy Scriptures should absolutly be given to the general public.

     The Bible on its own can do many wonderful things, however man on its own can do many perverted things.

     The Bible is the story of the Church the two are not in competition. What profit can the word of God give you if you can’t understand it.

     LikeLike

109. “If a Bible floats to Patagonia and the natives read it and start worshiping Jesus the Son of God who died to forgive sin, but they also do a lot of other crazy stuff, I still believe the Spirit used the scripture.”

     Okay, but what happens when a Bible floats down the Amazon and convinces a (hypothetical) uncontacted tribe that Jesus is their new bloodthirsty Sun God, He whom their sex rituals have foretold would destroy the clothed citydwellers and hatch the Great Rock Egg at the center of the world? If we attribute the Holy Spirit to the conversion of some to a message that seems Orthodox, and others in similar circumstances get a totally different (evil?) message, what do we make of it?

     LikeLike

110. “Don’t cast your pearls before SWINE” applied to the distribution of scripture?

     This thread is incredible. What an eye-opener.

     LikeLike

111. I think the Bible by itself can be amazing in leading people to Christ. I’ve got several friends for whom this is true. One of ’em was searching the Scriptures for ammo in an argument with a Mormon friend when Christ got ahold of him. Another friend was just reading to see what it had to say and came to the conclusion that it was true and that she needed to come to Christ.

     In the case of the former friend, he then joined his uncle’s evangelical church. In the case of the latter friend, she has some (possibly unfounded) issues with the “institutional church” and has never been in community with other believers. The former friend is pretty mainstream and orthodox in his beliefs. The latter friend has developed some theology and doctrine that could be considered heresy.

     I have no doubt of the latter friend’s salvation or love for the Lord. I just wish she didn’t only rely on her own logic and reasoning to interpret it. That said, discussions with her about the scriptures and about God are probably the most enjoyable ones I have; she brings a fresh perspective to the conversation.

     LikeLike

112. I’ve been looking at my Bible on the shelf all afternoon and from what I can tell it doesn’t appear to be doing anything. 🙂

     LikeLike

113. I think we’re agreed that a bible can do nothing in itself. It always requires the Holy Spirit to illuminate it—and the person who reads it—before that person can come to Christ.

     Once people have come to Christ, they need to seek out a few more of His people—the Church—and begin fellowshipping with one another, and compare revelations, and confirm it was all God. Going it alone opens you up to all sorts of misunderstandings, devilish misdirection, and confusing one’s ego with the voice of the Lord. The scriptures are pretty clear that we Christians are, and are meant to be, part of a greater whole.

     So while the bible can start us on the path, the path needs to be traveled with others.

     But at the same time I think a lot of bible-distribution is simply wasteful. True, we never know what the Spirit might do with a bible; but I’ve seen enough Gideon Bibles in the trash to know He doesn’t use all of them. We should at least give them to those who are eager to take one, not just anyone who will casually take anything from someone handing out freebies. And since we keep telling folks to read John first, perhaps we should just hand out John—then leave them a contact number at the end of that book in case they care to read more.

     LikeLike

114. With all this talk in this thread and one of the previous ones about how reading the Bible without the Church there to hold your hand leads to error and heresy I have to ask…

     And the RCC is has no heresy?

     Well, no, because THEY are the self appointed arbiters of what is or is not heresy. So their errors are sound doctrine and ours are all heresy.

     Having a teacher is no garuntee of sound doctrine. Having a conscensus is no garuntee of sound doctrine. Does it help, yes. Everyone agreeing on the wrong thing does not, however, make it the right thing.

     DD

     LikeLike

115. The Scriptures also say: “Throw not your pearls before swine, nor give what is holy to the dogs”

     In the time of Jesus, only trained rabbis were allowed to read certain portions of Scripture, notably the first part of Ezekiel. Likewise, the early Church thought it wise to maintain a disciplina arcana around certain teachings and practices, lest they become a scandal for some people. I seem to remember reading that catechumens, children and pagans were dismissed for what we’d call today “the canon of the Mass”. Of course, this can be taken too far, to the point where one has “secret knowledge” that only the elite have access to, like Gnosticism or Scientology.

     In conclusion, I would say the mere act of distributing raw Scripture communicates to the recipient a theology of sola scriptura, thus Catholics generally reject it and Evangelicals generally accept it. Let’s not even doubt that sola scriptura conversions exist – throw in alcoholism, and maybe a cult experience, and you have a picture-perfect testimony. If Catholics are converted via the raw words of Scripture, like St.Francis of Assisi, it tends to be Scripture read at Mass, so already it is ecclesial in nature.

     LikeLike

116. “A good illustration of just giving someone the Bible and letting things run their course is Hong Xiquan. Hong was a wanna-be scholar in China 150 years ago, and a Protestant missionary gave him some literature, including the Bible in his own language. This led to a violent war and the death of 30 million people”

     We also can find examples of people brought up in the RCC faith over the last 2000 years who did the same thing. At times in the name of Christ.

     This is not an example that proves a point. Either way.

     David

     LikeLike

117. Do you guys have any idea how many Bibles evangelicals have given away to closed countries, schools, students, hospitals, etc etc etc? How many ministries are dedicated to this? How can you suggest that’s a waste? Brother Andrew???

     LikeLike

118. >“We believe that the Bible can do its work without the church. It interprets itself under the power of the HS.”

     Alan, I’m not going to try and unpack that here in the midst of the RCs that populate this blog, but I can say that sort of thing at the BHT, in a more evangelical context, and people know what I mean.

     When you quote it here I think it’s doomed to the worst interpretation.

     I believe the Bible can both convert and communicate its essential message to someone who reads it under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

     That’s what I believe, with all footnotes applying to imperfect results, heresies, need for community, etc. I’m not denying ANY of those things.

     I simply reject the notion that without the church, God doesn’t use scripture to convert and teach. I don’t accept that and I shouldn’t be surprised that so many of here do, since the quest for certainty is a major impulse for a lot of good folks who comment here.

     It’s not with me. If a Bible floats to Patagonia and the natives read it and start worshiping Jesus the Son of God who died to forgive sin, but they also do a lot of other crazy stuff, I still believe the Spirit used the scripture.

     Then the SBC can come in and organize them.

     I tell people to read their Bibles because it says the Spirit will teach them. I don’t limit the ways that can happen. Apparently others disagree.

     peace

     MS

     LikeLike

119. Mass scripture distribution seems like a big waste of finances. Mass preaching is a better idea in my opinion, then converts can be given scriptures if they desire them.

     Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 2 say something about how lost people can’t understand the scriptures anyway?

     LikeLike

120. For my part, I think the Bible is next-to-useless without a community of faith for one to participate in; without a model for ministry and community for a person’s reading of Scripture to have a context in, I think the Bible would be basically unintelligible. It’s like sports, I think: you can read scores, stats and play-by-plays forever, but you’ll never understand really understand the heart of the game until you see it played. Christianity is the context by which Christians understand the Bible and encourage each other to agree about Scripture’s priorities: its not hard to imagine people picking up a Bible with no understanding of where we Christians “begin” to read it from (the New Testament, and the Gospel stories we’re preached from over and over in particular) and inventing a completely different morality from it. One based on turning sticks into snakes, perhaps? It’s the agreement of teachers that’s made Christianity what it is. Without the consensus of generations on the highlights of the Bible, the themes that tie Christianity to life for us would never be obvious to anyone. Even so-called ‘miracle converts’ who come to believe seemingly without cultural context have their understanding vetted by church leaders – and of course, those converts are to specific denominations…

     LikeLike

121. Sam Urfer: No one is denying that all kinds of errors and false teachings MAY result. No one said that a Bible alone will do everything the church does.

     Am I that obtuse when I write? 🙂

     I said that the Spirit can use scripture alone…sovereignly to convert, to do mighty things…or to allow many imperfect things to occur.

     The Catholic view is clear. I now realize why scripture distribution, Bible societies, Wycliffe translations, etc is the work of evangelicals primarily.

     peace

     MS

     LikeLike

122. Here are 2 testimonies to the power of the scripture “alone.”

     1. My pastor, while a young man in India, came to faith by reading the Bible. (The work of the Holy Spirit is, of course, a given.)

     2. Tony Campolo shared that he once belittled, in front of a room of professors, people who hold up scripture signs at football games. One of his audience shared that he saw a John 1:12 sign while watching a Cowboys game, looked up the verse during half-time, and came to faith in Christ.

     What can it do beyond “mere” salvation?
     Look to the Chinese underground church.
     Read Brother Yun’s “Heavenly Man” for his testimony.

     LikeLike

123. “I am completely fine with giving scripture to a student without Christian influences and praying that God will sovereignly use it, in whatever way he chooses and with or without assistance. I would send a Bible to every Mulsim in the world if I could. I have thorough confidence that, despite the many obvious risks and the certain imperfect result, God does often work powerfully through scripture alone.”

     Distributing the Scripture is a fine thing, Michael. But there is a serious danger to the approach you advocate. A good illustration of just giving someone the Bible and letting things run their course is Hong Xiquan. Hong was a wanna-be scholar in China 150 years ago, and a Protestant missionary gave him some literature, including the Bible in his own language. This led to a violent war and the death of 30 million people when Hong realized that he was the little brother of Jesus called to eliminate Confucianism from the world, and set out to do it based on his unformed quasi-Christianity based on his personal readings and insights. (More info on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Xiuquan , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion)

     The Holy Spirit definately can work through reading the Scriptures, but as can be seen from the temptation in the wilderness, the Devil can also quote the Scriptures. Not everyone follows the leading of the Spirit when they read, otherwise nobody would ever be able to disagree over basic Christian doctrine. This is even more true in the case when someone has the Scriptures by themselves. Depending on the receptiveness of the individual in relation to the Spirit, it can go either way, but left on their own with the texts alone, the Bible can be used to justify horrible evil.

     I wouldn’t agree with Mack’s statement on BHT that the Gideons are reducing the sacredness of the Scriptures, but they honestly aren’t engaged in the most important of missonary efforts. One person living the Gospel, loving God and his neighbors, will do more good for the Kingdom than 100,000 Bibles placed in hotels. Indeed, I wouldn’t even say this a serious difference from the Catholic perspecitve. Living the faith is more important, by far, and a disagreement there seems astonishing to me. I grew up surrounded by Gideon folk, and respect them a great deal. But it wasn’t that they passed out Bibles that was important, it was that they lived their lives for Christ.

     LikeLike

124. I’m your huckleberry – or at least I’ll comment. 🙂 I’ll quote from my e-mail, which was based on a much more truncated and pithy statement you made on the BHT…

     “We believe that the Bible can do its work without the church. It interprets itself under the power of the HS.”

     You’ve expanded on this thought a good bit in this post/question. Even so, there are logical conclusions. Here’s what I said to the shorter statement… (plus more at the end)

     Really? Are you sure you want to really and consistently stand by that? So, we need no community? Young ones don’t need to be discipled by the older, more mature members of the community? We don’t need anyone to preach the Gospel? No Teachers, Pastors, Evangelists, Prophets, etc.? These are logical conclusions of what you’re saying. Now maybe you’re not exactly saying that, but… just sayin’.

     Maybe you meant to say “The Bible can do its work without the institutional church…” – Perhaps so. But I’m thinking Catholics or Protestants or any Christian could recognize that the Bible wasn’t given to us to work in a vacuum. It was given to us (even if we disagree how) to work in the context of a People (not talking about the inst. RC).

     People don’t become Christians through a book they find on a night stand. OK, maybe you just thought “yes they do” – but someone had to leave the Book there – a person, a member of the Church (the whole Church). And then that person should read something about all these other Christians they’re supposed to be around, being baptized, etc. – in other words, the Church. The Bible doesn’t talk about isolated Christians who aren’t planted inside the People of God.

     According to the Book, people certainly don’t become fully mature members of the Body of Christ without interaction with other Christians in many ways. Does the Word of God work by the power of the Holy Spirit? Sure. Is it designed to work alone, outside the context of Christian community life (aka, the Church) – no way.

     Of course you believe in guidance in reference to the Word. The Bible can certainly be “dangerous” in the hands of lone rangers (not saying anything like all protestants are lone rangers – talking about people). Sure, I believe that Tradition has a major role – you believe it has some role. I believe the Magisterium has a role too (you may not, fine).

     So, the Bible alone – can’t do tons. Not because it’s not the real live Word of God. Not because God’s not “sovereign” (that’s a loaded theological term). Not because the Truth is not in it. But, as least partly, because God decided to communicate His Word through people. We are a part of His sovereign plan. The Church – the whole People of God – is the Body of His Son on earth. Holistically, that’s how it works.

     Could someone get some very rudimentary idea about Salvation by reading the Bible alone? Maybe so. Can God the Holy Spirit work in someone like that in a circumstance like that? Sure. Is it the ideal situation? No. Could they come to some kind of saving relationship with God through Christ in a situation like that? Could be. This begs the question, though, for me – is there something about playing into creating a very limited, non-ideal situations for people there?

     It may also come down to – is this all about getting as many people as we can to make “boom” decisions that get them to go to heaven when they die as possible – as opposed to integrating them into the transformational life of His Body? Something to think about. Sorry for the length – at least I’m quoting myself. 🙂 Peace.

     LikeLike