Open Discussion at the IM Mic: How Much Can The Bible Do “Alone?”
October 14, 2008 by iMonk
A very interesting topic arose on the last “Real Differences” thread: Differing views on the distribution of scripture to the public.
Got me thinking…..
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?)
I’ve concluded that one of the very important differences between Catholics and Protestants has to do with the mass distribution of Bibles (or New Testaments) to the general, unbelieving public.
Evangelicals put a lot of resources into efforts to translate the Bible into local dialects, languages, idioms and subcultural contexts. There are more than a few evangelicals who think too much is done to make the Bible understandable to various groups. (See Phil Johnson’s various condemnations of “Bible ‘Zines” designed for women, skaters, goths, etc.)
Many evangelicals mount large scale, well-funded efforts to distribute the Bible in their communities, among students, in the military. Some ministries smuggler hundreds of thousands of Bibles into closed countries. Many evangelistic efforts are intertwined with the distribution of scripture.
But setting that discussion aside, it’s apparent that many evangelicals believe that the Bible, given to a person, can convert by the illuminating, transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Translated into a local dialect, it can guide the converted into the essentials of Christianity and into some (imperfect) form of Christian community.
In other words, the Bible alone is an instrument powerful enough to accomplish some form of God’s purposes and distributing it- as per the Gideons, GFA, Bible League, IBS, ABS, ESBS, etc.- is serious and valuable ministry.
Now before some of you arrive at my house with pitchforks and torches, no one is claiming that the Bible alone can produce the same outcome as the Bible taught, preached, explained, etc. I certainly am not denying that God has ordained teaching, preaching and mentoring as means through which the Word does its work. God sent Phillip to explain the text to the Ethiopian, but God has left many people without a Phillip, and they have come to faith- imperfectly- by scripture alone.
I am committed to Bible teaching and proclamation as a vocation, but 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.
As I said, this is a clear difference among Christians, and explains why evangelicals place such a premium on placing the Bible in the hands of every person whenever possible, not just in the hands of the religiously educated. It explains why our Catholic friends, with a different view of the relationship of church, scripture and teaching authority, are less convinced of the value of these efforts.
So what do you think? Should the Bible be distributed to the general public? What can the Bible do “on its own?” How much does the Bible need the church in order to do what the Word of God can do?
Talk amongst yourselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
Nedbreck: Amen!
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.
“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.
Sam Urfer: Amen!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
I…already said that Michael. Repeatedly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Actually, I’d argue that some of the best things one can experience in life are irresponsible, good uses of time.
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.
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.
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!!!”
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.
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.
De-lurking to express my surprise that Martha gets a hand-slap, but not Clark.
?????
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.
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.
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.
“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).