Posted on 03/15/2004 6:40:12 PM PST by narses
The "Bible Alone" is Not Enough
Answers to 25 Questions on the History of New Testament which completely refute the Protestants' "Bible Only" Theory.
ONE
Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered His Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matthew 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Ghost (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world. (Matthew 28-20).
Comment: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for His followers.
TWO
How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lords teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Saints Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.
Comment: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the Apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.
Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded?
The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.
Romans 10-17: So then faith cometh by Hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Matthew 28-19: Go ye therefore and Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Mark 16-20: And they went forth, and Preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.
Mark 16-15: And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and Preach the gospel to every creature.
Comment: Thus falls the entire basis of the 'Bible-only theory.
FOUR
Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded His Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matthew 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lords doctrines:
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Comment: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lords religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christs teaching were indispensable?
Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christs "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Comment: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.
SIX
What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church had carefully conserved this 'word of mouth teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.
2 Thessalonians 2-14: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Timothy 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Comment: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christs teaching. Religions founded on 'the Bible only are therefore necessarily incomplete.
Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? The first book, Saint Matthews Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lords Ascension. Saint Johns fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A.D.
Comment: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted 'Bible-only theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.
When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A.D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non- Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.
Comment: Up to 397 A.D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the 'Bible-only privately interpreted theory have fitted?
NINE
Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A.D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.
Comment: This again shows how utterly impossible was the 'Bible-only theory, at least up to 400 A.D.
TEN
What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying languages of New Testament writings.
Comment: According to the present-day 'Bible-only theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.
ELEVEN
Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A.D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own Divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.
Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.
If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.
Comment: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.
TWELVE
Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400 A.D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.
Comment: What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?
THIRTEEN
Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A.D.? No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.
Comment: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the 'Bible-only privately interpreted theory but before 400 A.D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.
FOURTEEN
Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A.D., and 1440 A.D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.
Comment: To have proposed the 'Bible-only theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.
FIFTEEN
Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A.D. and 1440 A.D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these monks spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented.
Comment: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so.
SIXTEEN
Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the 'Bible-only Theory? Saint Paul seems to answer the above when he said: 'But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1-8 (Protestant version).
Comment: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least 300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700.)
SEVENTEEN
Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the 'Bible-only theory and its personal interpretation? Just what Saint Paul foretold when he said: 'For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition). According to the World Almanac for 1953 there are in the United States 20 different organizations of Methodists, 22 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 13 organizations of Mennonites, 18 of Lutherans and hundreds of other denominations.
Comment: The 'Bible-only theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.
EIGHTEEN
In Christs system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost.
Comment: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of Christs true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.
NINETEEN
Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I, except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Comment: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the 'Bible-only theory be defended.
TWENTY
Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Ghost, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of Gods law and Gods word.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.
Matthew 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Malachias 2-7: For the priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
Comment: Formerly, at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Ghost would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision.
TWENTY-ONE
What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of Faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.
Comment: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons -- but not otherwise.
TWENTY-TWO
Why are there so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong; you cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.
Comment: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of religious Faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.
TWENTY-THREE
Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.
Comment: Catholics love, venerate, use the bible; but they also know that the Bible alone is not Christs system but only a precious book, a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to 'preach the Gospel to every living creature and to keep on preaching it 'to the end of time.
TWENTY-FOUR
Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented, about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed by Johann Gutenberg. It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence prevailed, before Luthers German version appeared in 1534. Of these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luthers 'discovery of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.
Comment: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.
TWENTY-FIVE
During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliffe and Tyndale.
Comment: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.
Taken from The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible
Reprinted from the Juluy 1995 edition of
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292 * cfnjv@localnet.com
CFN is published once a month (12 times per year) • Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy
Home • Audio Cassettes • CFN Index
I take that back. You just essayed a response. Okay.
Who decided what book belong in the canon? God the Holy Spirit. Who told me? Those who went before me in the faith.
Wait a minute. I thought you said the Bible alone is sufficient and we don't need tradition and those old guys are fallible. If the Bible alone is sufficient, we don't need what they said, and they're fallible anyway. Looks like you don't really believe in "Bible alone," after all.
Who said I did that?
On Writing
1. I said it once, and I say it again. This comes from the fact that just about anything can be quoted out of the Bible -- out-of-context -- to make a point.
2. To begin with, there is no entry in the entire NT where Jesus (while He was walking on Earth and preaching to His disciples) directs anyone to write down what He taught or what they have seen.
3. In fact, John himself says that "We write this to make our joy complete." (1 John 1:4). That doesn't sound like an act of obedience or obligation.
4. Not a single Apostle says that he wrote because the Lord commanded it, for then some of the Apostles would be in contempt of the Lord for not having written anything.
5. The command you quote (Rev 1:19), to write that which he (thou -- John) has seen -- and I still say that that, by implication, means all that he has seen, and not selectively that which he chooses -- is not the command other Apostles heard, because the Jesus of the Revelation is no longer on earth teaching them!
6. That's why I said in one of my previous posts that you were using something that was in the future (Jesus revealing Himself to John at the end of the 1st century) as if it were in the past, just to prove the point.
7. In fact, by the time John wrote this book, most if not all of the Apostles were dead, so Jesus in this appearance in John's "vision" is speaking only to him, John, to write [the present tense] "the things which thou [only John] hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which sall be thereafter."
8. Clearly, John is tasked with writing his own experiences, past, present and future. That was directed only at John, who is already at the end of his own life on earth and therefore runningout of time to write.
9. He is not directed to write the Bible. Just his own experiences. And he is the only Apostle who was commissioned to do so. Nothing more should be read into it.
On Tradition
1. Your argument against tradition of men, likening it to the Sacred Tradition, is misleading -- whether you realize it or not -- because even the slightest "research" into the word tradition shows that references to (Judaic) tradition in the NT clearly attempt to discredit Judaism in favor of the New Covenant.
2. At the same time, there is no parallel suggestion anywhere in the NT that the new teachings, the new oral tradition, would either have to be be written down collectively or that it is something that will inherently become corrupt.
3. To the contrary! The new teachings are to be spread all over the world, by preaching, and God Himself will put His "laws in their minds [not in their books] and write them on their hearts" (Heb 8:10)so that all may know God (without reading? maybe because books were scarce and people were illiterate?).
4. For that same reason, the Bible itself does not say that it is the only source of Truth about God. Nor does it mean that the Sacred Tradition is "superior" to the Bible. The Bible is, as I already stated, a product, and not the source of the Sacred Tradition. Without the latter, the former would not be possible.
5. That is a historical fact. Sacred Tradition existed before the Bible. Sacred Tradition was used to purge heresies and profane sources and select only Inspired ones. Sacred Tradition must therefore contain Inspired Knowledge and is, like the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit.
On Sola Scriptura
1. All this bible-quoting has taken us away from the main topic of the post -- is "Bible Alone" enough? The answer can only be no. It could not have been God's plan because of (a) practical impossibilities for 1900 years of Christianity, and even today, and (b) because individual interpretation of the Bible is inherently corrupt.
2. Sola Sciptura was the only leg Luther could stand on, and he had to defend it at all cost to give himself any legitimacy, since no Apostolic successor followed his lead. As a priest, he had no authority in church without the support of his bishop. As such, the doctrine of sola scriptura serves human agenda from the start.
3. I believe that Protestants realize the folly of this doctrine but simply cannot admit it for obvious reasons. Selective and out-of-context Bible verses do not clarify the facts that "Bible Only" was impractical and that it invites human corruption of individual interpretation.
4. The Bible may be self-explanatory, but it does not follow that any individual will, simply by reading the Bible, interpret it in a way that is free of corruption.
1. All this bible-quoting has taken us away from the main topic of the post -- is "Bible Alone" enough? The answer can only be no. It could not have been God's plan because of (a) practical impossibilities for 1900 years of Christianity, and even today, and (b) because individual interpretation of the Bible is inherently corrupt.
Quite frankly, ... corruption may occur in Protestant circles, ... but the, supposedly, infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church certainly isn't seen to be producing any better fruit, especially, in light of the scandals the church faces today.
Jesus said ... "You shall know tham by their fruits."
Unfortunately, you cannot look at the fruit of the, spposedly, infallible teaching of the Catholic church and, indeed, conclude that their teacing is infallible.
I would say that corruption is not inherent in the manner of interpretation of the scriptures, ... but rather in the hearts of those doing the interpreting. If one is seeking God, God has promised that you will find Him through His word. This has been His promise since Old Testament days. However, if one seeks according to one's own agenda, corruption will be the result, whether it an individual doing the seeking ... or a, supposedly, infallible oraganization doing the seeking.
Which brings up an interesting question for me.
How is it that you, an Othodox christian, reconcile the claims to unique leadership and teaching by the catholic church ?
Is God's teaching from the seat of Peter for you ?
If not, ... how do the Orthodox trace the authority for the teaching and interpretation of the scriptures ?
The verse says it itself: "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." I don't see how it could be more clear. "The holy scriptures, WHICH ARE ABLE..."
In his infancy, Timothy certainly never had more scriptures than the Septuagint. I never denied that the scriptures, even just the Septuagint by itself could "make you wise for salvation." I merely pointed out they logical problems you get into if you try to use this verse to prove sola scriptura. You have effectively "proven" that we do not need the New Testament.
Then I have proven my point, for if any part of the Bible is sufficient then the whole is sufficient.
Yes, that is what I said you have "proven," but I don't think many Christians would agree with you.
Does one need to know how many books there are in the Bible in order to be saved?
I hope not, because if so, those early Christians could never have made it.
The verse in Timothy and the Prologue to Luke ("...you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught...") clearly show (in infallable terms) that the Bible is enough to bring a person to salvation.
You have just illustrated another of the logical difficulties you get into when you try to use the Bible to prove sola scriptura. Actually, Luke never claimed infallibility but if he had, would that prove infallibility? Only if you presuppose that Luke is scripture. In other words, to prove infallibility, you have to assume what you are trying to prove.
You demonstrate another logical difficulty with sola scriptura when you try use one book, call it "Book B," to prove that an earlier book, call it "Book A," is scripture. If canonicity of Book A relies on the later testimony of Book B, then you must find a still later book, call it "Book C," testifying to the infallibility of Book B. You are caught in a series of infinite regression.
These are your problems with the untenable doctrine of sola scriptura. If you have an extra-biblical source to tell you which books are inspired, you avoid these logical difficulties. But you already agreed to that, did you not? Did you not post a little while that you rely on those who have preceeded you in the faith to tell you which books belong in the Bible? Well then, you have abandoned sola scriptura in favor of the doctrines of these men. Care to enlighten us on exactly who these men are?
These are your problems with the untenable doctrine of sola scriptura. If you have an extra-biblical source to tell you which books are inspired, you avoid these logical difficulties.
Which there is ... the Holy Spirit.John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.Do you deny that this is the case ?
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Which there is ... the Holy Spirit.
If the HS has given you a revelation telling you which books are inspired, I think you should share that with us.
If the HS has given you a revelation telling you which books are inspired, I think you should share that with us.
Do you mean to say that He hasn't revealed such to you ?
Seriously though, the Holy Spirit, working through the church has revealed to us the books which compose Holy scripture.
I agree 100%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.