Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Bible Alone" is Not Enough
Catholic Family News ^ | July 1995

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.

THREE

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?

FIVE

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.

SEVEN

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.

EIGHT

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 CassettesCFN Index


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Orthodox Christian; Other Christian; Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; tohellwiththebible
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-364 next last
To: PetroniusMaximus
"Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

How was he previously "taught"? Luke was writing an epistle to clarify what was taught by others. Obviously, the message had been conveyed to Theo another way and Luke wanted him to have a more permanent record of the teachings. I have no problem with that.

41 posted on 03/15/2004 7:57:21 PM PST by Life is Sacred (I'm sick of the "change the channel" defense!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Life is Sacred
Point was...

***Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so***

Completely refuted by the verse...

"...Write, therefore...",


42 posted on 03/15/2004 7:57:46 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Life is Sacred
***seeing as how there was no Bible to refer to.***


What do you think the Old Testament is if it isn't scripture?
43 posted on 03/15/2004 7:58:44 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: narses
My faith is fine. Thanks for your brotherly concern.

As far as adressing the article, the thought about pearls/swine comes to mind.
44 posted on 03/15/2004 7:59:42 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
Reading comprehension is critical:

[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,...
[10] I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
[11] Saying: What thou seest, write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
[12] And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks:
[13] And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
[14] And his head and his hairs were white, as white wool, and as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire,
[15] And his feet like unto fine brass, as in a burning furnace. And his voice as the sound of many waters.
[16] And he had in his right hand seven stars. And from his mouth came out a sharp two edged sword: and his face was as the sun shineth in his power.
[17] And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last,
[18] And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.
[19] Write therefore the things which thou hast seen, and which are, and which must be done hereafter.

This was a vision well after the crucifiction, not Jesus in His Living Ministry on earth.

45 posted on 03/15/2004 8:00:28 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
So having called me a troll, now you call me swine. Your charity shines through.
46 posted on 03/15/2004 8:01:05 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Life is Sacred
***Luke wanted him to have a more permanent record of the teachings. I have no problem with that.***

Can you be "certain" of your faith through reading the book of Luke?

47 posted on 03/15/2004 8:01:08 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: narses
speck/plank
48 posted on 03/15/2004 8:01:55 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; narses
And calling me a troll was charity?

Actually, yes it was. Would you have preferred a brood of vipers?

-TONIGHT'S-
-SMACKDOWN-
The SWARM -VS- The MASS

49 posted on 03/15/2004 8:03:07 PM PST by Between the Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
No doubt the lint is piling up. Good luck with your cleaning. If your faith reaches the strength necessary to do more than name call, feel free to respond.
50 posted on 03/15/2004 8:04:07 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Well there is that. I suppose there are degrees of namecalling, as there are in so many parts of life.
51 posted on 03/15/2004 8:05:05 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: narses
Unfortunately, non-Catholic Christians have to jettison 1500 years of history to defend their position(s). I believe with all my heart that the Protestant Reformation was the greatest act of deception Satan's ever foisted upon humanity. Just look at the chaos and division today.
52 posted on 03/15/2004 8:05:33 PM PST by Life is Sacred (I'm sick of the "change the channel" defense!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: narses
I don't do luck. I do faith.
53 posted on 03/15/2004 8:06:22 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Life is Sacred; narses
If Sola Scriptura is enough, then why don't Protestants simply hand out the Bibles and be done with preaching and explaining, and interpreting and writing all those books they write about the faith.

The Tubergen Lutheran Scholars made it very clear that the Scripture is clear enough that eanyone could understand it by simply reading the Bible (letter sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II). What are all the authors and preachers doing then?

One has to be truly naive to believe that everything our Lord Jesus Christ said was actually written down! The Apostles absorebd as much as humanly possible of His teachings, but their knowledge, passed on to the succeeding bishops, is what made creating the Christian Bible possible more than 350 years after the Penetecost!

Without the Holy Tradition, no one would have been able to argue what is inspired and what is not inspired Word, and that in itself would have made a Bible as we know it, impossible!

More importantly, the theological concepts of the Holy Trinity, and the Duality of Nature of Lord Jesus Christ, were defined in the first two Ecumenical Councils before the Bible was finalized and canonized!.

Surely, our Protestant brethren realize that the concept of Trinity to which they subscribe fully, and the duality of Christ's Nature, two most important pillars of our faith, are not spelled our or obvious by just reading the Scriptures!

Therefore, the foundation of Christianity, was stablished from the Truth of the Fathers from the Apostles, before the Chrsitian Bible.

Finally, one must ask our Protestant friends, where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the sole authority for the faithful.

54 posted on 03/15/2004 8:06:53 PM PST by kosta50 (a view of an Orthodox Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Life is Sacred
I believe with all my heart that the Protestant Reformation was the greatest act of deception Satan's ever foisted upon humanity. Just look at the chaos and division today.

Cut the hyperbole or I'll have to pull out the priest child molestation card.

55 posted on 03/15/2004 8:07:36 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
"Cut the hyperbole or I'll have to pull out the priest child molestation card"

Your charity is boundless. The fact that protestant clergy abuse children at about the same rate, somtimes higher, than their Catholic brethern might be of interest to you. If facts mattered, that is. The lint all gone?
56 posted on 03/15/2004 8:09:50 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I agree. Ask gamecock (if he's done cleaning his navel) what he has to say though. BTW, thanks for your educated, logical, charitable defense of our common faith.
57 posted on 03/15/2004 8:11:06 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: narses
Jesus is, on occasion, refered to as the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT.

Now no angel will claim,

"I am the First and the Last,
And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever"

This is the glorified, risen, Christ.The one who "rose from the dead".

***This was a vision well after the crucifiction, not Jesus in His Living Ministry on earth.***

You can't change the argument midstream my friend.

58 posted on 03/15/2004 8:12:06 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: narses
Thanks for the ping. For salvation certainly the bible alone isn't useful. One needs to receive the gift of the holy spirit through baptism and laying on of hands. I also don't think there is anything wrong with teachers, or tradition. But when that tradition contradicts the bible then scripture has to win out otherwise we're stuck with the opinions of a bunch of men who may or may not have the guidance of the holy spirit.
59 posted on 03/15/2004 8:13:51 PM PST by DouglasKC (Free Big Mack and Becky!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
I'm dead serious. But if talking about molestation somehow helps you in the defense of your doctrinal position, then go for it. Maybe you should bring up the inquisition, it might be more relevant to the period of history we're dealing with.

Cheers!

60 posted on 03/15/2004 8:14:14 PM PST by Life is Sacred (I'm sick of the "change the channel" defense!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-364 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson