Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Most Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is the only source concerning faith. According to them, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative, teaching Church. All that they need is the Bible in order to learn about the faith and to live a Christian life. The "Bible Alone" teaching can be appealing in its simplicity, but it suffers from fundamental problems. A few are considered here.
First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]
According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:
I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]
Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:
...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]
St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]
These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.
A second problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is canonicity - i.e. which Books belong in the Bible? It must be remembered that the Books of the Bible were written individually along with other religious books. Centuries later the Church compiled together the inspired Books under one cover to form the "Bible." A big question in the early Church was which books are the inspired written Word of God. (Inspired=written by men but authored by God; See Catechism of the Catholic Church 106.)
Scripture did not come with an "inspired" Table of Contents. Nowhere in the sacred texts are all the Books listed. There are some Books cited in the sacred writings but these lists are vague and incomplete (Acts 28:23; 2 Peter 3:16). There are also references to books not found in the Bible, such as St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). St. Paul even encourages the Colossians to read this epistle, but still it is not in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospel never attempts to list the "official" Books of the Old Testament (OT). This issue was hotly debated in His day. Today Protestant and Catholic Christians disagree over which Books belong in the OT. Catholics follow the list in the Septuagint (2nd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) while Protestants follow the list used by the Pharisees. A list from Jesus could have eliminated this problem, but no such list is found in the Gospel. As a result the Bible needs a visible authority outside of itself to list the inspired sacred Books. This authority must be guided by the Holy Spirit since these Books are from the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians claim that the Table of Contents in their Bible lists the inspired Books. Even though found in modern Bibles, the Table of Contents is still not inspired. It is not the Word of God but words added later by human editors, much similar to footnotes. The Table of Contents is basically the opinion of the publishing editor. Others may claim that the closing verses in the Book of Revelation, specifically Rev. 22:18-19, cap off the Bible and define all the preceding Books as inspired by God. But do these verses apply to the whole Bible or only the Book of Revelation? Another flaw with this idea is that not all Bibles have the same number of Books. As alluded to above, Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain different numbers of OT Books, yet all these Bibles close with the same verses: Rev. 22:18ff. Both cannot be right. Finally the Book of Deuteronomy contains similar verses (4:2 & 12:32). Does this imply that the Books after Deuteronomy are not inspired by God? No.
A third problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is proper understanding of critical Bible passages. Most Protestant Christians promote personal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. anyone can interpret these passages by himself. Unfortunately this leads to chaos. For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation. Sadly the "Yellow Pages" phone directory is a witness to the many "Bible-Based" churches who disagree with each other over key issues of the Christian faith. Personal interpretation of the Bible naturally leads to a mire of human doctrines as a result of differing personal opinions.
The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, letters, songs, etc. - requiring different ways of understanding. Sometimes Jesus in the Gospel purposely taught in figurative language and parables, which makes literal interpretation impossible. Even St. Peter admits that St. Paul's Epistles can be difficult to understand:
...Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [2 Peter 3:15-16]
Finally the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30ff needed St. Philip to explain the Book of Isaiah. Obviously not everyone can understand the meaning of Scripture by simply reading it. More is required. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Even the Bible points to the importance of the Church for teaching the Truth. According to St. Peter in the Bible:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]
At least prophecies in the Bible are not a matter of personal interpretation. These prophesies must be properly interpreted by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" since the Holy Spirit is the Author. These "men" are the Bishops of the Church - the successors to the Apostles (Acts 20:28-32). Finally the Bible does not call itself the bulwark of the truth; however, St. Paul does make reference to the Church in those terms:
...the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]
According to the Bible, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
All Christians, including Catholics, should read the Bible in order to grow more in the faith; however, we still need the Church. The Church is needed to accurately pass on Apostolic Tradition (Romans 10:17), define the canon of the Bible (i.e. list the inspired Books), safeguard the accurate transmission (e.g. translations) of the Bible and interpret key passages, all with guidance from the Holy Spirit according to God's Will. The Church is needed for other reasons too. It must be understood that the Church is not merely men making arbitrary decisions but men executing authority from God guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church may at times be tested by scandals or scarred by the sins of men. We may sometimes disagree with the policies of the Church, but she is still the instrument of the Holy Spirit. This visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18-19; John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.
Printed with permission from A Catholic Response, Inc.
Apologetics ping for a Saturday evening.
The Bible is the only thing a Christian needs for inspired truth. Apocrypha, maybe. But a Christian should never limit the scope of their reading. There is much knowledge out there to be had; a loving God would not deny these pursuits.
The traditions OF THE APOSTLES, all of whom lived & learned under Christ Himself. Later traditions (such as no meat on Friday), are POST-APOSTOLIC & are of absolutely no authority.
Define “need.”
I think that is a reactionary claim based upon a reactionary idea (sola scriptura). I think most Protestant Christians believe that you only need the Bible, but not that the Bible is the only source of spiritual understanding or growth.
Look at it this way, if a Bible were to come into the hands of someone who could read it on a desert island, who had never had contact with Christianity before, could they read the Bible and come to a point of salvation through faith?
I think the answer is yes.
To me, that is what I mean by saying that the Bible is the only source needed. It's not the only beneficial work, it's just the raw necessity.
I would say that Christians need only the Bible for authoritative doctrine.
But that Bible sets up a church, elders/bishops, deacons, collections, judicial dispute standards, communion, baptisms, church discipline standards. . .so in that sense I believe we need the Church, too.
I do not however think that means that the Church gets to make up doctrines as it goes along. I think the Church must always teach doctrines that submit to Scripture.
The article misses the Christian way of life entirely.
Once a believer has faith in Christ, he is commanded to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ.
The Bible simply provides the canon of Scripture, which provides the Word of God to the believer to study.
It is not the Scripture which changes the mind and heart of the believer, it is God Himself, the Holy Spirit who makes the reading of Scripture understood in the human mind as the Word of God, which is then used in the human spirit by God the Holy Spirit to communicate His Word to the believer.
The church is simply the grouping of believers who then are the body of Christ. We aren’t trained in our spirit by the body of Christ, rather we are developed each in our human spirit by God the Holy Spirit.
God the Holy Spirit is the person who is sanctifying the believer in his spirit, which then makes faith, the work of God, develop in the thinking of the believer. Once in the human spirit it is then developed into GNOSIS, a type of knowledge which is understood in the mind. As it is continued to be processed, again by God the Holy Spirit, while we remain in fellowship with Him, we don;t stray out of fellowship by shifting the focus of our thinking on anything else, but rather through faith in Him, then He continues to develop our faith, and our minds, so that we are able to outprocess that same faith, that doctrine, that Bible doctrine which we have come to learn and process in our thinking, in our memory recall, in our problem solving techniques.
At this point that faith (PISTIS, also used for doctrine) becomes an outward knowledge or EPIGNOSIS, which is then usable for problem solving.
When we are then tested for advancement in the maturity of our faith, we are observed through His plan to see our works, how we respond through faith in all things by His Plan.
Where we fail, then there simply is a reward in heaven which was made from eternity past awaiting the bema seat judgment in order for God the Son to rightfully award us that predestined award, but now where we fail to remain in faith through Him, that predestined award is no longer granted to us by His Perfect Judgment, but will later be either burnt up in the Lake of Fire or set as an eternal memorial of our foolishness for not remaining in fellowship with Him (the former I believe is more accurate).
In all of this process, it is God the Holy Spirit who is performing the work of faith in the believer, continuing the sanctification process after initial saving faith. Salvation continues after initial salvation in saving us from the slave market of sin. No longer are we victims, unable to remain in fellowship or even return to fellowship with Him, but instead, again by the reconciliation provided by our Lord’s work on the Cross, we are able to return to Him, confess our sins, and continue to have the scarred thinking processes in us slowly sanctified.
The Church indeed provides a fabulous environment from which we may hear the Word of God, but the sanctification of the believer doesn’t come from the Church or even any human. It comes from God the Holy Spirit, making a temple in each of us for the indwelling of God the Son, so that we might take on, as commanded, the mind of Christ.
My initial answer to that question is yes....and no. The Bible can sustain if say were somewhere like a deserted island or if one was a POW the words of the Bible would sustain us. On the other hand most of us probably might not understand the context of various portions of the Bible in a case like that books written by christian writers can help us understand and have a deeper biblical knowledge and be able to apply it to our lives in a more real and meaningful way.
Hi NYer!
My problem with the argument of the article is that “Apostolic Tradition” as practiced by Romanism Christianity isn’t the passing on of tradition from the early Church.
As practiced, it includes everything the church decides to make “Apostolic Tradition” even when it was never practiced by the Apostles - even things decided hundreds or thousands of years later. You may accept that as Apostolic Tradition, but I sure can’t read the Bible and call it that.
The Biblical evidence presented in this article seems to rest on Paul’s speaking about traditions he and the other Apostles passed on during the time he wrote Corinthians. Great! Those things would have been in existence in the early Church and evidenced in the Book of Acts.
When “apostolic tradition” ceases to be the teaching of the Apostles and becomes anything along the way, you end up straying farther and farther from Biblical Christianity.
Just my 2 cents tonight.
Blessings,
ampu
I am very thankful to God, Our Heavenly Father for directing me to attend my 1st Mass 5 years ago. I am so grateful for the Sacraments & for the Holy Spirit, who works through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Peace be with you all :)
The first Christians did fine without the Bible. You just need Christ.
If you go to the meaning of the Greek, the word means ordinances, not traditions. The Ordinances are two: baptism and the Lord’s table. As for there being more things about Jesus that are unknown, Jesus is speaking at a time when the rest of the New Testament books had not been written. Jesus, for example, did not explicate Justification or Righteousness, but the Apostle Paul did. Those doctrines related specifically to the Person and Nature of Christ. Christians need only the Bible.
A bit simplistic and not at all logical: many of the first Christians were also Jews and as such, they had..........The Tenach which included all the 5 books of the Law (the 5 books of Moses), the Prophets, major and minor and the writings.
They were taught from early childhood as The Law proscribes so they were not ignorant of God. Even the Greeks who lived around the Jewish communities, knew some of the Jewish writings and many also attended the synagogue.
Waiting for the "New Testament" didn't take long for Mark wrote the story of Christ 30 years after his death, as Mark was a young teen when Christ died, so the learned believe.
The Bible is God's auto-biography and if one want's to know God, to know about God, reading God's inspired auto-biography would be paramount.
Jesus said he would build his church on the confession that Peter had just then voiced. “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
Nothing can justify the contention that Jesus would build his church on any person, or that Peter was divinely appointed as the first of an endless succession of flawed human beings (as is each and every one of us) to function as ultimate arbiters of doctrinal rectitude; or that any succession of inherently flawed men was envisioned by Jesus as exercising executive and administrative control over His church, which in its earthly manifestation consists of the totality of true believers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is a heck of a place to start. But from what I seen, Catholics just need John 21:25 and Matthew 16:18 and that is licence to make up anything they like.
Sola scriptura, thanks.
We can choose to ignore what the early church has to teach us, but then we miss so much.
Been there, done that, still praying.
Actually the tradition of fasting on Wednesdays *and* Fridays is of Apostolic origin. Many of the early Fathers of the Church attest to the existence of a document entitled “The Didache” and subtitled “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations”, which contained lecture notes on the Apostles’ teachings. The document was thought lost, but a copy, radiocarbon dating to the 2nd century (as old as the oldest extant copies of any books of Scripture Old or New Testament) was found in the library of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople in the late 19th century.
It includes the explicit command, “But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but do ye fast on the fourth day and the Preparation,” meaning Wednesdays and Fridays.
Now if you wish to quibble and argue that perhaps in Apostolic times those fasts were observed more strictly, with abstinence from all foods, than the way it is now observed (abstinence from all foods from creatures with a backbone, and by the most strictly observant taking only one meal after the ninth hour) or was observed in the West in reduced from (Fridays only and abstinence from flesh-meats only) until the time of the Second Vatican Council. When that reduction occurred is unclear: in ancient times before Rome’s schism from the Church, the Patriarchate of Rome tended to be more strict about fasts than the other Patriarchates.
But quibble or not, if one was observing the Apostles’ command regarding fasting, one wasn’t eating meat on Fridays.
I would also not be so quick as to dismiss the Church’s authority after the Apostolic era: after all it was the Council of Carthage, as ratified by the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils that fixed the canon of Scripture.
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.