The "Bible Alone" is Not Enough

Answers to 25 Questions on the History of New Testament which completely refute the Protestants' "Bible Only" Theory.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"You better be listening to something besides scripture, and you obviously are, because otherwise you don't know which books belong in scripture and which books don't. Scripture doesn't tell you."

If we look at the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible there are only differences in the OT. The Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha, while the Protestant does not. Now we may ask who is right? The answer to this can be found in the words of Jesus in the NT.

Matthew 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Matthew 26:56 - But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Luke 16:29 - Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luke 24:27 - And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

So Jesus and the Bible clearly refer to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (or the Writings). Now what comprises these?

Romans 3
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

So then we see that the Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God. Therefore, whatever they have as Scripture would be official canon. The Jewish Holy Scriptures (our OT) do not contain the Apocrypha, meaning it is not Scripture. The Bible alone has verified this.

JM

Easy answers ...

3. 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.

The former is a non-logical conclusion.

Protestants don't disagree that Jesus left a 'teaching' ministry.

However, all teaching has some basis ... some standard which determines what is taught.

The typical American experience demonstrates that it is common for teachers to use texts on which to base their teaching.

If one goes to other cultures, one may find teaching based on what is passed down from generation to generation.

Both are legitimate forms of teaching ... only the standard differs.

Quite obviously, the entire Bible, as we know it, was not available at the beginning of the history of the church. Notwithstanding, the Hebrew scriptures were available, and were used by Jesus Himself, and His Apostles, to undergird the church's teaching. After Jesus had ascended, ... the Apostles continued to used Hebrew scriptures plus what they, themselves had learned at Jesus' feet.

And after the deaths of the Apostles, so also did this teaching go on through those who had sat at the feet of the Apostles.

However, ... before the Apostles passed off of the scene, ... they left writings, inspired by God, which were to used as the basis of chrisian teaching. These writings were passed around and shared by the chrisitan community, and were considered to be the basis of the christian faith.

Finally, at some point in the church's history, God inspired the church to collect these writings into a volume, for the use of the church.

The collection of these writings, which, along with the Hebrew scriptures, we call the Bible, represents the most reliable recording of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles which exist.

As such, the Protestant church uses the Bible as the sole basis, or text, for it's christian teaching.

Easy answers ...

4. 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?

There should be no difference between what Jesus commanded to be taught and what the New Testament contains.

The verses cited do not say that Jesus taught doctrines which were not recorded ... they say that Jesus did other 'signs' and 'works' that were not recorded. There is no reference to doctrine.

In fact, if one is honest, and reads on in the John 20 reference, one easily finds the basis for that which is written ...
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
This verse says that what we need for life through Jesus Christ is written.

We have no need to speculate as to what other things Jesus might have said or done. Certainly, as the texts say ... He said and did other things.

But what we need for life is written.

Second century christians had the writings left by the Apostles which undergirded the teaching of those who had been discipled by the Apostles.

Easy answers ...

5. 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.

As in #4, do not neglect to read on through the end of John 20 ...
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The verse clarifies the point that what we need for life through Jesus Christ is written.

We have no need to speculate as to what other things Jesus might have said or done. Certainly, as the texts say ... He said and did other things.

But what we need for life is written.

Easy answers ...

6. 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.
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: 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.

As in #4, do not neglect to read on through the end of John 20 ...
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The verse clarifies the point that what we need for life through Jesus Christ is written.

We have no need to speculate as to what other things Jesus might have said or done. Certainly, as the texts say ... He said and did other things.

But what we need for life is written.

The bible is the inspired Word of God, written by the Holy Spirit by men of His chosing. It is the roadmap of God's truth being handed down to each succeeding generation. It becomes God's light and salvation when it is believed in the heart by faith and acted upon. Like the apostles, the Christians are to give themselves to the reading of the scriptures, for they are the revelation of God, a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path. The grace of God is only manifested through hearts that have been transformed by the Word and demonstrated through their life. The scriptures are to be a mirror of what Christ in me is supposed to look like, and for this reason, they are indispensable.

***Well, actually I do have to rely on extra-scriptural authority to tell me which books are in the Bible, but instead of admitting it, I'm going to distract your attention by loudly proclaiming my faith in Jesus."***

You are mistaken if you think that the Church of that day had the authority to decide what was and what was not scripture.

"The first occasion on which an ecclesiastical body made a pronouncement on the subject was the Synod of Hippo in AD 393, and that Synod did not confer upon the NT books any authority which they did not already posses, but rather ratified the general consensus of Christian people over the previous two or three centuries." - FF Bruce

He said it better than I could.

The Church, subject to the scriptures, acknowledged what had become universally accepted by the Christian world as the work of the Holy Spirit in writing of certain books. It did not confer authority on them. It recognized the authority they plainly had.

As an illustration, do you think that John the Baptist had the authority to decide who was the Christ? Was he able to choose who would be Christ and confer authority on him?

Surely not!

John pointed out the Christ because he saw the Holy Spirit resting on him. He recognized Jesus as the Christ, and proclaimed him as such.

In the same way the early fathers recognized the powerful and life-giving work of the Holy Spirit in certain writings. In essence, they say the dove resting on certain books. They made sure that this was the universally held opinion of the body of Christ in all lands. Then they publicly recognized them as the work of the Holy Spirit - just like John public recognized Jesus.

It is good of you to point that out, Harley.

It is also an opportunity for me to point out that the Catholic Church looks for several witnesses in this period who speak to us of what happened and how the Catholic Church gathered together the Sacred Scriptures. From those holy testimonies we understand how the Church Catholic brought together the Four Gospels, ruled out the false "gospels", considered the many letters floating about, dealt with the issue of much loved texts like Clement and Shepherd of Hermas (which were eventually left out), and came to include the Apocalypse (Revelation) after much debate across the Church. Then we have the context for understanding St. Augustine and any other commentary the Catholic Church and her Fathers have to make about the Council at Hippo.

So then we see that the Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God. Therefore, whatever they have as Scripture would be official canon. The Jewish Holy Scriptures (our OT) do not contain the Apocrypha, meaning it is not Scripture.

So you want to take the word of the folks who rejected Jesus, do you? These are the guys of whom St. John says, "You call yourselves Jews, but you are Jews who do lie."

Okay then Johnny, since you're taking their word for it, you'll have to throw out the New Testament.

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.