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

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?

Bob and weave. Fact is, you have to some authority other than scripture to tell you which books are inspired and which books are not. Thereby you violate your own principle of "Bible alone." Rather than admit your inconsistency, you dodge and crawfish. This behavior is not becoming to someone who loudly trumpets his belief in Jesus.

If you really think the Bible tells you which books belong in it, you need to point out where it gives you the list. Otherwise, you need to acknowledge your reliance on extra-scriptural authority, and drop your "Bible alone" posturing.

***I would be the child who never left***

Interesting, I've often heard that the one of the points of the parable is that the older brother also left the father. He may have been physically near the father but his heart was far from him...

***But I was Baptized, the Spiritual Birth, when I was three weeks old***

Do you think everyone who is baptized as an infant is born again?

***F.F. Bruce wasn't there***

And I can think of at least two other people whe weren't there either. (You and I! :0 )

***and his conjectures are convenient,***

I wouldn't dismiss Mr. Bruce so quickly.

As you may know, he was, arguably, one of, if not the, finest Christian scholars of the 20th century - world renown as a classical Greek scholar and author of numerous Biblical textbooks. He easily stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest Biblical exegetes of his age. His opinions are not mere trifles or conjectures.

You would be hard pressed to find a more even-handed and balanced opinion that Bruce's. Now he's definitley not coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, but you wouldn't let that sway your opinion of him, would you?

***..but they are not Rock... built on sand***

You know, the disciple were alway clamoring over "who will be the greatest?", "who will have the highest throne?" and when it's all said and done, isn't that what this authority thing is all about - it's just the same old thing! Who's on top.

Meanwhile, Jesus gets down on his knees and washes feet.

Sola Scriptura is, in my opinion, niave at best. One has to be naive to beieve that the NT contains everything Jesus taught.

Sola Sriptura, it seems to me, implies that the teachings of our Lorid Jesus Christ which were not written down are somehow "less divine" or "uninspired." It would follow that only that which Jesus spoke as inspired was worth recording. I would venture to say that everything Jesus said and taught was equally divine and inspired.

Sola Scriptura cannot explain how did Fathers of the Church come to realize intricate Trinitarian doctrine, or the Dual Nature of our Lord Jesus Chirst, since neither was the Bible around when this happened, nor is it in any way conveyed in the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is wrong because the very pillars of our faith, Trinity and Dual Nature of the Christ are not in the Bible and, if Sola Scriptura were the norm, such pillars would, by implication by profane and not inspired.

Sola Scriptura is in error because without the Holy Tradition there would be no Bible, because the Bible is a product of the Christian theology that came from the Holy Tradition, which allowed the Fathers of the Church to distinguish inspired from profane, truth from heresy, orthodoxy from heterodoxy, etc., in other words: the normas that made selection the of NT documents possible and thus created the Chirstian Bible itself.

Sola Scriptura denies, it seems to me, that which was perfectly acceptable to the Holy Fathers and the Church for 1,500 years. Sola Scriptura, seems to me, confuses Holy Tradition with the human tradition.

I would like to add that there is nothing in the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today (regardless of the version) that asserts that the Bible is the end all of scripture. For some reason, many believers automatically seem to assume that scripture and Bible are interchangeable terms, but there is nothing in the scripture contained in the Bible as we have it today that asserts anything about the volume of writings known today as The Bible --- let alone the idea that the Bible is the all of scripture or the idea that the Bible is the end of scripture. Technically and ironically speaking, any such assertions about the Bible are unbiblical (not found in the Bible).

As to the issue of whether any amount of scripture could ever be enough, I think that this is the wrong question to be asking if we are sincerely striving to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord, deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Christ. As I see it, the sincere disciple of Christ is eager to go deeper and deeper in his understanding and is continually open to greater enlightenment and understanding. His guide is the Holy Spirit, which convicts of truth wherever it may be found. The sincere disciple never turns to his master and says, "That's enough scripture for me, thank you." Yes, we have plenty of scripture available in just the Bible as we have it today. Perhaps more than anyone could hope to master in a lifetime. However, the inherent danger in assuming it is enough, is to potentially fall into the same trap that those who didn't accept Christ during His time fell into. It would not surprise me to find that many of them were more than satisfied with the amount of scripture they had at that time as well.

pseudogratix @ In Him All Things Hold Together

The sincere disciple never turns to his master and says, "That's enough scripture for me, thank you." Yes, we have plenty of scripture available in just the Bible as we have it today. Perhaps more than anyone could hope to master in a lifetime. However, the inherent danger in assuming it is enough, is to potentially fall into the same trap that those who didn't accept Christ during His time fell into. It would not surprise me to find that many of them were more than satisfied with the amount of scripture they had at that time as well.

When you run across 'more scripture', ... be sure to let the rest of us know.

Or ... do you advocate that God has already presented us with 'more scripture' ... as in ... 'The Book of Mormon' ?

Sola Scriptura is, in my opinion, niave at best. One has to be naive to beieve that the NT contains everything Jesus taught.

Sola Sriptura, it seems to me, implies that the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ which were not written down are somehow "less divine" or "uninspired." It would follow that only that which Jesus spoke as inspired was worth recording. I would venture to say that everything Jesus said and taught was equally divine and inspired.

Of course Jesus said and did things other than that which is recorded.

John, the Apostle, explicitly tells us so ...
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.
But 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.
This verse (which acknowledges that Jesus said and did other things) also clearly presents 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.

You may want to read Augustine and the early church fathers. They were afraid because of all the Gnostic writings which was prevalent at the time the true manuscripts would become corrupted. They felt the writings were inspired and anything else was suspect. It was then they selected the books which would make up the Bible and stated that no more writings should be added. The Septuagint was added as an appendix because of disagreements as to its inspiration-not historical-information.

To assert the Bible is the end of all scripture was precisely the intent of the early church fathers.

Sola Scriptura cannot explain how did Fathers of the Church come to realize intricate Trinitarian doctrine, or the Dual Nature of our Lord Jesus Chirst, since neither was the Bible around when this happened, nor is it in any way conveyed in the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is wrong because the very pillars of our faith, Trinity and Dual Nature of the Christ are not in the Bible and, if Sola Scriptura were the norm, such pillars would, by implication by profane and not inspired.

Of course the scriptures present the doctrines you speak of. When one studies the scriptures in depth such doctrines are clearly shown to be evident.

How much (what percentage) of scripture do you claim to have studied to arrive at the conclusions you do ?

Sola Scriptura is in error because without the Holy Tradition there would be no Bible, because the Bible is a product of the Christian theology that came from the Holy Tradition, which allowed the Fathers of the Church to distinguish inspired from profane, truth from heresy, orthodoxy from heterodoxy, etc., in other words: the normas that made selection the of NT documents possible and thus created the Chirstian Bible itself.

The Bible is the product of the collection of the writings left by the Apostles which the church had already accepted as foundational.

I noticed that very few Catholics (certainly not some of the ones here) are posting on the thread of indulgences within the Catholic Church. Since you feel the Church is infallible and the Bible can only be interpreted by the Church perhaps you could enlighten me about Pope Leo's practice of selling indulgences for money. As I'm sure you're well aware, buying souls from purgatory and taxing people was instituted by Pope Leo under "divine inspriation" to pay for the Vatican. It was also what led to the Reformation. One hundred years later the RCC admitted the practice was wrong and the practice of buying souls from purgatory was abolished.

What I like to know how could an infallible church make a wrong decision?

Since you feel the Church is infallible and the Bible can only be interpreted by the Church perhaps you could enlighten me about Pope Leo's practice of selling indulgences for money.

In addition, look at what the church did to men like William Tyndale. He was branded a heretic and executed for daring to translate the New Testament into English. Worse, he tried to distribute it. If the "Bible alone" is not sufficient, why would men like Tyndale give up their lives for its preservation? Why would the Roman Catholic Church bother trying to silence them?

The Reformation is one of the best examples of the importance of the written Word. It was when laymen began turning to scripture that the papists slowly began to lose their tyrannical stranglehold on the people.

Yes, and the common RC response is, "But The Church {tm} encourages us to read the Bible!"

To which the response is that indeed it does — AND it throughtfully tells you what you are and are not permitted to see in it.

IF you should see something other than what The Church {tm} says is there (i.e. salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the sufficiency of Scripture, the superiority of Scripture to tradition, etc.), then it's a choice: The Pope, or your lying eyes.

In my experience, RC's pick The Pope every time.

Dan

Finally, Paul admonishes us not to go beyond what is written to avoid just such wranglings as this

This is soooo out of context. Paul, of course, was not talking about the Chirstian Bible, but of the Jewish Bible. There was no Christian Bible for another 350 years after Paul. The Gosples weren't evebn written yet.

He was talking to well-to-do pagan Greeks and possibly Jews. What would they know of Holy Tradition?

Besides, most of the poeple then were illiterate and books were not owned by an average Joe.

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.