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

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.

Yes ... but they are written now ... and canonized.

Your point seems to be that Paul admonished his hearers to not go beyond what was even a smaller selection of scripture than what we have today.

Do you think that Paul would admonish christians today to go beyond what God has given to us in the scriptures ?

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

Who would one such as Paul be talking to today ?

Does the majority of the world know of Holy Tradition today ?

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

Well, it is quite obvious that he was speaking to those who taught in the church (and thus, could read), ... such as Apollos and himself.

Do you believe that Paul would make some different admonition to christian teachers today ?

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.

What the Apostles knew of Jesus' teaching, that was not written, is what they passed on to their successors is not speculation, but Sacred/Holy Tradition of the Church.

There is no need for us to speculate about something that is well known, and has been since Day One (the Pentecost).

What John is saying is true, all of it -- that the Lord did and said more than is written and that John's Gospel was written so that people might (not will, or the only way they can) believe that Jesus is the Son of God (written in 97 AD).

The Sacred Tradition is, like the Bible, incorruptable and is not to be confused with human traditions.

The Nicene Creed was formulated on the basisc of the oral, unwritten, Sacred Tradition, not on the Christian Bible, which did not exist yet.

The Christian Bible was complied by accurately selecting the inspired against non-inspired, orthodox against heretic writings. Without knowing the unwirtten Truth, such selection would not have been possible.

The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, for instance, was rejected as heresy based on the correct and unwritten knowledge of the faith, and not through Scriptures, which did not come out for another two centuries.

Do you believe that Paul would make some different admonition to christian teachers today?

What Paul was teaching as correct faith was based on his knoweldge and understanidng of the Wisdom and the Truth, not all of which eventually ended up in the Bible.

What Paul was preaching is the Sacred or Holy Tradition. He did not have a Bible, yet he knew what was the correct faith, he already had an auhtoritative knowledge of what the faith should be, what the Lord's Supper represents, and so on.

His successors, the bishops of the Church continued to preach correct faith and idenitfy heresies without a Bible in their hands. The Councils of Bishops at Nicenae canonized the faith in the Creed that was based on the Sacred Tradition, the Wisdom, the Knowledge that our Lord gave his disciples and they to theirs. All that was done without the Bible.

Now that Church is established, now that we know what the True Faith is, the Bible containes sufficient Wisdom and Truth of God for us to know, but the fact that the Bible exists (which is the product of the Sacred Tradition) does not invalidate or eliminate or retire the Sacred Tradition, which remains unaltered.

Good try. You must not be aware that the Christian Scriptures did not exist when these doctrines were formulated (first two Ecumenical Councils).

You must mean that the christian scriptures had yet to be collected and canonized ... for they surely did exist and were circulated and used by the early church ... from the time that the Apostles wrote them.

... maybe you could quote those parts of the Scriptures that clearly define Trinity and the Dual Nature of Jesus Christ.

I'll give it a shot ...

As to Christ's pre-existence ...
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Add in His deity ...
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Hints, nothing even close to the doctrine of Trinity, no mention of the Holy Ghost or Divine economy of the hypostases. Just Paul assuring the deviant Mecedonians that Jesus is Lord.

Lack of understanding of the Dive economy, which is not in the Bible, was the leading cause of the Arain and Nestorian and Gnostic heresies.

Does the Bible explain why is Word generate of Father and why does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and not from the Son, but is manifested through the Word simultaneously? Of course it doesn't!

Paul was speaking from his personal knoweldge, which is part of the Apostolic Sacred Tradition. He knew what was not the correct way to interpret the faith, and what the correct faith was without the Bible.

You must mean that the christian scriptures had yet to be collected and canonized ... for they surely did exist and were circulated and used by the early church ... from the time that the Apostles wrote them.

No, that's not what I mean. There were plenty of "scriptures" ciruclating around, and the Church Fathers fought tooth and nail to eliminate the heretic ones form the orthodox ones. Without the knowledge of the true faith, such selection would have been impossible.

***the correct and unwritten knowledge of the faith, and not through Scriptures, which did not come out for another two centuries.***

This not correct.

What do you mean by the statement that... "Scriptures,... did not come out for another two centuries"?

Most all the NT material was circulating in, and being used by the Churches well before 150 AD

"At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were unites in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known originally as 'The Gospel' in the singular, not 'The Gospels' in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four records, distinguishes as 'according to Matthew', 'according to Mark', and so on. About AD 115 Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, refers to 'The Gospel' as an authoritative writing, and as he knew more than one of the four 'Gospels' it may well be that by 'The Gospel' sans phrase he means the fourfold collection which went by that name.

About AD 170 an Assyrian Christian names Tatian turned the fourfold Gospel into a continuous narrative or 'Harmony of the Gospels', which for long was the favourite if not the official form of the fourfold Gospel in the Assyrian Church. It was distinct from the four Gospels in the Old Syriac version.' It is not certain whether Tatian originally composed his Harmony, usually known as the Diatessaron, m Greek or in Syriac; but as it seems to have been compiled at Rome its original language was probably Greek, ant a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron in Greek was discovered m the year 1933 at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates. At any rate, it was given to the Assyrian Christians in a Syriac form when Tatian returned home from Rome, and this Syriac Diatessaron remained the 'Authorised Version' of the Gospels for them until it was replaced by the Peshitta or 'simple' version in the fifth century.

By the time of Irenaeus us, who, though a native of Asia Minor, was bishop of Lyons in Gaul about AD 180, the idea of a fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic in the Church at large that he can refer to it as an established and recognised fact as obvious as the four cardinal points of the compass or the four winds:

'For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, an d four universal winds, and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is' the pillar and base of the Church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter arid kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit."
F.F. Bruce

***The Nicene Creed was formulated on the basisc of the oral, unwritten, Sacred Tradition, not on the Christian Bible, which did not exist yet.***

Untrue again. (no disrespect meant)

You act as if there were no scriptures until the councils at Hippo Regius and Carthage "published" them in the late 4th century.

... maybe you could quote those parts of the Scriptures that clearly define Trinity and the Dual Nature of Jesus Christ.

What's left is the Personhood and the Deity of the Holy Spirit ...
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
... and the Unity of God ...
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Does the Bible explain why is Word generate of Father and why does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and not from the Son, but is manifested through the Word simultaneously? Of course it doesn't!

Is such knowledge necessary for salvation and subsequent life in Christ ?

My point is not that the scriptures contain all that there is to know of God, ... but that what the scriptures contain is enough for one's salvation and subsequent life in Christ.

There were plenty of "scriptures" ciruclating around, and the Church Fathers fought tooth and nail to eliminate the heretic ones form the orthodox ones. Without the knowledge of the true faith, such selection would have been impossible.

I do not disagree ... but, today, ... we have the canon of scripture ... and it is enough.

but the fact that the Bible exists (which is the product of the Sacred Tradition) does not invalidate or eliminate or retire the Sacred Tradition, which remains unaltered.

You left this part out. The Bible may be enough for an average Joe, but not for doctrinal understanding of faith, which is still derived from the Holy Tradition, as was the Nicene Creed and the Natures of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible does not make the claim that it is self sufficient. The Bible does not explain how to worship. The Bible is not a Catechism, nor does it contain comprehensive doctrinal material. If all the answers are in the Bible, one would think all the disputes could have easily been put to rest. Take, for instance the concept of consubstantiation versus transubstantiation/alteration. Not in the Bible. Paul touches upon the traditions of men and urges Thessalonians to hold on to them (II Thes 2:15) -- the word used is paradosis and that is tradition, something handed down, most scholars agree. He also mentions Christian traditions (1 Cor 11:2). The Church became the "pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Tim 3:15)

What was taught by the Apostles was based on the Sacred Truth handed to them by our Lord Jesus Christ's living word, the Holy Tradition of the Church. The practices and teachings that were acceptable to the Church Fathers, the doctrinal creeds based on that Tradition are pillars of the faith and the basis for the Bible, which is an inseparable product of the Sacred Tradition.

My point is not that the scriptures contain all that there is to know of God, ... but that what the scriptures contain is enough for one's salvation and subsequent life in Christ

This is where the Orthodox disagree with the Protestants. We will say that we don't really know what is needed for one's salvation. From the Tradition and the Bible, we do know that one is to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. After that, our faiths diverge. The protestants feel that they are saved while on earth. We believe that we might be saved after we leave this place.

I do not disagree ... but, today, ... we have the canon of scripture ... and it is enough.

The Bible must be interpreted in conjuction with the Christian theology which is dervied from the Sacred Tradition.

The Bible may be enough for an average Joe, ... but not for doctrinal understanding of faith, which is still derived from the Holy Tradition, as was the Nicene Creed and the Natures of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is as acceptable a statement of this type as I've seen.

The Bible does not explain how to worship.

I'd beg to differ.
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Take, for instance the concept of consubstantiation versus transubstantiation/alteration. Not in the Bible.

And what has inordinate focus on such an item as this done for the church, ... apart from being the cause of much wrangling ?

My point is not that the scriptures contain all that there is to know of God, ... but that what the scriptures contain is enough for one's salvation and subsequent life in Christ

This is where the Orthodox disagree with the Protestants. We will say that we don't really know what is needed for one's salvation. From the Tradition and the Bible, we do know that one is to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. After that, our faiths diverge. The protestants feel that they are saved while on earth. We believe that we might be saved after we leave this place.

Do you doubt the testimony of John (the beloved) Apostle ?
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

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.