The "Bible Alone" is Not Enough

Catholic Family News ^ | July 1995

[Thoramir]

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

If the Catholic Church ever displayed this type of humble leadership, ... many more might be inclined to follow."

Pssst! I've got a little secret for you. Catholics do this, literally. I've been a Catholic for a short two years and have literally washed someone else's feet twice, and once had my feet washed by a priest. It's a tradition that has been practiced by all levels of church leaders, including Popes. There are plenty of humble leaders in the Catholic Church, anyone who would say otherwise hasn't looked. Unfortunately, not all of them are, authority is abused by some, too many, in fact. But until all protestant leaders are humble, it's rediculous to make accusation of that kind against Catholics.

[Quester]

Pssst! I've got a little secret for you. Catholics do this, literally. I've been a Catholic for a short two years and have literally washed someone else's feet twice, and once had my feet washed by a priest. It's a tradition that has been practiced by all levels of church leaders, including Popes. There are plenty of humble leaders in the Catholic Church, anyone who would say otherwise hasn't looked. Unfortunately, not all of them are, authority is abused by some, too many, in fact. But until all protestant leaders are humble, it's rediculous to make accusation of that kind against Catholics.

You need to let the secret out ... this is not what the rest of the world sees in Catholic leadership.

[RnMomof7]

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.

I believe on doctrine you are correct.But we must keep in mind that Catholics get "good time" (indulgences ) for reading the bible .
That would encourage me if I believed in Purgatory .

"An indulgence of 3 years is granted to all the faithful who read Holy Scripture at least a quarter hour with the veneration due to the divine word and as a spiritual reading "
Enchiridion Indulgentiarum 694

It is my thought that most Bible believing protestants have already paid all their due (if there would be a purgatory) .

So we stand on good ground :>)

[irishtenor]

Not fair, you used the book! :>)

[irishtenor]

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

Excuse me? He was talking to the Church in Corinth, not some hodge-podge of non-professing pagans. Who is the letter addressed to?

[irishtenor]

***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. ***

When was the last time you read Hebrews? 1:3 - The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being... 2:14 - Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity...

Also - Matthew 28:19 ...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

[findingtruth]

Me: 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.

You: You don't like my illustration? Ok. I think it's a good one. How about this... Did the Church confer authority on the OT? Or was it already the authoritative Word of God?

You still are dodging my question. Can't you give a straight answer? As your crawfishing demonstrates, you are caught in an inconsistency. You loudly trumpet your devotion the "Bible alone" dogma but in fact you rely on extra-scriptural authority. Without the authority of the Church, or perhaps some other authority you haven't told us about, you would not know which books belong in the Bible and which ones don't.

Followers of Jesus, who is Truth himself, should be able to give reason for their beliefs, rather than being embarassed by logical inconsistencies.

[findingtruth]

Me: Fact is, you have to some authority other than scripture to tell you which books are inspired and which books are not.

You: Yes, indeed ... and we have one ... God.

Well, well! If you've had some special revelation from God on this matter, you should share it with us. Pray tell us.

[pseudogratix]

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

Surely a person can attempt to argue that very point. All you have done in doing so, however, is underscore my assertion that it is an unbiblical stance to do so.

Also, you need to consider that even if it could somehow be indisputably shown that God intended the Bible as we have it today to be the end all of that volume of scripture, that doesn't necessary imply that God has not or will not create other volumes of scripture.

pseudogratix @ In Him All Things Hold Together

[findingtruth]

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

Excellent point! ...and idle speculation.

Jesus is truth. Followers of Jesus seek truth. Consequently, they become interested in distinguishing true doctrine from false.

[kosta50]

Who is the letter addressed to

Obviously to people who had no idea what they were doing. The Letters of Paul were sent to churches that needed "correction" of their course. It is clear that the Corinthians were following (believeing?) everyone but Jesus.

[Romulus]

II Timothy 3:16 provides all the proof I need.

Ha, ha, ha; isn't that funny? For a minute, I thought you said 1 Timothy 3:15.

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Silly me.

[cpprfld]

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.

So, this guy is saying that people should be ignorant about what is in the bible, and trust what other people tell them is in the bible. I am sorry but I could never live my life in ignorance.

[irishtenor]

***It is clear that the Corinthians were following (believeing?) everyone but Jesus.***

No, it is not clear. Paul addresses them as "Sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy..." They were believers, but like man everywhere, even in the church, error creeps in and tries to take over. That is why the scriptures are so important. Check everything by the scriptures of God.

[cpprfld]

Or is this guy saying that we should ignore the bible, because it isn't the true word of god, and that we should lead our lives in what ever sinful pursuits that we want.

Personally, I will continue to pursue knowledge whether it be human, spiritual, or worldly knowledge. Because, I feel that knowledge makes me a better person, in that I am able to adapt to the situations that I face in my life every day. So, I will continue to read and study my bible, and if you think that I am going to go to hell because of it, well to bad. Because I really don't care, what you think of my Protestant beliefs.

[HarleyD]

I'm afraid I don't see how the early church fathers' action of closing off the Bible is unbiblical. There were numerous heretical documents floating around and, as Augustine writes, they wanted to ensure the genuine documents could be distinguished from the false.

Also, some individuals were asserting their documents were inspired although written hundreds of years later. Augustine mentions the inspiration of future insertions is questionable the farther out in time you move. Thus many writings were rejected because, at that time, they were too new.

While Augustine's and the other early church fathers writings are not inspired, these were wise and godly men who took great care and sacrificed much to record and preserve the thought, history and record of the early church. And although at times they had their differing points of doctrinal views, the church fathers were unanimous on compiling and closing the Bible just as the Jews closed the writings of the Old Testament.

The church fathers were subjected to all the frailties of men and their works must be read with a discerning eye. But I’d hesitate to say they're action of closing off the Bible to which they all agreed was unbiblical.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***If you really think the Bible tells you which books belong in it, you need to point out where it gives you the list.***

1. I haven't claimed that the Bible gives a list of the books in the Bible.

2. A definition (as opposed to a caricature) of "Sola Scriptura" would benefit our discussion. For our purposes lets use this definition:

Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. Scripture is infallible, sufficient, and clear in all it's major doctrines.


***Can't you give a straight answer?***

You are a very zealous person and that is an commendable thing in the lukewarm days in which we find ourselves. But just because I'm not giving you the answer that you want doesn't mean I'm not giving you answers.

I hope you do not perceive my comments as a personal attack on you. They are not intended to be so. I am enjoying our conversation as it is (hopefully) causing us to examine the grounds of our faith.

What I am doing is giving you principles from the scripture that cast a different light than you may be use to on the subject we are discussing. You are claiming sacred tradition gives the scriptures their authority. I am claiming that the scriptures and authoritative intrinsically and that the Church recognizes that intrinsic authority. The issue, of course, is authority.


***should be able to give reason for their beliefs, rather than being embarrassed by logical inconsistencies.***


Let me restate the principles regarding authority I have used so far (and I have many more) in case I haven't been clear.

The example of John the Baptist and Jesus illustrates the principle that community of the faithful (i.e. church) can RECOGNIZE the direct intervention of God in the world (i.e. in the life of Jesus or in the Holy Spirit's work in men to produce the God-breathed scriptures) but they do not have AUTHORITY OVER Gods direct intervention.

The example of the Old Testament is that the books of the Old Testament were recognized by Jesus and even by the OT authors themselves to be the Word of God BEFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTED. Therefore to claim that only the Catholic Church can decide what is and what isn't scripture is shown to be false. This illustrates that there is a large body of scripture that is out from under the requirements of being recognized by the Catholic Church as scripture. The people who recognize this body of scripture as the Word of God are people that the Catholic Church recognizes as authorities (Jesus, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah etc..) and therefore the Catholic Church can not disagree with their opinion - but can only recognize it.



Here is another one for you to consider. You claim that sacred tradition is true, inspired and authoritative. On what extra-scriptural authority do you basis your belief in the legitimacy of sacred tradition?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***...Consequently, they become interested in distinguishing true doctrine from false.***

True indeed! But they can also fall prey to unprofitable hair-splitting and dithering over issues upon which the scripture is silent.


"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut 29

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Yes, there was scripture, but not the New Testament scripture***

Here is the basic argument as I have stated it elsewhere;

The example of the Old Testament is that the books of the Old Testament were recognized by Jesus and even by the OT authors themselves to be the Word of God BEFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTED. Therefore to claim that only the Catholic Church can decide what is and what isn't scripture is shown to be false. This illustrates that there is a large body of scripture that is out from under the requirements of being recognized by the Catholic Church as scripture. The people who recognize this body of scripture as the Word of God are people that the Catholic Church recognizes as (inspired and inerrant) authorities (Jesus, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah etc..) and therefore the Catholic Church can not disagree with their opinion - but can only recognize it.

[kosta50]

Paul addresses them as "Sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy..."

Yeah, and he also says:

"Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it." (I Cor 3:1-2)

Clearly, they were not sophisticated, educated or wise, albeit they may have been "Sanctified in Christ Jesus." As to their beliefs and followings, Paul says:

"For when one says, 'I follow Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not mere men?" (I Cor 3:4)