Posted on 03/15/2004 6:40:12 PM PST by narses
The "Bible Alone" is Not Enough
Answers to 25 Questions on the History of New Testament which completely refute the Protestants' "Bible Only" Theory.
ONE
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.
TWO
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.
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.
FOUR
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.
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.
SIX
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?
NINE
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.
TEN
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.
ELEVEN
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.
Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was 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.
TWELVE
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?
THIRTEEN
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.
FOURTEEN
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.
FIFTEEN
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.
SIXTEEN
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.)
SEVENTEEN
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.
EIGHTEEN
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.
NINETEEN
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.
TWENTY
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.
TWENTY-ONE
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.
TWENTY-TWO
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.
TWENTY-THREE
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.
TWENTY-FOUR
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.
TWENTY-FIVE
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.
Taken from The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible
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
Home • Audio Cassettes • CFN Index
You seem to refuse to acknowledge that the Church Fathers developed theology, and decided what is to be canonized based on their understanidng of the faith, which helped them establish orthodoxy and catholicity, as well as which of the written texts and gospels are to be canonized as the Bible based on unwritten, Sacred Tradition, the oral Teachings of Jesus Christ
So ... is it your claim that the scriptures are 'of men' or ... 'of God' ?
I think it’s a little disingenuous to say that you haven’t stated a position one way or another and then consistently argue against sola scriptura. I see on your bio that you’re a LDS so it is quite understandable why you would feel it is necessary to add to the Bible.
kosta
As far as your statement:
"That is completely inaccurate. Look up when the Bible was canonized and what major revisions and changes it underwent before it took the form you know of.
That's rubbish and nonsense. Today, thanks to the Internet, even the most novice student of the Bible can go back and look at the Greek and Hebrew text and the precise meaning of words. And with a good multiple search engine and a little salve' you can pull up just about any type of doctrine or theology, argument to and against, on just about any subject. (It amazing how many times Free Republic comes up.) The Catholic Church needs to update this 19th century argument.
pseudogratix bio has raised a curiosity in me as to who believes in sola scriptura and who don't. This has led me to compile the following list. This list is based upon those who either claim they don’t believe in sola scriptura or use other materials along with the Bible to supplement their doctrine.
For Sola Scriptura
Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Luthern, Episcopalian, (In short any mainline Protestant denomination.)
Against Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholic, LDS, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Islam
Rather interesting I thought.
Like what? Predestination? Consubstantiation? Baptism?
All your "meanstream" Reformed, the majority of whom are Lutheran, are but a third in number compared to those two major churches.
What 19th century argument?
"The mind must be enlarged to see the simple things... or even to see the self-evident things... it nevers seems to occur to the critic of the Church to do anything so simple as to compare what is Catholic with what is non-Catholic" GK Chesterton
That knowledge allowed the Church Fathers to distinguish genuine from heretical teachings, profane from inspired writing, acceptable worship and all the other practices and teachings of what constituted the Church, of which the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed the least externally and internally.
As far as I know, the OT was not reduced to writing until much later. God's revelations were kept in the Judaic oral tradition until that time.
"Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan who read it." 2 Kings 22:8
The Hebrew text was written down for ages. It was translated into Greek in about 200-400 BC for easy reading by the populace who by this time spoke Greek. However, because of the differences in language, some of the word meanings did not translate easily. (Like translating Greek to English.)
The quotes used by the apostles in the New Testament either used the Hebrew text, the Greek text, or as was common among Jewish scholars, quoted the Greek scriptures with commentary to add clarification to the text. That is why if you compare some of the NT quotes against OT quotes there is not always a one-for-one correspondence.
Protestants are agreed upon the essentials of their faith
Like what?
The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.
Such as these sustained the church for hundreds of years.
Predestination? Consubstantiation? Baptism?
What of any of these doctrines (excepting baptism), is essential ?
All Protestants baptize, in obedience to the command of Christ ... what more than this is needed ?
Scriptures states that God predestined the elect to salvation ... and that one must believe to be saved. What more is essential to this, other than believing the scriptures ?
Once again, in obedience to Christ, all Protestants celebrate the memorial of the Lord's Supper in the way that He prescribed that we celebrate it.
Scripture doesn't speak of Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation.
What in regard to these do you consider essential.
The New Testament is based on the spoken word of God Jesus Christ to the Apostles, some which -- but not all -- was written down and later canonized.
Amen ... and all that was needful for life in Christ was written (per John 20:31).
As far as I know, the OT was not reduced to writing until much later. God's revelations were kept in the Judaic oral tradition until that time.
Moses, Joshua, Josiah, Ezra, and Jesus all are recorded as reading publicly from the writings of the Old Testament.
The essential is this: Jesus Christ. All I want to know is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. That is it. If you have that, you are well to do. If you believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and rose on the third day, then you are my dear brother in Christ. No other qualification is necessary. Those who believe are the Church, the Body of Christ.
And ... this is the Protestant position.
No schism.
Thank-you, my brother.
Quester
Against Sola Scriptura Roman Catholic, LDS, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Islam
Another way you could look at it is that 75% of Christians reject Sola Scriptura. It's the minority position.
Another way to look at it is that Catholics and Orthodox Christians reject Sola Scriptura. The remaining 25% of self-identifying Christians which accept Sola Scriptura account for an additional 30,000 denominations. How does this doctrine conform with Jesus' desire that "they may be one"?
Another way to look at it is that the Apostles weren't "Bible Christians" because there was no New Testament after the Ascension! In fact the canon of the NT wasn't determined until around the year 400 A.D.
Jesus didn't command the Apostles to write the New Testament. The Great Commission is to "go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." If Jesus had commissioned a New Testament, why didn't the Apostles begin writing it immediately?
In fact, the Apostles were expecting Jesus' return in their lifetimes. After a couple of decades they realized that it would be wise to write down Jesus' life and sayings. The last book of the NT (Revelation) wasn't written until around 100 A.D., and the books of the NT (and OT) weren't agreed upon until several Church Councils around the year 400 A.D.
(Scientologists don't claim to be Christian and don't even acknowledge the Bible; Islam? Many of them seem to adhere tosola scripture, for the Koran, their holy book.
If Jesus had commissioned a New Testament, why didn't the Apostles begin writing it immediately?
Do you think that God commissioned the New Testament ?
If so ... why do you think that He did ?
Another way to look at it is that the Apostles weren't "Bible Christians" because there was no New Testament after the Ascension! In fact the canon of the NT wasn't determined until around the year 400 A.D.
Of course one must consider that the Apostles did have the Old Testament ... and, ultimately, wrote the New Testament.
I don't think that the determination of the canon would have mattered much to the Apostles (as to their doctrine) ... as they had been personally taught by Jesus for three years.
The weak use of both bible texts and logic will convince no one but those who are are already on Rome's band-wagon.
How people can have confidence in such an anciently (and contemporarily) demonstrably corrupt human institution I will never know. No wonder most followers are born into Rome's errors rather then being born-again into Christ's invisible Church.
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."
-- Martin Luther, 1521, at the Council of Worms, while facing the clear prospect of being burned to death by Roman Catholic authorities...
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.