The "Bible Alone" is Not Enough

Catholic Family News ^ | July 1995

[HarleyD]

Hmmm…interesting.

I believe you’re correct on Scientology which does not appear to use the Bible at all. I should verify my understanding of these religions before posting.

On Islam, according to http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm

Islam Teaches: One of the 5 tenets to which Muslims must adhere is a belief in the 4 inspired books - the Torah (5 books of Moses), Zabur (the psalms), lnjil (the gospel), and Koran. The Christian Scriptures are incomplete without the Koran. In addition to the Koran, Muslims look to the Sunna (sayings of Muhammad), for inspiration. This collection is called the Hadith.

So I guess I was correct on this. (whew!) :O)

As far as the Orthodox Church goes this gets a little more dicey and judging by the definition I found at http://www.apologeticsindex.org/o06.html I’m not sure which column to place them in.

Orthodox Christianity: Generically the term orthodox refers to traditional, conservative forms of Christianity, upholding the traditional Christian beliefs about God as a Trinity and about Jesus Christ as taught in the church's early creeds. In this sense orthodox Christianity includes conservative Roman Catholics, and Protestant, evangelical Christianity, and is opposed both to liberal Christianity within Christian denominations and to the teachings of the cults. More specifically, the term Orthodox (with a capital O; or, Eastern Orthodox) refers to the state churches of Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean who split with Roman Catholicism of the West largely over the issue of papal authority.

But if they wish to be put on the side with Against Sola Scriptura. I guess an updated list would be

For Sola Scriptura

Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Luthern, Episcopalian, (In short any mainline Protestant denomination.)

Against Sola Scriptura

Roman Catholic, LDS, Jehovah Witness, Orthodox, Islam

As for numbers, well consider the following:

Please note that Christianity includes Catholics, Protestants, and cults. An excerpt from some of the statistical analysis:

Many Muslims (and some non-Muslim) observers claim that there are more practicing Muslims than practicing Christians in the world. Adherents.com has no reason to dispute this. It seems likely, but we would point out that there are different opinions on the matter, and a Muslim may define "practicing" differently than a Christian.

Size doesn’t make it right.

[HarleyD]

That last reference should be:

www.adherents.com

[nickcarraway]

So I guess I was correct on this.

I don't think so. To them the Koran is part of the Bible.

[kosta50]

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.

That sounds very warm and fuzzy, my friend, but that's not what the Apostles and the Church Fathers thought. There were many "Christians" who thought of Jesus as no more than a "rabbi," or narcissistic "Christians" of the Thomasian gnostic brand, or the Arian pagans, or the Nestorians who denied that Jesus is God.

Believeing in God without knowing what you believe in is not a faith. I would venture to say that the Apostles adn the Church Fathers had a pretty good idea of what Jesus taught and what the Church is.

One thing is certain -- it's not what everyone wants it to be.

[kosta50]

The Hebrew Bible was written about 550 BC. The Jews believed, on and off, in God and knew of God's laws and the laws of Moses for at least 1,500 years prior.

[kosta50]

Such as these sustained the church for hundreds of years

More like 1,800 years.

The so-called Protestant churches reject the Church, its teachings, its worship and its Sacred Tradition, that was acceptable and organized by the Fathers of the Church, as well as their theology.

In other words, the Protestants have "created" Christianity in the 16th century. Everything before that was something else.

Consubstantiation is something practiced by Lutherans. How can that be? Something that's not Scriptural is practiced by Protestants?

[kosta50]

Don't bother your pretty little heads with studying God's word, the church will tell you what to think

Well, then, what are all those Bible-babbling preachers doing telling audiences what the Bible says if all one has to do is read the Bible?

I thought sola scriptura was supposed to let every Christian personally decide what the Bible says, provided of course that they can read, comprehend, have a sufficient command of the language, have resources for comparitive study, are willing to take the time to read, and so on.

None of which is either true or practical -- so what do Protestants do? They tell their parishoners what to think!" while doing a little entertaining while they are at it.

[HarleyD]

King Josiah reign in around 641BC so it must have been written well before this time to have been sealed in the temple.

[kosta50]

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 Apostles died before the end of the 1st century CE. The Church had the gospels, some of which were heresy (i.e. Thomas's), others didn't write down a single word Jesus taught them. The copies of the gospels were spread out and were not available to the vast majority of Christians but to a select churches that were far apart.

More importantly, the knowledge of faith that was mostly by word of mouth before or if it was reduced to writing was crucial in selecting that which was heretic and which was profane, against that which was truly Inspired. Neither the Apostles nor the Church Fathers had a Bible to check everything else against. The Bible is a product, and not the source of the Sacred Tradition.

The faith was taught by word of mouth for many centuries because mass-production of books was not around until the 15th century, and believers did not have their own personal copy of a Bible for another few hundred years.

For the most part of Christian history, an average Christian did not have a Bible to tote to church and study from. That fact in itself proves that sola scriptura could not have been God's plan, which is why Jesus established the Church as the guardian and authority on faith.

The Church, collectively knows more, contains more and has more wisdom than any one individual Christian. It doesn't tell you how to think or what to think -- it tells you what the Church knows. The rest is up to you. But without the Church, as was established by the Apostles, there would surely be no Christianity today.

[kosta50]

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

You find this something worth quoting? By that maxim we should reject anything human, for it surely has been contradcited. But, this quote does show, however, that Luthers was a more skillful speaker than a thinker.

By the way, Luther also rejected Apostles like James because James didn't fit into his preconceived notion of what Scriptures should say.

[kosta50]

Moses, Joshua, Josiah, Ezra, and Jesus all are recorded as reading publicly

Recorded by whom, when and where?

[kosta50]

Protestants are a fairly homogenious body

20,000-PLUS "denominations" is "homogenius?" Either the word "homogenious" is menaingless to you or the "denomination" is a matter of choice, like a private club.

[pseudogratix]

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 haven't really argued against whether true Christianity is to consist in relying on only scripture or not. I have merely pointed out that there is nothing in the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today that supports the position of relying only on the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today. Yes, you may or may not find support for the position of relying only on the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today if you go outside the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today. However, in the act of doing so you are simply underscoring my original assertion.

pseudogratix @ In Him All Things Hold Together

[kosta50]

Judaism is based on written and oral tradition; the latter having been reduced to writing only of late (relatively speaking).

This is what Wikipedia ancyclopedia says about it:

"Rabbinical Judaism holds that the Torah has been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. Jews point to the text of the Torah, where many words are left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions; the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other, oral, sources.

"This parallel set of material was originally trnasmitted orally, and came to be known as the oral law. At the time, it was forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law, as any writing would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation and abuse.

"However, after great debate, this restriction was lifted when it became apparent that it was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved. To prevent the material from being lost, around 200 CE, Judah HaNasi took up the redaction of oral law; it was compiled into the first written work of rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah.

"Over the next four centuries this body of law, legend, ethical teachings and argumentation underwent debate in both of the world's major Jewish communities (in Israel and Babylon). The commentaries on the Mishnah from both of these communities eventually came to be edited together into compilations known as the Talmud.

"Most Jews follow the traditional explication of these laws that can be found in this later literature. Karaites, who reject the oral law [I guess these are your Jewish "Protestants"], and adhere solely to the laws of the Torah, are a major exception."

[don-o]

One of my favorites. Let me bump it, so I will read it later. Love to watch dogs chasing their own tail.

Usually, it degenerates to flame. Maybe this will be different.

[GirlShortstop]

**Another way you could look at it is that 75% of Christians reject Sola Scriptura. It's the minority position.**

The Bible is a product, and not the source of the Sacred Tradition....

For the most part of Christian history, an average Christian did not have a Bible to tote to church and study from. That fact in itself proves that sola scriptura could not have been God's plan, which is why Jesus established the Church as the guardian and authority on faith.

Thank you FRiends for your contributions.  Pax et Bonum.

[kosta50]

and all that was needful for life in Christ was written (per John 20:31).

Could you please show me where does it say in John that that was all that was needful (i.e. essential, requisite), so that we may believe in Him?

It seems to me you are adding words to John and the Gospels that are not there.

Jn 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believeing ye might have a life through His name." (KJV)

There is no "all" and there is no "needful," nor "essential" etc. just a maybe.

In other words, you are reading and quoting that which is not there, and then you are drawing conclusions on that which is not there.

[Quester]

In other words, the Protestants have "created" Christianity in the 16th century. Everything before that was something else.

More like ... Catholics and their soon-to-be schismed Orthodox brethren began recreating Christianity in their own image long before that.

What the Protestants did in the 1600's was to go back to the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

Consubstantiation is something practiced by Lutherans. How can that be? Something that's not Scriptural is practiced by Protestants?

Consubstantiation is not an essential teaching (in that it dosn't divide Lutherans from their brother Protestants).

[Quester]

I would venture to say that the Apostles adn the Church Fathers had a pretty good idea of what Jesus taught and what the Church is.

I would venture to say that the Apostles had a very good idea of what Jesus taught ... seeing as He taught them.

I would also venture to say that God inspired the written record of the essentials of what Jesus taught, ... as He had done, similarly, with regard to the Jews for centuries before.

[findingtruth]

When bereft of anything more of substance to convey, ... many turn to ridicule.

Okay, I'll admit I was holding Pastor Billy Bob up to ridicule, but I'll at least say this for the Pastor: mistaken though he may be, intolerant and bigoted though he may be, he at least believes truth is important. That being the case, he is far closer to Jesus than all those, "Believe in Jesus and everything is fine," indifferentists we have floating around here. You know, the ones who say that belief in some "essential" doctrines is all that matters, and never mind anything else. Nobody who cares about truth will have any use for such theology.