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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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:

"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."

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.

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.

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.