Radio Replies First Volume - "Bible Only" a false principle

Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[GonzoII]

"Bible Only" a false principle

565. The Gospel of Christ is simplicity itself.

In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations. It is very simple from this point of view, for men have but to accept the Catholic Church, and be taught by that Church.

But the Gospel is not simplicity itself in the way you intend. Men have devoted their lives to the study of the Gospels, preparing themselves for the task by profound research in the Hebrew, Syrian, Arabic, Greek, and Latin languages. And even then, many passages are most difficult to understand.

566. But at least the plan of salvation can be understood by the simplest person. We Protestants even tell our children to read their Bibles in order to discern it.

According to the findings of your simple readers there must be hundreds of conflicting plans of salvation, all revealed by the one Christ! As for the capacity of your children, you might as well give them the article in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica on Spectroscopic Analysis as the subject matter of their studies. But the Bible itself is against your theory. Thus St. Peter says that in Scripture there are certain things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet 3:16. To his mind the private interpretation of Scripture can be most dangerous.

567. God has given us brains to think for ourselves. We do not need Help to understand Scripture.

God had given men brains before He came to teach them Himself, and He came to teach them precisely because their brains could not succeed in finding out the things which were to their peace. If you say that His revealed teachings in the Scriptures together with our brains are enough, those very revealed teachings tell you that they are not. Even in the Old Law God said, "The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Mal 2:7. In the New Law Christ sent His Church to teach men, transferring to His Church that authority of God once possessed by the Priests of the Old Law. In the New Testament itself we find Philip the Deacon saying to the Ethiopian, who was reading the Scriptures, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" and the Ethiopian replying, "And how can I unless some man show me?" Acts 8:30. St. Peter, too, explicitly refutes your ideas. "No prophecy of Scripture," he writes, "is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1:20.

568. St. Peter means that the Prophets did not prophesy by their own will, but by the Holy Spirit. He does not refer to interpretation by us.

Your own Protestant Bishop Ellicott says of these verses, "The words private interpretation might seem to mean that the sacred writers did not get their prophecies by private interpretation, but by divine inspiration. But this is certainly not the meaning. The real meaning is that the reader must not presume to interpret privately that which is far more than ordinary human thought."

569. Any man who can think has the moral right to interpret anything.

He has not. The very laws of the state are not subject to the interpretation of each and every citizen. There is such a thing as thinking erroneously. In difficulties of civil law a man consults a lawyer who knows legal practice and parallel statutes. Who gives you the right to take greater liberties with divine legislation? A man who knows nothing of Hebrew or Greek, and is quite untrained in Scriptural exegesis, would misapprehend the sense of Scripture in hundreds of places.

570. Did not Christ promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth?

He did not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who read Scripture sincerely should come to the same conclusion. But they do not. The frightful chaos as to the meaning of Scripture is proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this way of leading men to the truth. It is blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit does not know His own mind, and that He deliberately leads men into contradictory notions. Christ promised to preserve His Church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the only Church which shows signs of having been preserved is the consistent Catholic Church. The individual is guided by the Holy Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but in the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be guided by the Catholic Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.

571. I don't see the need of learning to understand a simple story for simple people.

The Bible is not a simple story for simple people. We live thousands of years after the Bible was written, and our language and customs are very different now. No book written at one age is easy for another age. The study of antiquities demands a knowledge of primitive languages of which few are capable, and for which still fewer have the time. Anyway God never intended the Bible to be the sole guide to religion for all time. Christ taught orally and with authority, and He sent His Church to teach in the same way and with the same authority.

572. Hoiv does it help to know Hebrew or Greek?

Because one must know what the original words meant in the language in which Scripture was written. A knowledge of Hebrew and Greek soon shows that the translators do not always find an English word to express the exact sense of the original. God inspired the thoughts of the original writers, not the work of the translators. And if you read a sense into Scripture which God did not intend at all, you no longer have God's Word.

573. Christ chose poor fishermen, not learned men.

He trained them personally, and infused into their minds an exact knowledge of His doctrine. We cannot claim to have received a similar revelation, that we should rank ourselves with them.

574. Then Catholics have to believe just what the Priest likes to tell them?

The Priest cannot tell the people just what he likes. He is obliged to teach just what Christ taught, and which has been taught him in the Name of Christ by the infallible Catholic Church.

575. Is your Church afraid that people will form opinions for themselves?

If we consider some of the opinions people have formed for themselves from their private reading of Scripture there is need to be afraid. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church. Protestants have a peculiar method of their own, but you cannot blame the Catholic Church for not using the Protestant method, a method which has led to nothing but uncertainty and widespread unbelief.

576. Admitting the necessity of guidance, are not our Protestant ministers as capable as Catholic Priests in telling us what Scripture means?

They might be, if Priests had not an infallible Catholic Church to guide them. The Catholic Church rejoices in the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, and the Priest has the help of her defined doctrines and the constant Catholic tradition as a safeguard. But your Protestant ministers do not claim to be spokesmen of an infallible Church. On their own principles they have to admit that they are possibly wrong. And as a matter of fact, where all Priests are agreed in the essential teachings of Scripture, your ministers come to all kinds of contradictory conclusions. The unity of teaching among Catholic Priests is a greater indication of capability than the chaos which prevails outside the Catholic Church. But the capability of Catholic Priests has little to do with relative personal attainments. It is derived from the authority of the infallible Catholic Church.

577. You speak of the authority of the Church and the weight of tradition. But I have been taught that Scripture is the only rule of faith.

You have been taught wrongly. Scripture itself denies that it is the only rule of faith. The last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning Our Lord's work is contained in Scripture. St. Paul tells us over and over again that much of Christian teaching is to be found in tradition. One who clings to the reading of the Bible only might be able to cite hundreds of texts yet not know Christian doctrine by any means. In fact, the adoption of the Bible only has led to as many opinions as there are men amongst non-Catholics. Finally, Scripture tells us most clearly that the Catholic Church is the rule of faith, that Church which Christ sent to teach all nations and which He commanded men to hear and obey. He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself.

578. Is not the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?

No. The Catholic Church was built by Christ and upon Christ before a line of the New Testament was written. She received her doctrine immediately from the lips of Christ, and is safeguarded from error in her teaching by the Holy Spirit. Between 40 and 80 years after her foundation, some of her members wrote the Books of the New Testament. If the Gospels were the only rule of faith, then before they were written there could have been no Christian rule of faith at all!

579. Christ gave us the command to search the Scriptures. Jn 5:39.

That was a retort, not a command, and you cannot turn a particular rebuke into a universal law. Were it a universal law, it would have been impossible of fulfillment by the vast majority during the fourteen centuries prior to the invention of the printing press! But take the context. The Jews, who boasted of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law, would not believe in Christ. He challenged them: "(You) search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me." The Catholic Church could say in the same way to Protestants: "You are ever speaking of searching the Scriptures as opposed to my methods, and think in them to have everlasting life independently of me; yet the same are they that give testimony of me."

580. Do we not read that the early Christians searched the Scriptures daily? Acts 17:11.

They first received the true doctrine from the teaching Church, and then merely checked it in the Scriptures. That is the right procedure, and Catholics today do the same. But your way is not first to be taught by the Church, and then verify, but to try to make out your own religion from the Bible with an untrained mind and by that private interpretation which Scripture itself forbids.

581. Well, I am afraid of nothing as long as I have the pure Word of God to fall back upon.

Without the Catholic Church you cannot prove it to be the pure Word of God. Nor need anyone be afraid of the pure Word of God. What we must fear is the Word of God adulterated by people who read into it whatever they like.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/

[Iscool]

Me---“There are absolutely NO unbelievers in the church of Jesus Christ...”

You--- There have always been sinners and always will be. There were always some who lost faith in Christ as well. Judas was still an apostle even though he planned to betray Christ. Simon Magus was still a baptized Christian at one poit even though he clearly fell and left the Church.

Sorry...I didn't say sinners...I said unbelievers...Just because someone got wet doesn't mean he/she believes in anything...And just because someone is born into a religion and attends the services doesn't mean he/she believes in Jesus...

It would be impossible for an unbeliever to be a member of the Body of Jesus Christ...Therefore, it's impossible that your religion is the One True Church...

Me--- “Jesus did not establish a church to bring people to Him...”

You--- Yes, actually He did. Hence, the Great Commission. That’s why He said “Go” to the Apostles rather than, “They’ll come to you.”

Again, you're wrong...Jesus sent the disciples into the world to preach the Good News of the Gospel...The Good News of the Gospel is not to join the church but to believe on Jesus Christ...

Jesus never said, 'Join the church'...Jesus said that people that believed on Him were added to the church...NOT the other way around...

Me--- “The people that turned to Him ARE the church...”

You---The Church told them about Jesus FIRST.

So what's that prove??? Nothing...Lots of people talk about Jesus who have not been indwelt with the Holy Spirit and are NOT in Christ...Being religious does not equal being in the Body of Christ...

You guys have said yourselves that when a nonbeliever or someone unworthily dissolves the little cracker in his/her mouth, that the operation, whatever it may be, 'doesn't take'...Even if the person has been baptized...

That right there is an admission that yours could not be the One True Church because you allow non believers into the membership of your church...There can be NO unbelievers in the 'church'...Impossible...

[Petronski]

....There can be NO unbelievers in the 'church'...Impossible...

Because God can only do what YOU--Iscool--can understand?

LOL

Riiiight.

[Petronski]

...dissolves the little cracker in his/her mouth...

I see vicious Klan-worthy anti-Catholic hatred is alive and well.

[boatbums]

Excellent post, Iscool. I'm afraid, though, that your logic is going over their heads.

Just as the ‘church’ is the body of believers in Christ, so is the concept that the Holy Spirit only indwells a true believer. God knows the heart and only He can see if faith is genuine.

Church membership (meaning a particular religion) profits no one. We are assured of our place in heaven when we die because the Holy Spirit was given to us as a down-payment. We are “sealed” with the Holy Spirit and, as such, can never be lost again. Jesus said he would lose nothing and no one can pluck us out of our Father's hand.

[Petronski]

Amazing to see the adjective “excellent” ascribed to post 81 (a poisonous and tarry ball of anti-Catholic hatred).

But your claim is informative on at least one level.

[boatbums]

Christ established the Catholic Church.

Can you point to a Scripture passage that says "catholic"? My understanding is that the Christian church in Rome didn't get designated as "the only true church" until centuries after the resurrection and only then by the council themselves.

[wintertime]

In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is only one reason for a post like this. This post is a shove it up your nose insult to your fellow Christians who are not Catholic. It’s purpose is to stir up antagonism and conflict.

I have tremendous respect for my Catholic friends and neighbors. We have enough in the way of common enemies that we should be united in our common faith in Christ’s salvation. We should not be looking for ways to drive wedges between us.

[Iscool]

Me---“It’s a pity your religion gets it’s hooks into so many before before they’ve had a chance to get their hooks into the scripture...”

You---Uh, that doesn’t even make sense as a sentence. When you can form a coherent sentence let me know.

Makes sense to me...What, you couldn't figure out that I left out 'people'??? So many 'people'???

What happened to that God inspired logic and common sense you guys are always bragging about???And the Church already existed BEFORE Paul.

Not as we know it...The Gospel of Grace was revealed thru Paul by Jesus Christ...The adoption of of Gentiles into this church to make the Jews jealous was revealed thru Paul by Jesus Christ...

All Paul did was hand down in writing and orally what was already known and taught

That's what your religion teaches you??? So you are saying the Lord didn't reveal anything 'new' to the Apostle Paul...How ridiculous...

What ever would there be need of a 'new' Apostle??? Matthew, Mark, Luke or John could have written all those epistles of Paul then...Why did God waste His time with a new Apostle AFTER He was Crucified???

The teaching of your religion is very much in opposition of what the scriptures teach...I would encourage any and every Lurker to pick up a Bible to read and prayerfully ask Jesus to help you open your understanding before you consider joining a Catholic church...

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

[Petronski]

Can you point to a Scripture passage that says "catholic"?

Can you point to a Scripture passage that says "trinity?"

[boatbums]

I really think it's a cop-out to pin the “anti-catholic hatred” tag on anyone who tries to disagree. Can you take your persecution complex somewhere else so we can talk about the real issues?

[Iscool]

So the body of Christ that you belong to has unbelievers in it, eh Petronski???

The body of Christ that I am a member of has NO unbelievers in it...That’s where our conflict lies...We are members of different Bodies...

Just like you guys claim you worship the same God the muzlims do...And your religion’s claim that your church has more in common with Izlam that it does with Protestantism...

I nor the body of Christ that I belong to do not worship the same God as the muzlims...And we have NOTHING in common with the muzlim religion...

There ya go...

[boatbums]

Like I asked, can you point to ANY verse of scripture that uses the word ‘catholic’?

I can definitely show you many verses that refer to the concept of the trinity. If you mean ‘catholic’ as in a universal church of believers, we have no disagreement, but that's not what you mean, is it?

[GonzoII]

"There is only one reason for a post like this. This post is a shove it up your nose insult to your fellow Christians who are not Catholic. It’s purpose is to stir up antagonism and conflict."

Absolutely not.

[Always Right]

I see vicious Klan-worthy anti-Catholic hatred is alive and well.

Doesn't even hold a candle to the attacks by Catholics of Protestants on this thread.

[bobjam]

“No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable. Any sect today - like yours - that claims to be Bible based is really just a johnny-come-lately man-made sect based on the opinions of men.”

Tell me, what is Scripture? Is it not the teachings of the prophets, apsotles and the Lord Himself? Yes, it most certainly is. The Lord and the Apostles established the Church, which is His Body, to carry out His teachings. Thus the teachings came first.

When Protestants and Evangelicals insist on a Bible based Church, they are insisting on a Church that is rooted in the teachings of the prophets, apostles and the Lord Himself. Catholics insist on the same thing. So when a Protestant asks “Where’s that in the Bible?”, he is asking “When did Jesus teach that? What Apostle taught that? What prophet said that?”

It really is very simple. Unfortunately those among us who insist on dogmas that are not found in the teachings of any prophet, apsotle or the Lord Himself (some of the excess of Mariology and eschatology) try to downplay the importance of thos teachings.

[Petronski]

The shoe fits. Wear it with pride.

[r9etb]

Nope. Necessary in terms of the car would include all that was required to make it go. That would be parts, accessories, fuel, etc. that are “necessary."

Actually, Necessary and sufficient are two different, though often complementary concepts.

Fuel is obviously necessary for your car to run. It is just as obviously not, in itself, sufficient for your car to run.

When we talk about knowing the word of God, is the Bible both necessary and sufficient as a means of knowing God's word? Or, as the authors of this article might ask, can we take Scripture as our only guide to God's word?

Again, even Scripture (e.g., John 5:39-40) says that the Bible is not "sufficient" in the technical sense of the word -- why would God bother sending a Holy Spirit if it were? The Bible is, however, clearly necessary.

The authors are correct in saying, "He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself."

Had an older gentleman in one of the churches early in my ministry who would always include in his prayers a line about God granting us what we need, but not necessarily what we wanted.

One of my favorite prayers is that of St. Chrysostom, which says in part, "Fulfill now, O Lord, our desires and petitions as may be best for us; granting us in this world knowledge of your truth, and in the age to come life everlasting."

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****Not his Church, but certainly His Church. Christ established the Catholic Church. It is neither mine nor yours nor vlad’s.

It is Christ's. ****

Now wait a minute. It depends on which side of the fence you are looking from.

About 35 years ago I read an interesting newspaper interview with a Greek Orthodox priest.

He said that Christian Church was one organization in agreement until about 1000 years ago the Catholics broke away from the TRUE CHURCH! His words, not mine!

That would make the Catholics the first Protestants!

And I remember a thread on FR many years ago about how Martin Luther tried to establish contact with the Patriarch of Constantinople after his break from Rome.

Now there are hundreds of BIG WALLS separating Christians, all screaming WE ARE THE TRUE CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED! while others see only little fences and minor things separating us.

[annalex]

this simply doesn't sound like the reformers

To all three: Fair enough. In fact, I have often been astonished by how convoluted and filtered through complex rules of hermeneutics the Protestant reading of the Bible is.

The rhetoric of Bible perspicuity still makes rounds in some circles though, does it not? At least historically that was a major part of Luther's theological revolution.

[xzins]

We view “necessary” differently because you are seeing an object and I am seeing an objective.

I see transportation being the purpose of the car, so gas in the car is part of what’s necessary. So are wheels, battery, etc.

I see salvation to the glory of God being the purpose of the Bible (these are written so you may have life), so when I say it contains all that’s necessary, then I mean that in terms of salvation. It doesn’t give me step-by-step instructions on how to conduct a church homecoming program. That, however, is not necessary for salvation.

And, the reason it must be the bible is because the bible ONLY has the word of God.