Do Christians Need Only the Bible?

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2

Most Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is the only source concerning faith. According to them, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative, teaching Church. All that they need is the Bible in order to learn about the faith and to live a Christian life. The "Bible Alone" teaching can be appealing in its simplicity, but it suffers from fundamental problems. A few are considered here.

First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]

According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:

I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]

Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:

...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]

St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]

These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.

A second problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is canonicity - i.e. which Books belong in the Bible? It must be remembered that the Books of the Bible were written individually along with other religious books. Centuries later the Church compiled together the inspired Books under one cover to form the "Bible." A big question in the early Church was which books are the inspired written Word of God. (Inspired=written by men but authored by God; See Catechism of the Catholic Church 106.)

Scripture did not come with an "inspired" Table of Contents. Nowhere in the sacred texts are all the Books listed. There are some Books cited in the sacred writings but these lists are vague and incomplete (Acts 28:23; 2 Peter 3:16). There are also references to books not found in the Bible, such as St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). St. Paul even encourages the Colossians to read this epistle, but still it is not in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospel never attempts to list the "official" Books of the Old Testament (OT). This issue was hotly debated in His day. Today Protestant and Catholic Christians disagree over which Books belong in the OT. Catholics follow the list in the Septuagint (2nd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) while Protestants follow the list used by the Pharisees. A list from Jesus could have eliminated this problem, but no such list is found in the Gospel. As a result the Bible needs a visible authority outside of itself to list the inspired sacred Books. This authority must be guided by the Holy Spirit since these Books are from the Holy Spirit.

Some Christians claim that the Table of Contents in their Bible lists the inspired Books. Even though found in modern Bibles, the Table of Contents is still not inspired. It is not the Word of God but words added later by human editors, much similar to footnotes. The Table of Contents is basically the opinion of the publishing editor. Others may claim that the closing verses in the Book of Revelation, specifically Rev. 22:18-19, cap off the Bible and define all the preceding Books as inspired by God. But do these verses apply to the whole Bible or only the Book of Revelation? Another flaw with this idea is that not all Bibles have the same number of Books. As alluded to above, Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain different numbers of OT Books, yet all these Bibles close with the same verses: Rev. 22:18ff. Both cannot be right. Finally the Book of Deuteronomy contains similar verses (4:2 & 12:32). Does this imply that the Books after Deuteronomy are not inspired by God? No.

A third problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is proper understanding of critical Bible passages. Most Protestant Christians promote personal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. anyone can interpret these passages by himself. Unfortunately this leads to chaos. For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation. Sadly the "Yellow Pages" phone directory is a witness to the many "Bible-Based" churches who disagree with each other over key issues of the Christian faith. Personal interpretation of the Bible naturally leads to a mire of human doctrines as a result of differing personal opinions.

The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, letters, songs, etc. - requiring different ways of understanding. Sometimes Jesus in the Gospel purposely taught in figurative language and parables, which makes literal interpretation impossible. Even St. Peter admits that St. Paul's Epistles can be difficult to understand:

...Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [2 Peter 3:15-16]

Finally the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30ff needed St. Philip to explain the Book of Isaiah. Obviously not everyone can understand the meaning of Scripture by simply reading it. More is required. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Even the Bible points to the importance of the Church for teaching the Truth. According to St. Peter in the Bible:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]

At least prophecies in the Bible are not a matter of personal interpretation. These prophesies must be properly interpreted by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" since the Holy Spirit is the Author. These "men" are the Bishops of the Church - the successors to the Apostles (Acts 20:28-32). Finally the Bible does not call itself the bulwark of the truth; however, St. Paul does make reference to the Church in those terms:

...the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]

According to the Bible, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
All Christians, including Catholics, should read the Bible in order to grow more in the faith; however, we still need the Church. The Church is needed to accurately pass on Apostolic Tradition (Romans 10:17), define the canon of the Bible (i.e. list the inspired Books), safeguard the accurate transmission (e.g. translations) of the Bible and interpret key passages, all with guidance from the Holy Spirit according to God's Will. The Church is needed for other reasons too. It must be understood that the Church is not merely men making arbitrary decisions but men executing authority from God guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church may at times be tested by scandals or scarred by the sins of men. We may sometimes disagree with the policies of the Church, but she is still the instrument of the Holy Spirit. This visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18-19; John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.

How can we have a thoughtful discussion and exploration if we cannot agree on objective truth?

Man cannot know "objective truth" because he cannot see "all that there is" all at once. He is in fact part of the very thing he seeks to observe.

For that reason, you and I can never agree on objective truth.

It sounds like a cult. I mean if I don’t see what you (RM: general you in English) see (you being the spiritually initiated) I am spiritually blind.

Christianity has long been called a cult by those who are not Christian. No big deal.

Likewise, people who say they are Christian but deny the indwelling Holy Spirit often call those who testify of the indwelling Spirit "gnostic." Again, no big deal.

And no, the spiritual man cannot convey spiritual matters to the natural man. It is futile to try.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14

You ask: What makes one a Christian?

God. As Jesus said, you MUST be born again. Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit. We die to the world and become alive with Christ in God.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:5-8

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? – Acts 11:15-17

I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:5

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Colossians 3:3

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9

You asked: Is it designed to be confusing?

Actually it is designed by God to be unattainable by reasoning alone.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25

You asked: You cannot know God even after becoming a full heir with Christ?

We Christians "know" God as in recognize Him, are aware of Him and receive all that He reveals of Himself to each of us, individually.

Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. - Matt 22:42

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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. - Matthew 16:15

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. – I Cor 12:3

You asked: Do people just pick a doctrine and go with it regardless of the consequences, inconsistencies or illogic of it?

Evidently that happens a lot. Man tends to pile up his own thoughts on top of the words of God.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2

Perhaps it is because man wants things to "add up" - to be rational to his own way of thinking.

But the words of God - whether Genesis, the Gospel of John, the book of Revelation - all of them are spiritual. They cannot be received by the natural man, e.g. via a scholar's historical/critical methods or the scientific method.

"Ears to hear" are a gift of God. There is no substitute.

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. - Deuteronomy 29:2-5

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

The Father is unbegotten and without cause. The Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds form the Father.

My Creed holds the Father is unbegotten and without cause: He is absolutely in se, as His Name — I Am That I Am — testifies. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father; He is Logos of Heaven and Earth, from the Beginning — He is the Father's Very Word of Creation, and eternal executor of the Father's Will for His Creation. He is the Sword of God, yet simultaneously preserves His immaculate character as Lamb of God, Who freely sacrificed Himself for our salvation. He is Final Judge of souls: And all souls come under His Judgment in the End, regardless of their religious commitment or lack thereof. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is at once the context of and the expression of the eternal mutual Love and Light of the Three Persons, the divine community; for us men, the Holy Spirit is particularly connected with facilitation of divine communications with the world of men.

Your conception of the Three Persons as discrete, separable hypostases, with "ridged edges" so to speak, that can distinguish one from the other does not ring true to me. The mystery remains: The divine Persons are One expressing as Three....

IMHO, the Orthodox teaching is right about this: "God is always and forever unknowable and incomprehensible to creatures. Even in the eternal life of the Kingdom of God — heaven, as we say — men will never know the essence of God, that is, what God really is in Himself."

Which is understandable, easily enough: How much can a pot know, or tell you about, the potter who made it? It's what we might call a "categorical problem."

Notwithstanding, what we humans can understand is this: The Holy Trinity is a community of and in eternal Love.... And it forever reaches out to man, in proffered loving embrace....

I think our inability to reach any agreement on such matters proceeds from the fact that you, dear kosta, and I come at these problems from diametrically opposed directions. You want to follow the Baconian approach to the ascertainment of truth, which is to proceed from effects to causes — inductive reasoning. On the other hand I start with an axiom, which is "self-evident" to me, and reason from that — deductive reasoning.

My axiom is that all of God's four revelations — the Incarnation, the Holy Scriptures, the natural world, and the Holy Spirit with us — are all true. This assertion is testable. The best way to test it, it seems to me, is to see how well it actually holds up as an explanation of Reality, and of our own human experience. The real acid test here: No part of any of God's revelations can contradict any other, either internally or with respect to the other "partners" in Revelation.

And so you see where this axiom "bottoms out": God is Truth. No further analysis is possible at this point. For an axiom, by definition, is not separable into lesser parts, of which it can be said to be "composed." So there's nothing more primitive to find and analyze; i.e., by which to "prove" the axiom.

That's why axioms are said to possess the quality of self-evidence, at least in mathematical/logical terms. Evidently axioms — "impredicativities" as he called them — drove Bertrand Russell nutz.... He declared them to be prime examples of "circular reasoning."

Maybe so; but still they are to be found at the very basis of human thought, at all times and places....

And I do not find any contradiction between Holy Scripture and the natural world, the world of Creation — there is nothing in modern science that contradicts anything God said, as "recorded" in the Holy Bible, that I have ever seen. So far.

Just some thoughts, FWTW dear kosta.

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.