Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
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.
THAT’S AN EXTREMELY CRUCIAL AND BIBLICAL EXHORTATION.
I HOPE EVERYONE WHO READS IT WILL TAKE IT TO HEART
AND
TAKE IT TO ACTION IMMEDIATELY IN ALL THEIR RELATIONSHIPS.
THX.
Too busy...I see.
I see your still at it. Do you have a plan for your afterlife?
Too busy to answer until Friday...
Yes it's called what will be will be, you know que serra, serra.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Now you are using your part time work as the excuse for not being able to asnwer my simple quesiton until Friday? First it's the church, then it's just too busy, now it's work...what's next?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Glad to know you hold your spirit in such high regard. All of civilization before you is crazy for thinking there is a teacher of creation and a war of ideals exists in a realm that we can pray for and get answers. There is truly nothing like defending the fact the people have no purpose.
Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted [him] in Massah. - Deut 6:16
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. - Matt 4:5-7
I gather you have an incapacity to prioritize in your life?
2 Corinthians 13:5 says "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?"
According to Alamo-Girl this is an "insult" to God.
James 1:3 states "the testing of your faith produces endurance."
God must be horribly "insulted."
Pretty sure though, after Peter got dunked for taking his eyes off the Lord that time on the water - although he did walk on the water some, if Jesus had given the chance again, I guarantee, he'd stay dry!
What better way to be sure you have sufficient faith but to try walking on water over and over until you stay dry! Let me know when that happens. I will believe you when I see it, no question about it.
No, I can multitask. Besides, you are my priority now. I mean, after your peristent posting to me, how can I let you down?/sar
I will have to rephrase...thank you.
Hey, Sherlock,
Some of your questions will require hours to deal with properly.
I won’t bother in the least for your benefit.
It appears that no amount of effort would be of the least benefit to you. I’m not delusional about such things.
However, I do wish to do a decent job for the lurkers so will take my time.
However, if it helps you with your jollies, by all means rant, fuss, fume, chide, prance, and priss about in whatever word choices you care to use. I’m sure it’s quite a display for lurkers who make viewing such acting out a hobby.
However, if you are expecting your antics and prickly posts to trigger some prescribed response from me, then I’d suggest such an expectation would likely qualify as delusional.
People believed and still believe all sorts of things because our very existence is still an enigma. As long as there is mystery we will create beliefs. Very few people will simply admit they don't know and try to live their life recognizing that this is everyone's world and that we can make it pleasant or unpleasant, preferably the former.
There is truly nothing like defending the fact the people have no purpose
I didn't say they have no purpose. That doesn't mean I know what it is.
Why would I ever think that?
Hey, take your time. I am sure the answer will be substantive and informative for a change.
PS I think you have me confused with someone else...my name is not Sherlock.
My mistake.
I had the impression you prided yourself in being erudite, logical, brilliant etc.
Silly me.
I have a relationship with my parents that would blow you away. They passed on many years ago. I have a relationship with my mentors in much the same way. They do not discuss the afterlife to me, they discuss my problems. They are all comfortable. Can I prove it? No. Can I know it? Yes! Your reasoning for going after proof of God will always be hidden. He has enough scripture to explain. Take it or Leave it but just saying there is no proof for your existence doesn’t deny his salvation to the masses. Maybe the life works of C.S. Lewis is your guide.
Even members of the same faith disparage each others' beliefs with venomous hatred that spills out all over forums like this one, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Orthodox, etc.
If this is all neatly explained in the Bible and the Holy Spirit leads all these believers, it surely doesn't look very convincing.
If you believe in something that is your prerogative. I hope this goes with the understanding that faith is not a proof. Neither are anecdotal accounts. I don't ask anyone to prove their faith. It is only when faith is presented as a matter of fact that I ask for proof.
When confronted over this issue I get answers like "God is not a fact." Then what is he? I think people who can't prove their statements of fact should not make them, but they should not be surprised or offended when they are asked to prove them. That's all.
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.