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.
I don't pride myself.
It’s been going on since the dawn of Christ. I meant it when I thought the works of C.S. Lewis should be a part of your read. He was an Atheist. (His works are not cheap) :^)
Alright, I was completely healed from death one day after my Mother passed. That’s enough for me. It’s called a message in a bottle.
He was an Atheist And some people were believers and then became agnostics or atheists. What does that prove? I am not an atheist. To me it is just as presumptuous to assume that there is no God as there is to assume that there is one.
Alright, I was completely healed from death one day after my Mother passed
That's wonderful. I am not sure what you mean but whatever it is, it is important to you, understandably so.
Good.
Must be a misperception on my part.
Congrats.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
What makes C. S. Lewis special? I read one of his books and I wasn’t impressed
#####
Then again, PERHAPS it wasn’t a misperception. God knows.
I don’t know about your analysis here, Kosta. The loyal/faithful son is still gets all that his father has. The Prodigal has squandered his inheritance and only gets the basic welcome back feast and his father’s love, but nothing else.
If it is a metaphor for heaven it sounds like one of degrees, not equality. Go read it again and tell me what it says in the Greek, OK?
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
God's Name is I AM.
Now, now, Dear Heart Angel-Gal . . .
If folks can’t DEMAND OF GOD
whenever they put a quarter of their haughty disdain and hostility into the Heavenly vending machine . . . demanding that ALMIGHTY GOD clean up HIS act according to THEIR prescription . . .
THEN
How will they ever be able to
whine, wail, complain, pontificate ad nauseum about how worthless an ALMIGHTY GOD was who obeyed their commands! ???
Such folks are artists at DAMNED IF ONE DOES AND DAMNED IF ONE DOESN’T.
They must have terminal angst because God refuses to play that game.
But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity.
Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. - Acts 8:18-24
She’s right on this one, Kosta. Faith is critical and it precedes the miracle. Although in the case of Moses was it his faith that allowed the miracles to happen, because Israel certainly didn’t have any faith.
I would not say that Moses' faith allowed the miracles, i.e. was required. God's will concerning Israel could not be thwarted.
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand [of him whom] thou wilt send.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, [Is] not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, [even] he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs. - Exodus 4:10-17
God's will concerning Israel was not thwarted by their lack of faith.
I do like the typo of earthy (archaic for worldly). Can you expound on the above? What do you mean stuck with a priesthood? Also, Aaron started the miracles in Egypt, stumbled (maybe? Some scholars argue that the calf was a symbol of Yahweh) at Sinai, but then is washed and anointed at the tabernacle and granted a priesthood. What are you getting at?
That is not the issue, AG. The Bible clearly says that believers should test their faith. Obviously, testing one's faith is not seen as testing God. You just seem to choose to ignore those verses.
Which basically brings us back to my original (unanswered) question: how does one know he or she has "sufficient" faith? The question is justified, imo, because the Bible also says that not all who say "Lord, Lord" have what it takes.
INDEED.
BLESSED BE THE WORD OF THE LORD.
Then maybe you can explain the verses that clearly call for one to test his faith, which she ignores.
Perhaps, in all these hundreds of posts, your answer to "How do you know your faith is sufficient?", has been there. But the right combination of words, concepts, "proofs" or whatever hasn't been hit on yet to satisfy what I sincerely hope is a genuine question.
I do think there is a huge difference in testing God like satan did Jesus, or when Gideon didn't quite believe God's promise and set up silly tests with fleece, or when Moses vexed God and when we grow in our faith by trusting what God has to say and "stepping out in faith".
I'll give you an example that caused a huge growth in faith for me (they are many, many more examples - but I don't want to take up time). When I was in second year of college, I was working my way through and paying for everything myself. I had no car. The job I had paid on Thursdays, it was Tuesday and I had $2 in my pocket. On Tuesdays, during chapel, there was a collection taken for students who wanted to help in the ministry of the college. I took a step of faith, remembering God's promise to trust him to provide. I gave $1 - half of what I had (this was back in the early '70s - so money was worth more). This left me with $1.00. I went to the cafeteria for lunch - spending 80 cents, which left me with 20 cents for bus fare TO work. But no money for bus fare back, dinner, etc. for two more days.
I just felt this strength and trust that God was going to honor this step of faith in one way or another and that I did not have to worry. I went to my dorm room to change for work and on the way out to the bus stop, I noticed the mail had come in early that day. I had a few minutes, so I decided to check. Well inside was a card from my Mom with a check for $20.00. No birthday, no special occasion, just Hi, hope you're doing well!
So was this not of God? Mom had sent that card and check days earlier, yet it came on just the day I needed it on just the day I stepped out in faith to trust God at his word. That day changed something in me. And my faith continued to grow as each trial, doubt, victory came into my life.
The faith God wants of us is never enough, but it will always be sufficient and each time we take another step he gives us a portion more.
Well, you're right on that. Can it be that we test our faith by works, that is by living it?
Of course you see the story somewhat differently. You’re open to receiving the spirit of The Word, as some others seem not to be. This is not to mean that you must uncritically accept everything you see or hear. It does mean that you are willing to try to accept The Word with understanding and not be instantly absorbed by thoughts of deconstruction, intending to indulge in every effort to do nothing except to construe The Word in the worst light possible.
We are all mindful (as indeed we should be) of the injunction to give witness. There is, I would suggest however, a limit to giving witness, and we are clued into that limit by the knowledge that Free Will likewise comes from God. Thus it is that the Judeo-Christian tradition has come to understand, as many others have not, that Free Will limits our witness to mere persuasion, and that we must otherwise tolerate the malice of contrived misunderstanding.
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.