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.
To put it simply: maybe, maybe not.
That day changed something in me. And my faith continued to grow as each trial, doubt, victory came into my life.
The Bible says "He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." [Mat 5:45]
The evil can recount success stories and bad things happen to the good. Anecdotal accounts prove nothing. Some people, be their righteous or unrighteous, have it made. Others, no matter how righteous, are living in hell on earth.
This seems only to apply to those that are already in agreement. That's peculiar, no?
construe The Word in the worst light possible.
So here I am trying to read the Bible. I don't speak Hebrew so for the OT I use the Hebrew Study Bible, Strongs, Blue-Letter Bible, and Biblegateway. For the NT I use the latter 3. I am sincere. I love God and want to follow his word. Independently, Kosta and I have come to many of the same conclusions about what the Bible says, although we are not in complete agreement.
Are we damned? Unloved? Doesn't it sound a bit cultish (in the insane way, not the nice way) to say that 1. We found our beliefs on the Bible only; 2. (for some) We have additional traditions that we accept; when the Bible contradicts beliefs and traditions which ones hold? When the tradition smacks of politics and philosophical legerdemain why not criticize it?
Did God imbue us with rational minds just to waste them? It is a non-sense argument to say, start from the Bible, but if you don't reach the same conclusions/beliefs I hold you cannot be a Christian or the "Spirit" is not working in your life. How offensive. How inconsistent.
Look at my last post to boatbums. Each person devises his or her own "litmus test." To me, that smacks of superstition, but that's just my opinion, not judgment.
Realty tells us that either success, or failure, visits the righteous from the unrighteous indiscriminately.
Even though the Bible claims over and over that God is impartial, that same Bible also claims that God favors one group or one person over another.
People just pick and choose what they want to believe and then discard the rest.
I just saw another thread about rabid atheists removing roadside crosses. This is insane! How can something you don't believe exists offend you? But is this not the theme learned from the Old Testament, where a "jealous" God orders desecration of anything devoted to an "idol," including the graves of idolatrous people, dashing their infants to pieces, and raping idolatrous women?
Religious intolerance is not only present among atheist crusaders. The same mentality exists among the "people of faith" who like to refer to themselves as "servants of God." Rabid intolerance by such people of other faiths—simply because they are not cast in their image—is a constant theme of the last 2,000 years until the end of the 20th century.
Even people of the supposedly same faith exhibit the same rabid intolerance for heterodoxy. All in the name of the love of Christ, western Europe engaged in a 100-year war following Reformation, and then—while they were still burning each other at stakes—they ganged up on a third party of Anabaptists and proceeded to exterminate them in the biblical fashion with impunity simply because Anabaptists believed in the "sin" of re-baptizing their baptized infants when they reached adulthood!
The Northern Ireland conflict that lasted from 1969 until 1997, and cost 3,526 lives, was the last vestige of the Catholic-Protestant bloodletting in Europe since the Reformation.
Although it was officially a political and ethnic conflict, the civil war in the former Yugoslavia (1991-1995) that took some 150,000 lives on all sides, was basically a religious war among people who share the same language but are divided along confessional identities. The war was fought between two Christian groups (Serbs and Croats) and between Christians and Muslilsm.
The last religious conflict in Europe ended in 1999 with the NATO occupation of the Serbian province of Kosovo between Christian Serbs and predominantly Muslim Albanians. The war in the Middle East and Afghanistan is essentially a religious war. The manufacturer of US military rifles used in these conflicts recently admitted to inscribing biblical verses on gunsights!
People either use hatred or love of God to promote their own extreme agenda which is basically to exterminate those who do not share their beliefs. At least the atheists are just being plain inhuman, which seems to be our nature, but the "servants of God" often rely on the extermination commandments of their God as written in their scriptures, seeing their efforts as a morally just removal of "idolatrous" scum.
At least Christianity has a modifying, attenuating element in its sciprutre, the New Testament, but the Muslims and the Jews don't. Their scriptures do not even pretend that our ultimate goal is to (try to) love our enemies (as human beings) even if we have to defeat them (although the Old Testament quoted in Mat 5:43 does not exist)
should read "although the Old Testament verse quoted in Mat 5:43 does not exist."
If you are prepared to be offended, you will be.
“It is a non-sense argument to say, start from the Bible, but if you don't reach the same conclusions/beliefs I hold you cannot be a Christian or the "Spirit" is not working in your life.”
You seem to ascribe to me a belief in my own infallibility . . . in blatant defiance of my remarks relating to free will. You also seem to be looking to pick a fight. I could be wrong . . . I’m not infallible.
“Are we damned? Unloved?”
Not by me. I’ll leave that judgment to the Lord, per instructions (and keep in mind that being damned and being unloved are two different propositions).
“We have additional traditions that we accept; when the Bible contradicts beliefs and traditions which ones hold?”
You have free will. Do as you will. But, as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. To the best of my ability, as God gives me the light to know His Word.
“This seems only to apply to those that are already in agreement.”
Actually, it applies to those who are determined not to be in agreement. You’re reading what you expect to see in everything I say. All the reference aids in the world will do you no good if you are determined not to be in agreement. You might as well simply read and quote from Tom Paine’s Age of Reason and live your life as you see fit without recourse to anything but your own resources.
There. I’ve given you loads of opportunity to not understand what I am saying.
Have a blast.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Doesn't say "It is written." does it?
No it doesn't, but the Jews, especially the Pharisees, followed oral tradition. So, just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it's any less biblical. He is obviosuly referring to Lev 19:18 and Deut. 23:3-6 in a very altered fashion, as if there were such a verse.
I've always liked this one too. Another one I like has the Trinity as being like the ocean. The Father is like the calm waters in the middle. The Son is like the waves washing on shore. The waves have their own identity, but are never separate from the ocean. They are of the same essence. Likewise, the Spirit is like the salt air. It IS the ocean, but has its identity being in the air. Wherever there is salt air, so also is the (liquid) ocean. I don't think any one of them can be said to be "greater" than another, but that's my opinion. Anyone see any holes in this one?
There isn't a middle to the ocean and which part is calm. Wave action isn't caused by the ocean, but by the wind, tides, underwater seismic activity, etc.
The ocean is obviously greater than the waves as the waves are a small subset of the ocean. I suppose it is a toss-up between the air and the sea.
If you are planning a Sunday school lesson on the Trinity using this analogy, I'd drop it.
Valiant attempt though.
I've always liked this one too. Another one I like has the Trinity as being like the ocean. The Father is like the calm waters in the middle. The Son is like the waves washing on shore. The waves have their own identity, but are never separate from the ocean.
A human anthropomorphization (hmm, as if there were any other kind). They are both a fanciful metaphor but nothing of significance. Nice poetry. Not theology or doctrine of any kind.
Had Moses not balked, he would have been the spokesman. And there would have been no need for an Aaron.
Aaron did not have the same "calling" as Moses. He was not a prophet. I don't doubt he did the best he could, but it was lacking. In this pivotal event, Aaron thought Israel could feast to the Lord in front of an idol:
And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which [are] in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] unto Aaron. And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow [is] a feast to the LORD. - Exodus 32:1-5
But I wonder how many (if any) of the many subsequent rules concerning the tabernacle, temple, ark, priesthood and such would not have been required had Moses the prophet been the spokesman or in the alternative, had Aaron (who was not a prophet) not conflated pagan practices with worshiping God.
Or to put it another way, I wonder if God made the priesthood very structured and difficult because of it.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
Thank you so much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Have a blast.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear MarkBsnr!
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Plenty True.
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.