Do Christians Need Only the Bible?

cna ^

[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.

[Quix]

Very well put, imho.

Thanks much.

[Quix]

Our Lord designed all things to work according to His laws.
Man, being endowed with free will, can choose to rebel against God’s universal moral laws. But when he does, the secondary Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play. In the case of Pride (self-worship), the more inflated it becomes, the more base and stupid becomes the self-idolator.
In this way, the self-idolator becomes a public example of what not to do. In short: Do not do as he has done or you will become a stupid, base fool just like him.

#####

INDEED TO THE MAX.

THX.

[timestax]

bump

[1010RD]

How was it “debunked”? By committee? I am genuinely curious.

[MarkBsnr]

If I may, some of us are more aware of being alive Spiritually than we are of being alive physically.

A-G, please consider this: I know about my body and my physical being and surroundings. I believe about my soul and the status of such. Your terminology is such that you constantly cross-direct belief and knowledge.

The phrase I object to also cross-directs belief and knowledge. Therefore, as posted, it is gibberish.

[MarkBsnr]

How was it “debunked”? By committee? I am genuinely curious.

I do not have immediate access to the proceedings, and am not immediately curious. Typically, an appointed group would be sent away to study the matter and bring their results to an Ecumenical Council. The group would be questioned and their results studied. Then the group of bishops would retire from the public and come to a decision, along with a number of other matters that were immediately at hand.

[1010RD]

By debunking it would they turn to the Bible or tradition or consequences of the doctrine? How was it decided? (I’ll ping Kosta as well)

Kosta how was Chiliasm debunked or turned into a heresy?

[MarkBsnr]

Kosta;

Ping to previous post.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you for your insights, dear spirited irish!

[Alamo-Girl]

I am speaking of awareness.

You are speaking of knowledge and belief and evidently separating them, i.e. knowledge stemming from physical sensory perception and reasoning, belief stemming evidently from hope.

Awareness, on the other hand, concerns one’s alertness towards his/her experiences whether physical or spiritual.

In making the following claim, I’m saying that we Christians are aware of being alive physically and Spiritually and that some of us are more aware of our Spiritual life than our physical life:

If I may, some of us are more aware of being alive Spiritually than we are of being alive physically.

For instance, we know that every thing and every one belongs to God.

The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. - Psalms 24:1

So a Christian who is more aware of being alive in the Spirit than in the flesh would not consider any thing or any one within his reach including himself as his own but rather that he is responsible as a steward for those things and those ones, they actually belong to God. That would include his house, his job, his wife, his kids, his parents, his dog, his mind, his skills, the money in his pocket, the tie around his neck, etc.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Cor 6:19

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. – Matthew 10:37-39

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. – Matthew 25:20-21

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof. - Matt 6:31-34

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

[kosta50]

Chiliasm, by name, was never directly condemned as heresy. You won't find the word "Chiliasm" or any explicit reference to it in any of the Seven Church Councils. Yet there are scores of Latin books and papal documents that explicitly claim the heresy was condmened by the Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council, although I can only find reference to Appolinarianism being condmened, as in the previous Council).

It is my understanding that most of these Latin documents cited or referenced are considered 'secondary' sources and not direct Council transcripts. But the Church clearly distanced itself and actively suppressed Chialistic teachings following the 2nd and 3rd Ecumenical Councils (381 and 431 AD respectively).

Chief critic of Chiliasm in the West was none other than +Augustine of Hippo, who called it a 'superstition.' Since the source of Chiliast teachings is referenced to Chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) of John, the East would have none of it since the Apocalypse of John was not canonized in the East until the 9th century AD.

Even to this day, the Eastern Churches do not read liturgically from it because it is considered too likely to be misinterpreted.

At the time of the two aforementioned Councils, the Eastern Church considered the Apocalypse of John "questionable," so any dogmatic or prophetic teaching from it would have been resisted.

The reason why Chiliasm was never officially condemned by name as heresy but treated as a "phantom" heresy is very likely that its official anathemization would have involved some of the greatest early Church apologists—+Justin Martyr and +Irenaeus. Both very clearly taught Chiliasm as did many, indeed most, early Christian apologetics!

This would have decimated the best minds on which the Church orthodoxy, and Holy Tradition even more, depended so much. The complicating factor was the fact that among chief early Christian theologists, Origen and Tertullian, the former was an strictly opposed to Chiliasm and the latter in favor of it (later on, the Montanists, a heretical sect with whom Tertullian eventually identified, also aodopted the teaching).

Moreover, to add insult to injury, the first opponent of Chiliasm was none other than Marcion (!), whose claim to "fame" is that he was so much out in the left field that the Church "disowned" him as a heretic even before any official teaching even existed!

Thus, some of the best Christian apologetic minds would have been condmened, and those who were opposed (Origen) would have ended up in the same camp as Marcion! Clearly, the Church could not condemn the orthodox saints Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, but the Church also could not officially find itself on the same side as Marcion (whose opposition to Chilism, by the way, was based on completely unrelated reasons—but that's another story)

What the Church did in 381 AD was to condemn Appollonarianism (along with Sabellinianism, Arianism and Maceodnianism). Apollinaris of Laodicea (4th century AD), in addition to his condmened Christology (that Christ had a human body but a divine mind), also taught Chiliasm.

Thus, by condemning Appolonarianism, the Second Ecumenical Council (aka First Council of Constantinople) quietly condemned Chiliasm without mentioning it by name, and thus avoiding posthumous condemnation of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hyppolitus of Rome, Papias, etc. whose works are important to the Church.

The Orthodox Church today teaches that Chiliasm is a misinterpretation of Rev 20. As you may or may not know, the chapter mentions "second resurrection." The Church disagrees that this means Christ will have his first Kingdom on earth before the Final Judgment. The way the Church explains this is that the first resurrection is baptism (not Chiliasm) and the second one is the Great (Dread or Final) Judgment. In this, the Church found strong support in Pauline Epistles, specifically in Ephisians and Colosians.

Much of the opposition to Chiliasm may also come from the anti-Judaizing posture of the early Church, since much of the Chiliast "evidence" is found in apocalyptic Jewish writings, such as Ezra and Enoch (which may explain the change in Church's attitude vis a vis a very popular book of Enoch and the book's effective disappearance).

The heresy was revived by the 19th century British and American Protestants. In short, it teaches that Christ will return and resurrect the righteous and rule the earth with them for 1,000 years as a reward for their righteousness. Only after a thousand years will he resurrect the rest and make the Final Judgment.

Much of the Chiliast beliefs can be traced to Persian (Zoroastrian) influence on apocalyptic Judaism. It was a very prominent belief among the earliest Christians (many of hwomn were apocalyptic Jews who also widely read the Book of Enoch) along with the firm belief by the Apostles and others that Christ's return would happen within their lifetime.

With Revelation being suspected and rejected in the East (although it was initially accepted), the fact that some Eastern Fathers saw elements of pagan Zoroastrian influence was another strong reason to reject Chiliasm.

In fact, it was in opposition to Chiliasm that the Fathers at the Second Ecumenical Council inserted the words "And His Kingdom shall have no end" in the Creed to underscore that there will be no two separate kingdoms, but one, continuous kingdom of God.

This way, any further Chiliast teaching would be automatically considered contrary to the Apostolic Faith (even though some of the Apostles may have been Chiliasts in their beliefs!), and therefore heretical.

[Belteshazzar]

Excuse a late entrant into this thread, but I am looking for clarification. Much, even most, of what you have said, spirited irish, I agree with. I particularly like the observation, lifted (but with proper annotation) from Dostoyevsky, in regard to the different types of atheists. However, on the matter of free will, on what are you basing that assumption? Since the title of the thread (and, yes, I know that threads can and do wander) is “Do Christians Need Only the Bible?”, I thought I would seek clarification. Thanks in advance.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

Sure would like to trade this carcass in on the Heavenly one.

Getting more and more Homesick.

[Cvengr]

I sometimes wonder if Berkeley was more spiritually alive than many purported Catholics, for at least he was intellectually honest enough to question his belief in the physical as being more real than his rationalism, indicating he might have been more spiritually aware than those of the world.

[Quix]

It appears that God has deliberately hidden a precise sequential outline of prophetic events from the world at large.

However, it is quite clear enough that Christ will rule a thousand years.

It is quite clear enough that after that thousand years, satan will be loosed again for a brief period to tempt/test those born durning that time.

THEN

some sort of wrap-up of the status quo will be carried out to an evidently rather thorough degree before the new heaven and new earth appear.

It is interesting, and I think correct, that the Vatican dances complex choreographies around such issues—quite likely—to protect their stalwarts’ proffering !!!!TRADITION!!!! as equal to Scripture.

[timestax]

bump

[kosta50]

I am not interested in your opinions.

[getoffmylawn]

I have a real problem with the idea there is a God that demands we believe in him in order for us to gain salvation. There is zero proof this sort of God exists, yet those of us that don't believe in this unprovable God are being told we must have "faith" in this elusive God in order to avoid sliding down razor blades for eternity with nothing to eat but adorable kittens (my personal vision of hell). To me, this God is an evil God.

There are many many millions of good people in this world that don't have a built in natural "faith" in a God, yet they would certainly love to worship their creator if this elusive God had only not cloaked himself so well in his creation that many can't feel or believe he exists. This is not the fault of fallible humans. This is the fault of their creator that made a peoples that have a huge range of variance when it comes to their ability to have faith.

The "creator" made this universe along with the people in it. He made the truth of his existence as ambiguous as anything in the universe, and then he's going to punish for eternity those that fall on the side of not seeing and feeling his presence? To me that is the definition of evil. Any religion that demands faith for the salvation of a person's soul can be nothing but evil.

Then there's some sweet 13 year old Hindu girl in India that loves her family with all her heart. She was raised Hindu, and truly believes in the faith in which she was raised. She Knows of Christ because she has some Christian friends that were raised in a Christian faith, but she chooses to stick with the religion of her loving parents - consequently rejecting Christ. You mean to tell me she's going to be subject to sliding down razor blades when she dies too? No, sir. Not me. I'm not believing a God would punish this girl.

So to answer the question you keep asking, yet nobody seems willing to answer... "What is God?..." *Drum roll*... the correct answer is....WE DON'T KNOW! WE CAN'T EVEN PROVE A GOD EXISTS!! God will always be what we don't know, and what we don't understand about the universe.

I used to work with a friend that was a Jahovah's Witness, and we would often get into religious discussions. I once brought up the idea that nobody can "know" there is a God or what God is. He argued that he "knows" there is a God. There is no doubt in his mind. Then I stumped him. I asked, "What if the supernatural creator of the universe is nothing but pure evil and he created the universe with an illusion of a good and just God being just that - a created illusion?" When we die we are all punished for eternity except for the likes of Hitler, Ante Pavelich, and other cut from their cloth. Those guys get the big red mansions to kick back in for the rest of eternity. This Super Devil God could have even made Jesus and sent him to fool us into believing in a good God. How do we "know" this isn't true? We don't. We just have to have faith this isn't what God is.

All that being said, I still have faith. I still believe in God, and the God I believe in is best defined by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

... and to answer the question of the thread... Of course Christians don't need only the Bible. For hundreds of years, tons of Christians couldn't even read, and they lived very Christian lives filled with faith.

[Quix]

Are you of the opinion that I’m interested in your opinion about my opinions?