A Challenge for those who believe in the Bible Alone

[Katholikos]

“You shall not add to the word which I commanded you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments [all 613 of them] of the Lord your God which I commanded you.” Deuteronomy 4: 2

“Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32

That means say goodbye to the New Testament and all other OT writings after Deuteronomy. It establishes the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, as the final and complete Word of God.

Jay

 

[trogiah]

John 14 , 26 states:

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

It seems that Jesus is leaving the door open for divine inspiration of some sort to be available to us - beyond the word that he has already spoken.

This is only one example of a verse where Jesus promises the help of the Spirit of Truth.

I guess I am not really taking on the challenge you presented but rather the opposite - showing that the Bible specifically leaves open the possibiliy (even the necessity) of inspiration coming from outside the Bible.

-Jim

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

“You shall not add to the word which I commanded you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments [all 613 of them]
of the Lord your God which I commanded you.” Deuteronomy 4: 2

“Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32

That means say goodbye to the New Testament and all other OT writings after Deuteronomy. It establishes the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, as the final and complete Word of God.

Jay

The Sadducees were a sect during Christ’s time that seemed to believe in “Torah alone”. I will qualify that statement and say that this isn’t a provable point since we have no writings from the Sadducees from that era to substanciate others claims about them:

brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/sa/sadducee.html%between%

Christ chastised them for their supposed knowledge of the Bible. I don’t have the NT references handy, but perhaps someone else can supply them. Thanks.

 

[AmandaPS]

1962Missal:

My question would be, where do they get the idea that necessary oral tradition was all inscripturated? How do they determine that oral tradition was strictly temporary? Where do the inspired writers indicate that oral tradition will all pass away and that the full deposit of Divine revelation is to be found only in the Sacred Scriptures?

Also, where does the idea that the Holy Spirit is incapable of maintaining the purity of Sacred Tradition without consigning it to writing come from?

And, once again, how do they prove that all that was left after the last book of the Bible was written was just the “traditions of men” and not part of the Divine revelation?

Please use the Bible alone to answer these questions.

Justin

I’ll make a note to ask them this the next time (if ever) they come into my neighborhood.

But in the meantime, I’m going to do some more research into their beliefs. Knowledge is such wonderful ammunition. I’m trying to anticipate whatever objections and arguements they can possibly bring up.

 

[AmandaPS]

Stylteralmaldo:

The Sadducees were a sect during Christ’s time that seemed to believe in “Torah alone”. I will qualify that statement and say that this isn’t a provable point since we have no writings from the Sadducees from that era to substanciate others claims about them:

brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/sa/sadducee.html%between%

Christ chastised them for their supposed knowledge of the Bible. I don’t have the NT references handy, but perhaps someone else can supply them. Thanks.

Are you referring to Matt 22:23-29 when they ask him about the seven brothers and marriage?

 

[1962Missal]

bump

 

[homer]

I have been invited a lot of times to participate in this thread but there are so many reasons that kept me from participating. One of the reasons is the nature of the question itself that claims that the word of God is not enough for us. But now i feel it is my duty to participte hoping that my participation will make a difference.

Just thinking about this question makes me sick. “The word of God is not enough, we should support it and add to it our traditions!”

I’m aware that there have been a lot of discussions about this topic over the years, but I will give you my own opinion, my own view of the topic.

First of all, what does the Bible mean to you? For me, it is my reference. If you buy an electronic device whatever it is, you will get with it an instruction manual. What is the use of the instruction manual and is it enough? YES i say, it is enough!. If these manuals are enough for us than how about a manual given by God! If you follow the procedures one by one you will be able to install the device and run it smoothly. But if you start on adding to it and inventing stuff on your own, sooner or later you will blow it up!

Why did God bother to give us his word preserved in a written format? When we are talking about the Bible we’re not talking about an ordinary book or a magazine; it is the Word of God given to men by the Holy Spirit. Why shouldn’t be enough for us? Everything we know about Jesus is recorded in the Bible

I know that a lot of events are not recorded in the Bible. But think about it for a minute and you will figure out a logical explanation of this. Back to the electronic device manual example; would the company give you a manual that will make you unable to finish the job of installing the device? Of course not!

I’m aware and sure that Jesus did a lot of things on earth than the things mentioned in the Bible, but i am also aware that the information contained in the Bible are the essential information about Christianity and how we should live it because God will not give his children an incmoplete manual; if it is not enough than why bother and give one on the first place?

A very important point is the following: when i give a quote from the Bible and someone asks me “why do you only take the Bible as your source?”, what does this imply. It implies that this person has another reference and since he is arguing with me and he wants to proof that i’m wrong then his reference will have to contradict the Bible or complete it in a weird way to support his point of view. Think about it logically: you are arguing with me, my reference is the Bible, you have another reference …

Man is faulty by nature and i prefer to trust the word of God recorded through the Holy Spirit rather than trusting the word of man.

Now I have a question. Why do you feel the Bible is not enough? What makes you have this strong belief that the Bible is not enough for us and that we need another reference?

P.S: “A Challenge for those who believe in the Bible Alone.” I don’t know if you believe in the Bible but i don’t. I beleive in Jesus and the Bible is my reference.

 

[SwissGuard]

homer:

Just thinking about this question makes me sick. “The word of God is not enough, we should support it and add to it our traditions!”

The Bible was not complete as we know it today until many years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Even then, there was no printing press until the 1500’s, and most people were illiterate anyway at that time. Adjusted for inflation, a Bible back then would cost $8,000 today because they had to be copied by hand. How did all of those people from the day Jesus died on the cross till the day the printing press was invented hear and learn about Jesus and come to believe in him? Through the Church and tradition. The Bible came along after tradition and the Church, and the three of them work together, not against each other.

homer:

First of all, what does the Bible mean to you? For me, it is my reference. If you buy an electronic device whatever it is, you will get with it an instruction manual. What is the use of the instruction manual and is it enough? YES i say, it is enough!. If these manuals are enough for us than how about a manual given by God!

First of all, God did not “give us” the Bible. He inspired the Bible. It did not drop out of Heaven; it was not written by Jesus. Secondly, you compare the Bible to an instruction manual. I find it to be closer to a textbook than an instruction manual (since it is so much more than a “manual” on how we should live our lives). If you decide you want to learn more about Algebra, you can buy a math book (the Bible)…But in the end there is only so much you can teach yourself. What should you do if you really want to learn Algebra? Take a class and or go to the teacher (the Church)

homer:

Why did God bother to give us his word preserved in a written format? When we are talking about the Bible we’re not talking about an ordinary book or a magazine; it is the Word of God given to men by the Holy Spirit. Why shouldn’t be enough for us?

Again, it was not given directly by God. The Church put the Bible together…and so the Bible came from the Church, not the other way around. Also…if the Bible was “enough” for us…don’t you think it would say somewhere that it is enough? I would like to point out that nowhere from Genesis to Revelation in any Bible does it say that Scripture is the only, exclusive authority for God’s Word. What it does say is:

-I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2

-Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” - Matthew 28:18-19

Jesus gave us traditions to follow and the command to “Go and make disciples of all nations”…both of which can be done without a Bible. The Bible is very important, but it is a tool for accomplishing these commands. Jesus did not give us the Bible or even command that it be written. To use it as your only deposit of faith is contradictory to the Bible itself.

 

[SwissGuard]

—+Continued from the last post±–

homer:

A very important point is the following: when i give a quote from the Bible and someone asks me “why do you only take the Bible as your source?”, what does this imply. It implies that this person has another reference and since he is arguing with me and he wants to proof that i’m wrong then his reference will have to contradict the Bible or complete it in a weird way to support his point of view. Think about it logically: you are arguing with me, my reference is the Bible, you have another reference …

When you give a quote from the Bible and you are arguing with somebody about what it says, you are quoting it according to your own personal interpretation. No one is required to agree with you if you think that Jesus is speaking symbolically only when he said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” That is one of many things that the Church has taught since the beginning about the Eucharist, and that the Bible and tradition have supported and continue to support, even though most Protestants disagree with it due to their own, private interpretation (and disregard for Church teachings and traditions)

homer:

Now I have a question. Why do you feel the Bible is not enough? What makes you have this strong belief that the Bible is not enough for us and that we need another reference?

The Church and the traditions of the Church existed, taught, and spread the gospel to much of the world before the Bible was even complete, and much more still before the Bible was readily accessible to common people (could be printed and/or read). My answer is this: There have been “other references” all along…but most Protestants have simply chosen to ignore them.

 

[MariaG]

Homer,

You give some good analogies and such to support your point of view. But show it to me in the Bible. Where is Scripture alone taught in the Bible?

God Bless

P.S.
I understand you believe in Jesus and use the Bible as a reference. Reference the Bible and show me where He tells you to ONLY reference the Bible to learn the truth about Him.

 

[JimG]

The very fact that people do not agree about the meaning of the bible is evidence that it is not sufficient to provide for a unity of belief. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the scriptures; He does not inspire all of its translators or its interpreters.

If the bible is sufficient, why would anyone be arguing theology?
Why would there be numerous and conflicting “bible-based” churches?

JimG

 

[1962Missal]

I have been invited a lot of times to participate in this thread but there are so many reasons that kept me from participating. ***One of the reasons is the nature of the question itself that claims that the word of God is not enough for us. *** But now i feel it is my duty to participte hoping that my participation will make a difference.

First, the Catholic Church does believe in the Word of God Alone. What we do not accept is that the written Word is God’s entire revealed Word.

Just thinking about this question makes me sick. “The word of God is not enough, we should support it and add to it our traditions!”

More of the same. Where does the Bible indicate that the entirety of Christ’s teaching was reduced to writing? Christ’s word is the Word of God, what he taught remains the word of God whether it was written down or not. *“But the word of God endures forever. That word is the good news that was preached to you” * (1 Peter 1:25). Note that the word has been “preached”–that is, communicated orally.

First of all, what does the Bible mean to you? For me, it is my reference. If you buy an electronic device whatever it is, you will get with it an instruction manual. What is the use of the instruction manual and is it enough? YES i say, it is enough!. If these manuals are enough for us than how about a manual given by God! If you follow the procedures one by one you will be able to install the device and run it smoothly. But if you start on adding to it and inventing stuff on your own, sooner or later you will blow it up!

Where, in the Bible, do you get the idea that the Bible is meant as a users manual? It is the inspired record of Divine revelation, certainly, but your assertion that is meant to be used in the manner you describe ought to be backed by scripture----if scripture alone is your reference. I also take issue with your comparing Christianity to an electronic device. A more apt comparison might be to a bicycle. You cannot learn to ride a bike from the owners manual. You need a living teacher.

Why did God bother to give us his word preserved in a written format?

“**CCC 107 ** The inspired books [were written to]teach the truth. ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.’” Note that “all that God wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptues” does not necessarily mean “all that God wished to teach, period.”

When we are talking about the Bible we’re not talking about an ordinary book or a magazine; it is the Word of God given to men by the Holy Spirit. Why shouldn’t be enough for us? Everything we know about Jesus is recorded in the Bible.

Because, once again, you have reduced the Word of God exclusively to the written Word without taking into account that the Bible, itself, contradicts you.

*“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

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

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2). *

Where do you get the idea that everything that we know about Jesus is recorded in the Bible? Is that something the Bible says or do you just come to the inspired text with that presuppostion?

continued in next post.

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

I know that a lot of events are not recorded in the Bible. But think about it for a minute and you will figure out a logical explanation of this. Back to the electronic device manual example; would the company give you a manual that will make you unable to finish the job of installing the device? Of course not!

More of the same. Please demonstrate, from scripture alone, why you think it is meant to function as a users manual.

I’m aware and sure that Jesus did a lot of things on earth than the things mentioned in the Bible, but i am also aware that the information contained in the Bible are the essential information about Christianity and how we should live it because God will not give his children an incmoplete manual; if it is not enough than why bother and give one on the first place?

The Bible cannot have been meant to function as the sole “users manual” because Christianity flourished for decades before the first book of the New Testament was written, and for centuries before the books which comprise the New Testament were actually agreed upon as being inspired and compiled into the NT.

A very important point is the following: when i give a quote from the Bible and someone asks me “why do you only take the Bible as your source?”, what does this imply. It implies that this person has another reference and since he is arguing with me and he wants to proof that i’m wrong then his reference will have to contradict the Bible or complete it in a weird way to support his point of view. Think about it logically: you are arguing with me, my reference is the Bible, you have another reference …

No it means that we, like the Bible, and the early Christians, do not isolate the Bible from the fulness of Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation, the entire Word of God, whether inscripurated or not, does not contradict itself. The contradiction lies in the fact that Apostolic oral teaching, which is part of the Word of God, contradicts your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Man is faulty by nature and i prefer to trust the word of God recorded through the Holy Spirit rather than trusting the word of man.

How little faith you have in the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit can protect Sacred Scripture from error by means of inspiration, even though sinful, fallible men wrote it, then He can protect the Church, custodian of Apostolic oral tradition from error, as well----even though sinful, fallible men are involved in it. If God can do one thing, He can do the other.

Now I have a question. Why do you feel the Bible is not enough? What makes you have this strong belief that the Bible is not enough for us and that we need another reference?

Because the Bible and the early Christians who were taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors say so.

See the quotes in my previous post.

And, also:

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, ca. 150 A.D.

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?”

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

continued in next post

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

More quotes from the Early Christians:

Origin, 225 A.D.

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines)

St. Basil the Great, 325 A.D.

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines)

Epiphanius of Salamis, A.D. 375

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6)

St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 402

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians)

Justin

 

[Shari]

homer:

I have been invited a lot of times to participate in this thread but there are so many reasons that kept me from participating. One of the reasons is the nature of the question itself that claims that the word of God is not enough for us. But now i feel it is my duty to participte hoping that my participation will make a difference.

Just thinking about this question makes me sick. “The word of God is not enough, we should support it and add to it our traditions!”

I’m aware that there have been a lot of discussions about this topic over the years, but I will give you my own opinion, my own view of the topic.

First of all, what does the Bible mean to you? For me, it is my reference. If you buy an electronic device whatever it is, you will get with it an instruction manual. What is the use of the instruction manual and is it enough? YES i say, it is enough!. If these manuals are enough for us than how about a manual given by God!

You need an instruction manual for the Manual(i.e. The catechism)

homer:

If you follow the procedures one by one you will be able to install the device and run it smoothly. But if you start on adding to it and inventing stuff on your own, sooner or later you will blow it up!

Why did God bother to give us his word preserved in a written format? When we are talking about the Bible we’re not talking about an ordinary book or a magazine; it is the Word of God given to men by the Holy Spirit. Why shouldn’t be enough for us? Everything we know about Jesus is recorded in the Bible

I know that a lot of events are not recorded in the Bible. But think about it for a minute and you will figure out a logical explanation of this. Back to the electronic device manual example; would the company give you a manual that will make you unable to finish the job of installing the device? Of course not!

I’m aware and sure that Jesus did a lot of things on earth than the things mentioned in the Bible, but i am also aware that the information contained in the Bible are the essential information about Christianity and how we should live it because God will not give his children an incmoplete manual; if it is not enough than why bother and give one on the first place?

A very important point is the following: when i give a quote from the Bible and someone asks me “why do you only take the Bible as your source?”, what does this imply. It implies that this person has another reference and since he is arguing with me and he wants to proof that i’m wrong then his reference will have to contradict the Bible or complete it in a weird way to support his point of view. Think about it logically: you are arguing with me, my reference is the Bible, you have another reference …

Man is faulty by nature and i prefer to trust the word of God recorded through the Holy Spirit rather than trusting the word of man.

Now I have a question. Why do you feel the Bible is not enough? What makes you have this strong belief that the Bible is not enough for us and that we need another reference?

P.S: “A Challenge for those who believe in the Bible Alone.” I don’t know if you believe in the Bible but i don’t. I beleive in Jesus and the Bible is my reference.

Question, what did the early christians do for the first 373 years of christianity? Wander around aimlessly?

 

[bengal_fan]

i should start by saying i don’t necessarily adhere to this argument but i thought i should throw it out there so you know one of the arguments protestants use for sola scriptura. so please don’t attack ME. i also need to say that some folks on here are very condescending towards their Christian brethren. there are many intelligent people who believe they are correct. i know you might say that if they were truly intellectuals they would have realized the truth that you have found in Catholicism, but you can’t be so flippant. Catholics get so frustrated when protestants don’t aknowledge that they have scriptural grounds for their doctrines. i’d encourage you, if you really want to know what protestants think, sit down with a protestant and don’t just trust what some one might post in a web forum. okay, off the soapbox and onto the argument i have heard (again i don’t adhere to this, i’m just relaying it).

in 1Cor. 13 (the love chapter) verses 8-12 it talks about when “perfection” comes and that now (meaning then) they prophesied in part (and so on) but that soon they will know fully (i don’t feel like typing the entire passage as i am lazy at the moment so please read it for yourself). but an interpretation of this is that Paul is saying that at the time, the oral tradition and the way of correcting, rebuking, teaching, and training in righteousness was incomplete but it was the best they had until perfection (the canonized scripture) comes. that is one argument i have heard that Paul is prophesying the Bible as we know it and that it is perfection while everything else is in part.

again (i feel i need to say it again because people sometimes don’t read the whole thing and so 3 times might get it across) i am not a believer in this but it is an interpretation that can be used to defend sola scriptura.

GO BENGALS

 

[bengal_fan]

i would like to hear others interpretation of the corinthians passage. please feel free to respond. :dancing:

 

[VociMike]

Regarding 1 Cor 13:8-12, if perfection was the written scriptures and imperfection was the oral teachings, then the early Church would have gone from perfection (the words of Christ, or does that interpretation require that Christ’s teachings were not perfect?) to imperfection (the teachings of the apostles) back to perfection (the written scriptures) in a very short time. This would require that the apostles wrote more than they knew, for they wrote perfection but apparently knew and taught orally only imperfection. To put it another way, it seems that this would require that the Holy Spirit would have been adding to the revelation of Christ when the HS inspired the writers of the NT to write perfection whereas before they only knew imperfection. So, I think the interpretation you report is a great and unsuccessful leap.

Reading further in the passage, we see that when perfection comes we will see face to face, and understand fully. Do we see face to face now that we have the bible? Do we understand fully now that we have the bible? No and no. So it seems quite clear that the perfection spoken of is not the bible.

 

[bengal_fan]

the passage doesn’t say that the oral teachings were imperfect, just in part (in the interpretation that i am using). but that the fullness will come when perfection comes. i have also heard the perfection interpreted as the church. also, instead of just dismissing an argument, give me the interpretation of that passage please. thank you

 

[Calvin]

More quotes from the Early Christians:

Origin, 225 A.D.

St. Basil the Great, 325 A.D.

Your quotes from Basil and Origen were identical. Was that a typo?

-C