Convert! The Bible is the final word!

[christcnection1]

Relax…

I’m actually a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

I was just curious, ***IF *** the Bible specifically used the words “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” would you still remain Catholic?

Since the Bible says nothing like that, I cannot be a Sola Scripturist.

However, IF the Bible did say that, I would be a Sola Scripturist, and would leave Catholicism. (Though, I would have never converted in the first place.)

Obviously this poll applies primarily to Catholics.

 

[Sam88]

There is no conflict between the Bible and Catholicism. If the Bible contained some hypothetical differences, then the Catholic church would be in conformity with the teaching of the Bible so there would still be no reason for me to be anything but Catholic.

 

[christcnection1]

There is no conflict between the Bible and Catholicism. If the Bible contained some hypothetical differences, then the Catholic church would be in conformity with the teaching of the Bible so there would still be no reason for me to be anything but Catholic.

I think I disagree, if I’m understanding you correctly. If the Catholic Church was as it is now, but the Bible used those words, I could not, in clear conscience be Catholic.

Of course the Bible does not say that, and Biblically speaking, Catholicism makes the most sense to me.

 

[Steve_M]

If the Bible were the sole rule of faith, then no one would ever have a legitimate claim as to having the truth, so you would never have any reason to believe your belief was correct. That’s why when I began studying Catholicism, early on, the issue of authority became my main area of study. Once I accepted the authority, then the other issues don’t really matter, as far as I have to understand and fully accept them. I knew the other issues that I didn’t understand wouldn’t be incorrect, so I had to accept them, while not really understanding them. Over the last few years, I have come to understand more and it has only strengthened my belief that I made the correct choice. That being said, if the Bible said it was the sole rule of faith, then I’d join the church that could show me in the Bible where the inspired table of contents was.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I voted “remain Catholic” even though I’m not confirmed - yet. The Bible is a Catholic Book. Even IF it said it was the final word, there would still be interpretation issues. All you have to do is look at all the variant doctrines that have emerged ever since the advent of Sola Scriptura to see that infallible humans can use Scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what God intended it to say.

 

[Genesis315]

Relax…

I’m actually a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

I was just curious, ***IF ***the Bible specifically used the words “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” would you still remain Catholic?

Since the Bible says nothing like that, I cannot be a Sola Scripturist.

However, IF the Bible did say that, I would be a Sola Scripturist, and would leave Catholicism. (Though, I would have never converted in the first place.)

Obviously this poll applies primarily to Catholics.

Even if the Bible did say that, how would we even know to trust the Bible in the first place? It would be no different than the Koran at that point–a book that makes a huge claim about itself. For that matter, it would be no different than if I wrote some stuff on a napkin and concluded with “this is the word of God and the sole rule of faith.” I would still have to go outside Scripture to authenticate the fact that the Bible is truly the word of God whereas the Koran and my napkin are not.

 

[runandsew]

I would remain Catholic.

Because it only can be traced back with an unbroken line to the Apostles themselves.

Because the Bible also says that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church.

Because even when the Catholic church says that the bible is not the only authority, all that the Sacred Tradition, and the teaching magisterium are doing is affirming what the Bible truly teaches.

If the Bible had a passage that read: “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” but didn’t have a passage which tell us who was authorized to interpret what the bible teaches, I might as well go with history, and stay with the church that Jesus established, rather then some men some 1,500 years later.

If the Bible actually said that, then God would have wanted his church to be fragmented into many many denominations, and then Jesus’ prayer in John 17 when he prays that his followers would be “one” would not make sense, and when St. Paul Say’s that Christians should be of one mind in Ephesians Chapter 4

Sola Scriptura leads to fragmentation of the church, not unity.
So if the bible taught that God wanted this fragmentation, then so be it, there would be a wide range of beliefs as we see in the non-Catholic Christianity and it’s spin-offs.
In that case how would I know who was teaching what the Bible actually said about the rule of faith?

Well again if that was the case then I would go with the church which claims to trace its history all the way back to Jesus and his Aposltes.

Or I might become Mormon, because it would be neat to become the God of my own universe.
And Mormonism is proof positive that sola scriptura doesn’t work.

 

[JimG]

First, I would go looking to see who had changed the bible, since it doesn’t say that.

Two. But if it did say that from the beginning, and I believed it, I would never speak about religion again, and only hand out bibles. That would be the only reasonable thing to do. If I could give everyone a bible, that’s all that would be needed. (Although unless that specific command were in the bible, that also would be disobedient, wouldn’t it?)

 

[elvisman]

I think I disagree, if I’m understanding you correctly. If the Catholic Church was as it is now, but the Bible used those words, I could not, in clear conscience be Catholic.

Of course the Bible does not say that, and Biblically speaking, Catholicism makes the most sense to me.

Your hypothetical dilemma, as posed, makes no sense.
It was the Catholic Church who wrote, compiled and canonized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
**If your question was changed to, "IF the Bible specifically used the words ‘The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith, but the Catholic Church refused to accept this teaching’ would you still remain Catholic?", then you might get different answers.
However, this couldn’t happen because it would make Jesus a liar (John 16:13).

 

[francesco920]

I agree with elvisman that the question makes no sense. This is because if you change one verse of the Bible or add a verse in, the rest of the Bible makes no sense because there would be contradiction. The whole meaning of the Bible would change. And, not only that, but if you change or add a verse in the Bible, that would also mean that you would have an untrue Truth, an imperfect God, because His divinely inspired word would be imperfect. Therefore, this hypothetical situation is impossible, in my humble opinion.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I don’t know what I’d do. First, I think I’d listen to what the Church says it means, because in the rest of the NT it seems pretty clear that Jesus did set up a Church. Then I’d do what ever the wise priests of the Church say.

 

[christcnection1]

If the Bible were the sole rule of faith, then no one would ever have a legitimate claim as to having the truth, so you would never have any reason to believe your belief was correct. That’s why when I began studying Catholicism, early on, the issue of authority became my main area of study. Once I accepted the authority, then the other issues don’t really matter, as far as I have to understand and fully accept them. I knew the other issues that I didn’t understand wouldn’t be incorrect, so I had to accept them, while not really understanding them. Over the last few years, I have come to understand more and it has only strengthened my belief that I made the correct choice. That being said, if the Bible said it was the sole rule of faith, then I’d join the church that could show me in the Bible where the inspired table of contents was.

I know exactly what you’re saying brother.

 

[christcnection1]

I would remain Catholic.

Because it only can be traced back with an unbroken line to the Apostles themselves.

Because the Bible also says that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church.

Because even when the Catholic church says that the bible is not the only authority, all that the Sacred Tradition, and the teaching magisterium are doing is affirming what the Bible truly teaches.

If the Bible had a passage that read: “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” but didn’t have a passage which tell us who was authorized to interpret what the bible teaches, I might as well go with history, and stay with the church that Jesus established, rather then some men some 1,500 years later.

If the Bible actually said that, then God would have wanted his church to be fragmented into many many denominations, and then Jesus’ prayer in John 17 when he prays that his followers would be “one” would not make sense, and when St. Paul Say’s that Christians should be of one mind in Ephesians Chapter 4

Sola Scriptura leads to fragmentation of the church, not unity.
So if the bible taught that God wanted this fragmentation, then so be it, there would be a wide range of beliefs as we see in the non-Catholic Christianity and it’s spin-offs.
In that case how would I know who was teaching what the Bible actually said about the rule of faith?

Well again if that was the case then I would go with the church which claims to trace its history all the way back to Jesus and his Aposltes.

Or I might become Mormon, because it would be neat to become the God of my own universe.
And Mormonism is proof positive that sola scriptura doesn’t work.

Haha… I found your post amusing.

Actually, I might have a hard time being Christian at all if the Bible said that. It’s hard to say. I’m sure the world of Christianity would look a bit different too if that were the case.

 

[christcnection1]

I agree with elvisman that the question makes no sense. This is because if you change one verse of the Bible or add a verse in, the rest of the Bible makes no sense because there would be contradiction. The whole meaning of the Bible would change. And, not only that, but if you change or add a verse in the Bible, that would also mean that you would have an untrue Truth, an imperfect God, because His divinely inspired word would be imperfect. Therefore, this hypothetical situation is impossible, in my humble opinion.

We don’t disagree. I actually agree with the both of you. The Bible would contradict itself in my opinion. Yes, the whole meaning of the Bible would change. I agree. I also agree that God’s supposed perfect word would be flawed.

The hypothetical situation is not meant to be possible. No Bible verse is going to be added saying that. In part, that’s the point. If the Bible did say that, we would have all sorts of problems as you rightfully pointed out.

How do you think a Protestant might view our perspective?

 

[rpp]

I am not comfortable engaging is this type of speculation. I do not think it contributes to our spiritual good, and may indeed have the opposite effect in many people.

 

[christcnection1]

I don’t know what I’d do. First, I think I’d listen to what the Church says it means, because in the rest of the NT it seems pretty clear that Jesus did set up a Church. Then I’d do what ever the wise priests of the Church say.

What if the Church seemed to contradict itself like Protestants ignore that “we are not saved by faith alone” as the book of James says?

Just as I had a hard time accepting that we are saved by faith alone (which is largely why I converted), I would have a hard time being Catholic if the Bible stated that it was “the sole rule of faith.” This assumes the Church’s stance contradicted that.

I’m not saying your wrong for thinking what you do.

I would just have a hard time embracing the Church if the Bible said that.

 

[christcnection1]

I am not comfortable engaging is this type of speculation. I do not think it contributes to our spiritual good, and may indeed have the opposite effect in many people.

For me, it helps to reaffirm why I’m Catholic. I’m sure many feel the same way. Merely speculating on this helps me to see what further disarray Christianity would be in if this Protestant claim was accurate. Individual interpretation and fragmentation would have likely exponentially increased.

 

[francesco920]

We don’t disagree. I actually agree with the both of you. The Bible would contradict itself in my opinion. Yes, the whole meaning of the Bible would change. I agree. I also agree that God’s supposed perfect word would be flawed.

The hypothetical situation is not meant to be possible. No Bible verse is going to be added saying that. In part, that’s the point. If the Bible did say that, we would have all sorts of problems as you rightfully pointed out.

How do you think a Protestant might view our perspective?

That’s an interesting question. It seems to me that Protestants believe sola scriptura, even though it contradicts itself by not being found in the Bible and even though it contradicts the Bible, because it is something that is just assumed to be true from the beginning for them and any thought to the contrary just seems and feels preposterous. It’s sort of like how people just assumed that the Earth was flat and never thought they could ever be wrong about such a basic thing, even though the contradictions of this belief were right before their eyes.

 

[gell]

I would probably become an agnostic.

Either Catholicism is right or Christianity is wrong.

 

[christcnection1]

I would probably become an agnostic.

Either Catholicism is right or Christianity is wrong.

Thank you for your honesty. I think the ramifications of this phrase being in the Bible would be pretty serious. I’m sure many would agree with you.