Defending Why We Do Not Rely Only On The Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter dailey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dailey

Guest
Can someone point me in the right direction for defending why Catholics do not follow only the bible? I am a cradle Catholic but really am not good at explaining why we Catholics believe what we believe. I would love to be able to defend my faith and not sound like a fool in the process. :o
 
pacanaoni

It is because we also have the sacred Tradition as the source of truth. Ultimately Tradition is rooted in scripture. For that reason we can also say that we have only one source of faith, the Scriptures which include both the word of God and its reflection by the Christian community expressed in the various traditional devotions and practices.
 
onipacana said:
pacanaoni

It is because we also have the sacred Tradition as the source of truth. Ultimately Tradition is rooted in scripture. For that reason we can also say that we have only one source of faith, the Scriptures which include both the word of God and its reflection by the Christian community expressed in the various traditional devotions and practices.
Click to expand...
 
Simple: Christ taught Apostles and sent them forth. He gave them the authority to forgive sins, and power over demons. He also gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of all that He had taught them. Christ wrote nothing and did not command the Apostles to write anything, but to “go and make disciples of every nation”. They taught orally. They did this for 20-30 years before any part of the New Testament was written. And the New Testament was not completed until almost 70 years later. It took even longer after that before all Christians in all parts of the early Church had access to all of the New Testament.

Here are three questions which will stump bible alone persons: Why did Christ not write anything? Did the first 70 years of Christians lack anything? If thousands of different Christian denominations all use the same bible, why do they all disagree?

For a few bucks, you can be much smarter about your faith. Get a copy of Catholicism for Dummies. I have my own copy and learn something each time I open it.
 
Catholics rely on both the bible and tradition. We do not rely on the bible alone like many protestant groups do. the bible Itself says that you should follow what was passed onto you “either by word of mouth (tradition) or by letter (the bible)” [forgive me for not remembering off the top of my head the book, chapter and verse but if you google it you will find it] - many protestant groups base everything on the bible alone and say it is the pillar and foundation of truth but the bible says the opposite. It says “the church is the pillar and foundation.” - i hope that helps =)
 
we have three ways if I am not mistaken! Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium. Most is built around scripture and tradition. Most non denominationals go solo scriptura but ask them where in the bible it says thats all there is. It also says that scripture will not save you its is a way to know who our God is thru His Son by the power of the Spirit. If peopel ask what you believe quote the creed!
 
gtrguy155 said:
Catholics rely on both the bible and tradition. We do not rely on the bible alone like many protestant groups do. the bible Itself says that you should follow what was passed onto you “either by word of mouth (tradition) or by letter (the bible)” [forgive me for not remembering off the top of my head the book, chapter and verse but if you google it you will find it] - many protestant groups base everything on the bible alone and say it is the pillar and foundation of truth but the bible says the opposite. It says “the church is the pillar and foundation.” - i hope that helps =)
Click to expand...
2 Thess 2:15 *So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
*

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
 
Perhaps if you aren’t already doing so, you should start taking up reading the bible. Protestants are much more versed at pointing things out because they not only read the bible but get help or support from their church. This is one of the differences between Catholics and Protestants and should serve as motivation to try to learn more about your faith through the word of God itself.

God does not really care about your religious affiliation so much as your heart’s desire to want to know more about Him through reading the bible, which is His word. If you are sincere about wanting to defend your faith, I suggest you start reading not only the bible, but books on Catholicism as well.

God Rocks
 
My personal favorite way to defend why we do not rely on the Bible only, is this question:

Is it A Church for the Bible or a Bible for the Church? 👍

MJ
 
dailey said:
Can someone point me in the right direction for defending why Catholics do not follow only the bible? I am a cradle Catholic but really am not good at explaining why we Catholics believe what we believe. I would love to be able to defend my faith and not sound like a fool in the process. :o
Click to expand...
1 Thessalonians 2:13 …Thank God constantly for this, that when you receivedthe word of God Which your heard from us,…

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold teachings that you have learned whether by word (Sacred oral teaching) or by letter of ours.”

2 Thesalonians 3:6 6* 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 ( Sacred oral teachings)

Malachi 2:7; “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth. (Sacred Oral teaching)”

2 Timothy 2::2, “and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trust-worthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.”

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts as I gave them to you.”

We are told that first Christian “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42) which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written.
1Cor 11:2 and hold fast my precepts (oral teaching)
2Tim 1: 13 Hold to the form of sound teaching which thous has heard from me.
Titus 1:3 manifested his word through the preaching committed to my trust by the Command of God
1Thes 2:13 …you heard and received from us the word of God

1Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached (Oral teaching) unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Furthermore John tells us that everything has not been written down.
John 21:25, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (Not everything concerning Christ is in the Scripture per John)

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25 … not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 … Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 … early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 … Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 … more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 … against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:30-31 … guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Heb 5:12 … need to be taught.

Where in the Bible does it say that the only things a Christian should believe has to be in the Bible?

The Jewish faith had an important oral component that was continued in the Church.
The “Chair of Moses” became the “Chair of Peter”.
 
It sounds like you need to read and listen to Catholic radio programs related to your faith. It helps to learn about where Christianity derived - Christ. From there you need to understand that Jesus was a Jew and that Judaism teaches tradition as well. The torah wasn’t written until the time of Moses. If you read Matt 23, you’ll see the “Chair of Moses” where Christ tells his disciples to do as the teachers of the law teach them, but not to do as they do because they are hypocrites. No where does the bible say it is the final authority or the only source for knowing God.

The “Deposit of Faith” includes the Magisterium (teaching authority), Sacred Tradition (not man’s tradition) and Sacred Scripture. You see, without Sacred Tradition there would be no Sacred Scripture. But, like all teachings, there must be a teaching authority to help us understand what the correct teaching is in scripture. The fact that so many different denominations exist today and several flavors within each denomination teaching different doctrine, is proof for the need of a central teaching authority. God didn’d suddenly change. It’s always been this way and took me several decades to figure out why it is wrong to treat the bible as the sole authority of God’s truth.

I would recommend you watch stories on “The Journey Home” and read books written by those connected to The Coming Home Network. I would avoid debating anyone, at least until you finally learn properly how to defend your faith. It’s taken me a lifetime of learning to figure my way through. However, there are many sources available now to help Catholics learn to know the basics.
 
onipacana said:
pacanaoni

It is because we also have the sacred Tradition as the source of truth. Ultimately Tradition is rooted in scripture. For that reason we can also say that we have only one source of faith, the Scriptures which include both the word of God and its reflection by the Christian community expressed in the various traditional devotions and practices.
Click to expand...
onipacana said:
pacanaoni

It is because we also have the sacred Tradition as the source of truth. Ultimately Tradition is rooted in scripture. For that reason we can also say that we have only one source of faith, the Scriptures which include both the word of God and its reflection by the Christian community expressed in the various traditional devotions and practices.
Click to expand...
With all respect, the last part of your answer should be reversed. Ultimately Scripture is rooted in Sacred Tradition. When the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo met in the fourth century, and ultimately Trent in the sixteenth, they “canonized” or confirmed the books of the Bible as we have them today (save the 7 deuterocanonical books that Luther of his own authority threw out along with shortened versions of two others in the Old Testament). What were some of the criteria the councils used to determine this? Well one, was that a book must always have been believed to have come from as apostle or a scribe of an apostle (as Mark was the scribe of Saint Peter and Luke was the scribe of Saint Paul). Another was that the book believed to follow this first criteria had been read as part of the ancient liturgy, primarily Holy Mass. The Protestants who rely on Scripture as the sole rule of faith must do so based on what Catholic Tradition has provided for them. If you stop and think about it for a moment, it’s a bit of a contradiction for Protestants to say that the Bible alone be used as the sole rule of faith because that statement in of itself is self-defeating. The Bible never makes such a claim. Therefore their belief in ‘sola scriptura’ is extra-biblical.

There are always attempts to point to a verse that they say infers it, such as 2 Tim 3:16-17 (the most popular one), but this is not true (2 Tim 3:16-17 says that “all Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. This as James White, a famous Protestant apologist, has said–screams sufficiency, While this clearly shows that Scripture is indeed profitable in completing a man of God for every good work, it does not say that it is the only thing that the man of God needs to be perfected and completed. Other verses such as 2Cor 12:9 say that “my grace is sufficient for thee” while others point to perseverance, and faith and works (James 2:24). Indeed if 2Tim 3:16-17 did say scripture was solely sufficient, then as Blessed John Henry Newman pointed out, it proves too much as Second Timothy was written well before most of the new testament, rendering what came after it–like the Gospels, irrelevant to salvation and what makes a man of God compete–Paul here was really referring to the Old Testament in 2Cor).

Protestants will then usually say that the Catholic Church was not necessary in giving us the Bible despite the facts, and simply go for the easy out–that the Holy Spirit inspired them to properly identify true Scripture and it’s proper interpretation (and don’t the Mormons make the same claim about the Book of Mormon, the Muslims about the Quran, the Hindus about the Bagavad Gita?). A question I like to ask them then is, “which Holy Spirit?” because there are over thirty thousand Christian Sects that have different understandings of Scripture that all say were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So either there are many different “Holy Spirits” or there is just one–the same one who gave us the Church that identified by Divine inspiration what the Bible was in the first place, and that Church is the Catholic Church.

You can find a great debate to listen to on this subject by Patrick Madrid at his website www.patrickmadrid.com. I believe the debate with the James White mentioned above is called “Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?”. I highly recommend it.
 
Thank you everyone for all the information, you are all so very helpful:thumbsup: I look forward to learning more about my faith. 🙂
 
There was no Bible the first 300+ years of Christianity.

Protestants will come back with, “but the manuscripts were passed around before that where they read from”.

Consider this, the earliest manuscript did not get written until about 20 years after Pentecost. Did the Apostles just sit around during that time? Also, consider that the amount of manuscripts being passed around were considerably more than what we have in the Bible. What happened to those? It means some people were taking instruction from writings that never made it into the Bible, meaning they did not follow Biblical scripture. Were they heretics? Of course not!
 
Because we are not a religion of the Book.

We are children of Mary. And, She speaks in silences as the Eucharistc speaks in silences.

Scripture likewise speaks in silences as Scripture attests when it is written that only a speck of what Jesus has to say is written therein. Much is what He doesn’t say out loud.

It follows that it is an error for one to expect all to be proclaimed in a manner understandable even to the reprobate.
 
It means some people were taking instruction from writings that never made it into the Bible, meaning they did not follow Biblical scripture.
Click to expand...
Indeed. For example, Tacitus, while no fan of Christianity, wrote about the brutality of Pontius Pilate. Since there was no Christian message per se, there was no way they would include this information in the Bible. Yet, they give (or should give) us a better perspective of Christ’s Passion.

Also many people were taking instruction verbally as most in that period were illiterates. Thus our Tradition developed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top