(Edited Title): Why the Bible alone?

[awfulthings9]

This thread is a chance to select one very important issue from Allan1972’s thread, which has broken off into too many subtopics to be of much use in his challenge to Catholicism. To post on this thread, I request that all follow a self-imposed rules. Allan is proposing that all true Christianity is based on the Bible alone. For that reason, I think he should qualify his claim. I would like to start out with a couple very simple questions for Allan. My hope is that we can give him time to answer a few simple questions at a time rather than flooding him with an overwhelming number of posts, as happened in his thread. In return, I hope Allan will try his best to answer our simple questions without sidetracking the conversation with change of subject.

Two questions:

Several verses of the Bible tell us to follow the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles as well as the written (2 Tim. 2:2 and 2 Thes. 2:15). What oral teachings does your understanding of Christianity accept?

You’ve explained that we must go by the Bible alone. Where does the Bible or any other source tell us to do this?

 

[RNRobert]

Another forum member, BobCatholic, has what he calls his "Infamous four questions.I’ll post them here since I think they are relevant:

BobCatholic:

My “infamous 4 questions” are as follows:

Using Scripture alone, please tell me:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.

According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions.

I posted this on another thread and a poster dismissed them by saying “Sola Scriptura assumes the existence of Scripture.” But how do we know what is Scripture? If the Holy Spirit was unable to keep the Church from teaching error (as Protestants seem to think), then how can we trust that same Church to reliably choose the correct books for the canon?

 

[awfulthings9]

I posted this on another thread and a poster dismissed them by saying “Sola Scriptura assumes the existence of Scripture.” But how do we know what is Scripture? If the Holy Spirit was unable to keep the Church from teaching error (as Protestants seem to think), then how can we trust that same Church to reliably choose the correct books for the canon?

As a Church of Christ (non-instrumental) preacher friend of mine once said, we will not be judged on our “assumptions”, but I think too few Scripture alone folks really take this to heart.

 

[exiled]

My Protestant friend says simply that the books we use now were handed down via the Holy Spirit, who safeguarded the correct books Himself. Friend also says that the availability of the Bible to the masses beginning around 1400’s was the Holy Spirit’s way of making sure Scripture was available to those who might be misled by the Catholic Church who had gone so far astray and gained so much power by this time.
No written records of the earliest Christians claiming identifying themselves as SS exists, and no councils with participants who are anything other than Catholic.
Discussing church history with a protestant is, as the phrase goes, like nailing Jell-O to a wall.

 

[RNRobert]

My Protestant friend says simply that the books we use now were handed down via the Holy Spirit, who safeguarded the correct books Himself. Friend also says that the availability of the Bible to the masses beginning around 1400’s was the Holy Spirit’s way of making sure Scripture was available to those who might be misled by the Catholic Church who had gone so far astray and gained so much power by this time.
No written records of the earliest Christians claiming identifying themselves as SS exists, and no councils with participants who are anything other than Catholic.

Next time you see your Protestant friend, ask him if the Holy Spirit could (a)protect the Apostles from teaching error before one line of the NT was written, (b) protect the Apostles from error when writing Scripture, and (c) protect the Church from error when deciding the canon, but be completely unable to protect the Church from teaching Scripture without error? Also ask him what the folks who are illiterate (which many people today still are) are to do?

Discussing church history with a protestant is, as the phrase goes, like nailing Jell-O to a wall.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As I have pointed out before, Protestants do not have our history. We taught Christ’s message for 350 years before the New Testament was adopted – and then the canon was selected from a vast mass of Christian writings (some false, some true, some inbetween). The documents that appear in the New Testament were selected because they were the ones traditionally read at mass and corresponded with the oral teachings handed down by the Apostles.

If a Protestant tells you, “My church is based on the New Testament,” he’s telling the truth – someone found something in the Bible and used that as the basis for his church.

But Catholicism is not based on the New Testament – the New Testament is based on Catholicism. The New Testament is our book. We wrote it, compiled it and published it more than a thousand years before any Protestant appeared.

And we don’t even charge them royalty for using it.

 

[runandsew]

My Protestant friend says simply that the books we use now were handed down via the Holy Spirit, who safeguarded the correct books Himself. Friend also says that the availability of the Bible to the masses beginning around 1400’s was the Holy Spirit’s way of making sure Scripture was available to those who might be misled by the Catholic Church who had gone so far astray and gained so much power by this time.
No written records of the earliest Christians claiming identifying themselves as SS exists, and no councils with participants who are anything other than Catholic.
Discussing church history with a protestant is, as the phrase goes, like nailing Jell-O to a wall.

Wow, the Holy Spirit invented the printing press.
The first thing printed on the printing press was a Caholic Bible, so maybe the Holy Spirit was making sure those who would read the Bible would read all 73 books.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wow, the Holy Spirit invented the printing press.
The first thing printed on the printing press was a Caholic Bible, so maybe the Holy Spirit was making sure those who would read the Bible would read all 73 books.

I’m amazed at those Protestants who don’t realize the Catholic Church keeps records. We know how the New Testament was complied. We know who was involved. We know when and where it happened.

Yes, the Holy Spirit protected the New Testament. He did it by the same means He wrote the books of the New Testament – through the agency of human beings. And those human beings who sorted through the vast mass of Christian writings were Catholic Bishops.

 

[Sixtus]

It is not my own work, I quote:

Therein lies your problem… if it ain’t in Scripture, it ain’t

The truth of the matter is that the Tradition came First!!

Scripture is simply the written form of much of Tradition, not all.

It is the book of the Catholic Church… not the book of the Reformation and those who followed.

It IS my contention you cannot use the scriptures against her whose scriptures they are.

 

[RNRobert]

It IS my contention you cannot use the scriptures against her whose scriptures they are.

[sign]AMEN![/sign]

 

[exiled]

I’m amazed at those Protestants who don’t realize the Catholic Church keeps records. We know how the New Testament was complied. We know who was involved. We know when and where it happened.

Yes, the Holy Spirit protected the New Testament. He did it by the same means He wrote the books of the New Testament – through the agency of human beings. And those human beings who sorted through the vast mass of Christian writings were Catholic Bishops.

Exactly, Vern! I’ve pointed out to my friend the who, when, where and how, and it is dismissed. Sometimes I wonder why I don’t give up. Sometime in the future I expect the Truth to be understood by him, I guess. It would probably be more likely if I let go and let the Holy Spirit do the work. If I spent 1/2 as much time praying for my friend as I do arguing, he’s be Catholic by now.

 

[Grape]

I like the humor in this thread.
I will be your Jello if you want me to. Grape Jello
First time poster long time Church of Christ.
(non-instrumental if it makes a difference to you)

Why do we frustrate you so much?

Why the bible alone?

We trust the Bible.
Thanks guys we like it alot.

Add nothing to it and take nothing away.

 

[TobyLue]

Why do we frustrate you so much?

Why the bible alone?

We trust the Bible.
Thanks guys we like it alot.

Add nothing to it and take nothing away.

Maybe a couple of more questions to add. Where in the Bible does it say “This is the Bible?”
Where does it say to trust only the Bible; book, chapter,and verse.

Hmmm, please look up the history of the Bible and compare it to the Protestant bible and see who did the taking away. And by what authority may I ask?

 

[Grape]

Maybe a couple of more questions to add. Where in the Bible does it say “This is the Bible?”
Where does it say to trust only the Bible; book, chapter,and verse.

Hmmm, please look up the history of the Bible and compare it to the Protestant bible and see who did the taking away. And by what authority may I ask?

“This is the bible?” I only read the KJV can you translate that for me?

Protestants did it without any authority.

 

[YADA]

Do you read the KJB that originally had the Duetero canonical books in an appendix or do you read a KJB that does not? Do you use the original version of the KJB that was a pretty poor translation or do you use a modern edited version that is closer more accurate translation but keeps the Shakesperean “Thees” and “Thous”?

The KJB has undergone many veriations and alas remains a translation; just like all versions in other than the original Greek. Greek for both the Hebrew Texts and New Trestament for the early CHristians as they used the Septuigent [Greek version] of the Hebrew Scriptures [we call the the Old Testament] The Hebrew vesion of the Old Testament was not used by the first and earliest Christians though that was the version that Martin Luther preferred. Speaking of Luther, he included the Duetero canonical books in and appendix and wanted to do away with 1st Timothy and the Book of Revelation. He called 1st Timothy the “Epistle of Straw” and Revelations “Unfit” as scripture

 

[lak611]

Speaking of Luther, he included the Duetero canonical books in and appendix and wanted to do away with 1st Timothy and the Book of Revelation. He called 1st Timothy the “Epistle of Straw” and Revelations “Unfit” as scripture

Luther also wanted to eliminate James.

 

[YADA]

You are correct about James. I was only attempting to make a point about the origin of scripture being the Church.

Luther wanted to and did eliminate many things from Christian practice and worship. Thank God he was unable to destroy the New Testament!

 

[RNRobert]

I like the humor in this thread.
I will be your Jello if you want me to. Grape Jello
First time poster long time Church of Christ.
(non-instrumental if it makes a difference to you)

Why do we frustrate you so much?

Why the bible alone?

We trust the Bible.
Thanks guys we like it alot.

Add nothing to it and take nothing away.

Grape,

If the Bible ONLY is to be our rule of faith, then please answer the 4 questions I posted in post #2.

Who had the authority to decide what was ‘the Bible’ and what was not (I’m talking about the New Testament)? Your church didn’t exist til the 20th century, which Christian church was around at the time to say which books were in the New Testament?

 

[Grape]

Actually I’m not a KJB fundi. (My wife tells me that I’m not funny and now I believe her, I thought it would be funny if you asked the question in old English)

The Catholic Church obviously canonized the Bible.
The infallibility of the Bible is one thing we should agree on.

 

[exiled]

I like the humor in this thread.
I will be your Jello if you want me to. Grape Jello
First time poster long time Church of Christ.
(non-instrumental if it makes a difference to you)

Why do we frustrate you so much?

Why the bible alone?

We trust the Bible.
Thanks guys we like it alot.

Add nothing to it and take nothing away.

I am frustrated at my friend’s determination to ignore documented church history. I am frustated that he claims a history that has no documentation. His claim that the HS protected the NT for 1400 years prior to the printing press assumes infallibility for every Tom, Dick and Harry that ever copied the Word of God, none of who he can identify by name. THAT is trusting in man, not God.
Additionally, God has never spoken to each of His people individually, either in the OT or the NT. He always uses men as the vehicle for the transmission of His Truth, from Moses to Jonah, and from Peter to Benedict.
I trust the Bible because I trust the Church that Jesus Christ founded, not because it claims divine origin. The book of Mormon also claims divine origin, that does not make it so.
And just for clarification, I am speaking strictly of my experience with my friend. I do not presume to be speaking for your faith, as I know nothing about you, or your faith journey.