J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Where in our Holy Scriptures does it teach: “Only the Bible”?
Also, how did we get the Bible if we say: “Only the Bible”?
Also, how did we get the Bible if we say: “Only the Bible”?
- Status
J
jusher7281
Guest
Jim Baur:
The Bible nowhere teaches the doctrine of the Bible alone. If the Bible alone were our source for truth, then it would have been at all times available to all people. History shows this is not the case, even to this day, so it can’t possibly be the means by which God intended for us to know His teachings.
The Catholic Church wrote the entire New Testament. So the Church came first, which is also historical. I recommend a great book titled Where We Got The Bible by Henry Graham. It will show you where the Bible really came from and how it has been preserved down to this day.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Jusher 7281:
Thank you!
What came first, the Church or the Bible? (nice question)
What came first, the baptized people of the Church or the Holy Bible?
Where in the Holy Bible do we get a list of all the books in the Holy Bible?
Who taught you the list of the book of the Holy Bible?
I agree with you, Jusher.
I have studied the book that you mentioned.
Again, thank you!
Thank you!
What came first, the Church or the Bible? (nice question)
What came first, the baptized people of the Church or the Holy Bible?
Where in the Holy Bible do we get a list of all the books in the Holy Bible?
Who taught you the list of the book of the Holy Bible?
I agree with you, Jusher.
I have studied the book that you mentioned.
Again, thank you!
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Jim Baur:
By the way it’s not the Bible only, it’s the King James Version ONLY!
Check his opinions here:
aomin.org/
James White answers ALL these questions and more! He NEVER lost a debate to a Catholic either! Well, so he claims?
By the way it’s not the Bible only, it’s the King James Version ONLY!
Check his opinions here:
aomin.org/
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
I have heard the following passages used to support “Only the Bible” idea:
“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)
learn by us not to go beyond what is written. A somewhat obscure phrase that probably means: imitate our example of charity and humility towards one another as a child first learning to write her letters traces over the letters written by her teacher and tries not to go beyond what is written.
“All scripture is inspired by God and 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.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)
All scripture is … profitable. The scripture referred to is the Old Testament which Timothy learned as a child; the writings of the New Testament were not around yet. Also, profitable does not mean all-sufficient.
**
“I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Rev 22:18-19)
*This book, or scroll. *The Book of Revelation only.
The idea of “the Bible Alone” contradicts 2 Thes 2:15:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)
learn by us not to go beyond what is written. A somewhat obscure phrase that probably means: imitate our example of charity and humility towards one another as a child first learning to write her letters traces over the letters written by her teacher and tries not to go beyond what is written.
“All scripture is inspired by God and 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.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)
All scripture is … profitable. The scripture referred to is the Old Testament which Timothy learned as a child; the writings of the New Testament were not around yet. Also, profitable does not mean all-sufficient.
**
“I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Rev 22:18-19)
*This book, or scroll. *The Book of Revelation only.
The idea of “the Bible Alone” contradicts 2 Thes 2:15:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
J
jaz1976
Guest
I have heard James White’s explanation and it is feeble and weak. Most of his arguements are by misquoting or half quoting scriptures and Early Church Fathers. James is intelligent enough to know better than this so he doesn’t get a pass on this, he lies to make his point.
P
pacersFan
Guest
I thought that “King James Version” was Latin for “Bible Only”. Or was it Greek?
Seriously though, I’ve read the Henry Graham book mentioned earlier and I think it does a great job of addressing this question. I think you have to turn a pretty blind eye to history to endorse any kind of Sola Scriptura viewpoint.
On a side note, I love the quote above from Fulton Sheen. I’ve begun reading some of his work and it is great.
Seriously though, I’ve read the Henry Graham book mentioned earlier and I think it does a great job of addressing this question. I think you have to turn a pretty blind eye to history to endorse any kind of Sola Scriptura viewpoint.
On a side note, I love the quote above from Fulton Sheen. I’ve begun reading some of his work and it is great.
J
joshua1
Guest
I would like to add to the answer concerning “All Scripture is profitible”…I notice it says ALL…not **ONLY. **Jesus, As far as I know, never wrote a single word down. If the Church was supposed to be an “Only Bible” church, then Jesus would have began his public ministry handing out tracts and scriptures on the streets and said this is the way to truth. No, Jesus said he, himself was the way, truth and the Life.
V
vrummage
Guest
James White nor any other protestant apologist can successfully defend Sola Scriptura because it is a self refuting argument. If the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith and morals then the Bible must state that it is the sole rule of faith and morals because the proposition necessarily requires it. Since the Bible nowhere states that it is the sole rule of faith and morals the very doctrine of Sola Scriptura shows itself to be unbiblical (how ironic!). Therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be the “sole rule of faith” because there is at least one rule of faith that is not found in scripture- i.e. Sola Scriptura itself. Once that is admitted the entire proposition collapses like a house of cards since it violates a fundamental law of logic - the law of non-contradiction that states that no thing can both be and not be at the same time.
M
mike182d
Guest
Whose idea was it to write the Bible?
I don’t recall Jesus ever giving that command…
Must be an evil tradition of men!!!
I don’t recall Jesus ever giving that command…
Must be an evil tradition of men!!!
E
everlastingthur
Guest
Todd Easton:
J
jusher7281
Guest
Everlastingthur,
Good point, it does appear that this passage can be interpreted in many ways. I think there is at least one thing we can be sure of, however. When Paul wrote this, regardless of whether or not he subscribed to the “Bible only” theory (which he didn’t), the phrase “what is written” could only have been a reference to the Old Testament, since the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, wouldn’t you agree?
In Christ,
JU
D
Donna_P
Guest
Jim Baur:
Ah…It doesn’t. That’s why Protestants have so many issues defending their faith.
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
That is the only thing protestantism can really fall back on. Since they don’t have an authoritative Church, all you can really do is claim that the Bible (from the authoritative Church) is a complete and absolute “How-To” manual that the Church ignores and fraudulently interprets and then try to tear down the Church using the Church’s own book.
They obviously failed, and obviously didn’t read the “how-to manual” very well (Matt. 16:18).
They obviously failed, and obviously didn’t read the “how-to manual” very well (Matt. 16:18).
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
comic relief is always welcome. but, seriously,
There is 1) no warranty statement in the gospels that everything that Jesus said was ever written down, 2) just before his ascension into heaven, he said to “teach all nations” which does not even remotely suggest that things should not be written down, and 3) Jesus specifically had respect for things that had been written down, i.e. the scriptures.
I’m reading Jarislav Pelikan’s new book “Whose Bible is it?” in which, in the introductory chapters, he discusses the oral traditions of both the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures. Even in the written scriptures, there is so much emphasis on the verbal transmission of the Word, with a hint of regret of how limiting it can be to even write it down. He points out how some very lengthy oral histories have been handed down in various human groups.
Another problem with a written copy is just the somewhat undue emphasis, such as in this thread, of limiting oneself to the written word.
In a nice little book called “Symbols of Judaism” Rabbi Marc-Alain Ouaknin points out that the Hebrew scripture is written without vowels and punctuation. I think that part of his point is that the scripture itself contains more mystery that way, it draws us in.
He also notes that even the story of Cinderella has 345 versions, but that the written version gets rather narrowed down to one, doesn’t it? (He’s a professor of literature.)
It is often common for movie critics to point out how a movie will depart from the book which inspired it.
How many of us can read the introductory chapters of Genesis without visualizing the unfolding drama, which is to say, filling in the gaps that the text presents us?
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Harold Camping of world-wide Family Radio invokes the following
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
…in his defense of sola-scriptura. He puts it this way, “The Bible alone and in its entirety is the Word of God.”
However, in the same vein, he never (and I listened to him for years – he’s really quite interesting, if biased) points out these verses
Deuteronomy 4:2 In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.
This might rule out the NT for example, if one interpreted it narrowly. Camping would then argue that Jesus was God, and He was sovereign and could revise the Law.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
…in his defense of sola-scriptura. He puts it this way, “The Bible alone and in its entirety is the Word of God.”
However, in the same vein, he never (and I listened to him for years – he’s really quite interesting, if biased) points out these verses
Deuteronomy 4:2 In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.
This might rule out the NT for example, if one interpreted it narrowly. Camping would then argue that Jesus was God, and He was sovereign and could revise the Law.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Very well put. And thus comes to an end another Protestant notion, crashing down in flames.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Might there be a lovely person out there who could answer this question: How many times does the New Testament quote from the LXX?
Also, answers to questions of similar interest…
Thank you!!!
Also, answers to questions of similar interest…
Thank you!!!
E
Elzee
Guest
Jim Baur:
What is ‘LXX’?
T
TobyLue
Guest
If by this Protestants claim that in order for a OT book to be accepted it must be quoted in the NT, notice on one of the links below that it states
----- For there are fifteen Old Testament books from the Hebrew canon are not quoted at all in the new testament:
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah.
If this were truly a requirement for the canonicity of the books of the Old Testament, then we have fifteen more books that we have to throw out - bringing the total up to twenty-two (counting the DEUTEROCANONICALS).----
These are the links you may want to look at:
catholicapologetics.net/nt_and_duthtm.htm
catholicapologetics.net/no_quotes.htm
catholicapologetics.net/septuagint_and_the_jews_in_ethio.htm
- Status