Why Follow the Bible?

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

Why Follow the Bible?

Down through the centuries the Bible has been hated and destroyed as no other book. Probably more copies of the Bible have been burned than of all other books put together, yet today more people read it, more people own it, and it is translated into more languages and published in more copies than any other book.

Not only do millions read this book today, but millions of others in the past have given their lives to make its message known. Why?

Because it has made sinful lives good and worthwhile. Through its influence they have come to know God and to be a help to those around them.
Because it is inspired of God. All Scripture is inspired of God…(2 Timothy 3:16). In addition to saying so, it gives convincing evidence of really being inspired by God; for example many of its prophecies have already been fulfilled. Catholic doctrine also states that this book is inspired of God.
The Bible contains everything that is necessary to bring the Christian to perfection. The verse quoted above continues, All Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching - for reproof, correction, and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We need add nothing from tradition to bring the believer to this fully competent and equipped state.
Because, as the apostle Peter informs us in his second letter, the Bible is more reliable than that which he had seen with his eyes and heard with his ears because it was written by men impelled by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16-21). It would seem obvious that if the Bible is more reliable than what Peter himself had seen and heard, it is also more reliable than any tradition which contradicts it.

Some misinterpret a part of this Scripture and say that only the Roman Catholic church is capable of interpreting the Bible. The passage, however, speaks of God's guidance of those who wrote the Bible, and does not say that only certain ones can interpret it. The apostle Paul praised the believers of Berea for examining the Scriptures for themselves to see if what he was teaching them was really Scriptural: Its members were better disposed than those in Thessalonica, and welcomed the message with great enthusiasm. Each day they studied the Scriptures to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). If they did well to test the teachings of the apostle Paul by comparing them with the Scriptures that they already had, how much more should we apply the same test to the traditions of the church today?

The New Testament speaks a great deal about tradition, and condemns it when it is contrary to the word of God. Jesus said: You disregard God's commandment and cling to what is human tradition¼ That is the way you nullify God's word in favor of the traditions you have handed on (Mark 7:8,13; see also Matthew 15:2-6; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Galatians 1:14).

Some, trying to justify the authority of the Catholic church over that of the Scriptures, remind us that the Bible does not contain everything that Jesus and the apostles taught. This is certainly true and the Bible itself affirms it. This fact, however, gives us no authorization to accept the many Catholic doctrines which are explicitly contrary to teachings of Scripture (Revelations 22:18-19; Mark 7:3-13). The Bible contains all that is needed to bring us to faith in Christ, and to help us grow in that faith. (John 20:30-31; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The great majority of the differences between Bible believing Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church do not come from different interpretations of the Bible or different Bibles, but from a difference in what is the "final authority." The Bible must be interpreted in the light of the Bible itself and neither twisted nor set aside to honor the pronouncement of popes, councils, or tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tklein1014]

I agree with you that the Bible is a great spiritual guide.  I have a question for you and/or any other who would like to answer...

When I was searching for a church to be a member of, one of the things that confused me about Protestantism and attracted me to Catholicism is that there is 1 Catholic Church, which existed long before any Protestant denominations came into existance, so I think everyone can agree that it's the oldest.  There are thousands of Protestant denominations, each one claiming theirs is "the way", "the best way", "the right interpretation", etc.  How can they all be right?  Certainly they can't all be right.  Which one is right?  How can you tell?  It's mind-boggling to me, and Catholocism was the only one which made sense and felt right, to me, anyway.

Tina

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16

[Seeker]

Jesus left His Church to continue his work.  The Bible was formed out of the early Church.  If the Bible is in itself the only authority a believer needs, then why the change among Bible-only believers regarding artificial birth control from a strong stance against it?  Why the different beliefs regarding divorce? To me, this is the fruit that shows that personal interpretation of God's Word leaves one open to error and misinterpreting the truth.  It is certainly profitable and necessary to study God's Word, but the authority of the Church that Jesus established makes sure we will not stray from His truth when we knowingly or unknowingly read into it what God had not intended.

[tklein1014]

If the Bible is in itself the only authority a believer needs, then why the change among Bible-only believers regarding artificial birth control from a strong stance against it? Why the different beliefs regarding divorce? To me, this is the fruit that shows that personal interpretation of God's Word leaves one open to error and misinterpreting the truth.

This is the point I was trying to make in my earlier post.  Perhaps I chose the wrong words.  I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, Ayodhya - It was not my intention to portray you as an enemy.  Satan's up to his little tricks again...

Tina

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

When I was searching for a church to be a member of, one of the things that confused me about Protestantism and attracted me to Catholicism is that there is 1 Catholic Church, which existed long before any Protestant denominations came into existance, so I think everyone can agree that it's the oldest. There are thousands of Protestant denominations, each one claiming theirs is "the way", "the best way", "the right interpretation", etc. How can they all be right? Certainly they can't all be right. Which one is right? How can you tell? It's mind-boggling to me, and Catholocism was the only one which made sense and felt right, to me, anyway.

Dear Tina,

Once again you have portrayed great sense of maturity in the above quote.I am still searching for answers on why there is not just one denomination of Protestantism.Since this is also an important subject,please permit me to post it as a separate thread in the days to come.

God loves you very much
 
A N Bhat

[Rev. Eric]

Hello, everyone. My seminary LAN is shutting down for the next couple of days. As soon as it is back up and running I will respond to this topic... sorry for the delay.

God bless,

Rev. Eric

[Rev. Eric]

Hello One and All,

Thanks goodness for floppy disks and Kinkos (with its rentable PCs).  I will now be able to post my input to this topic!

First let me warn everyone that this is going to be a long post, even for me.  I appreciate the patience of anyone who takes time to read it.  Ayodhya has raised some very important issues and I think they all need to be addressed, one at a time.  Naturally I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss scripture with everyone.  The bible, after all, is common to all Christians and therefore an important matter for discussion.

Due to the size of the task at hand, I’m going to have to divide my post into two separate parts (i.e., two separate posts).

PART ONE

To Tina and Seeker:  I think you have both made very valid points.  In addition to what was said about abortion and divorce, I will also add:
1)  In the June of 2000 the Southern Baptist Convention determined that all pastors should be male, based upon their interpretation of 1Cor 14:34-35, 1Tim 2:11-12, 3:1-2.  Naturally, many other Protestants said that this was not a correct interpretation, and continued to use women pastors.  I do not want to get into the subject of women being pastors in this topic.  My point in mentioning it is that this is another case of mixed Protestant interpretations of Scripture.

2)  Arias (of the Arian Heresy fame) said that Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father, but was instead a created being.  Arias backed up his argument with scripture, and yet his interpretation of scripture lead him into heresy.

To Ayodhya, my remaining comments will center on quotations from your post.  But first let me make a statement that I want you and everyone else to keep in mind:
If you, as a Protestant, desire to hold the bible as your final source of Christian teaching then, by all means, do so.  But is it right for you to criticize Christians who do not do likewise?

Why Follow the Bible?

Catholics agree that we should follow the bible.  God wrote the New Testament through the hands of Catholics.  The Canon of Scripture was discerned by the Catholic Church.  The bible was copied and preserved by Catholic monks throughout the ages.  The Magesterium has protected the bible from heresy over and over again.  The bible is a Catholic book.

But Catholics hold that the bible is one of three "pillars" of Catholic Faith.  The other two are Sacred Tradition and the official teachings of the Magesterium (i.e., the pope and the bishops in union with him) on matter of faith and morals.

Furthermore, I personally believe that the bible is the inspired Word of God because of the authority of the Church.  Jesus did not commission the writing or compiling of the bible.  Aside from the dictated letters in the first part of Rev., we have no record of Jesus telling anyone to write anything.  Jesus did, however, establish a Church and gave it His authority (Mt 16:18-19).  It is because of this authority that I believe in the bible.  As St. Augustine said, "I would not believe in the gospel except that the Church tells me it is true."

Point #1:

Down through the centuries the Bible has been hated and destroyed as no other book. Probably more copies of the Bible have been burned than of all other books put together, yet today more people read it, more people own it, and it is translated into more languages and published in more copies than any other book.

I believe that being persecuted by the world is a sign of sanctity.  After all, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that this would happen to his disciples.  In the Gospel of John He said that the world would hate His disciples because it hated Him first.  I also believe that the wide-spread nature of the bible is a sign of the working of the Holy Spirit.

But, whereas a persecuted church and a well-read bible is evidence of sanctity, it cannot be held up as proof of it.  I say this because the Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and Mormons can make the same argument concerning their own churches and sacred writings.  Of course, I believe that the Jews have sacred writings, but they also teach things contrary to what Christians believe.

Although there are more bibles than, say, the Koran, Muslims could simply state that Christians have more printing presses, and could also point out that Islam is the fastest growing religion in many areas of the world.  Copies of the Koran may one day be more numerous than the bible.  Will this mean that the Koran will become the official Word of God?

Conclusion to Point #1:  As I stated above, religious persecution and wide-spread religious writings cannot be held up as proof of sanctity, simply because people of many religions can make the same sort of claim.  These religions teach contrary doctrines so they cannot all be true.

Point #2:

Not only do millions read this book today, but millions of others in the past have given their lives to make its message known. Why? Because it has made sinful lives good and worthwhile. Through its influence they have come to know God and to be a help to those around them.

First of all, I believe what you are stating here.  But this cannot be held up as proof that the bible is divinely inspired.  I say this because last summer I had Mormons tell me the exact same thing about the Book of Mormon.  Muslims will also tell you the exact same thing about the Koran.  In other words, Mormons and Muslims say that we should accept their sacred writings for the exact same reasons you say that people should accept the bible.  I'm not saying that your reasons are wrong (as I believe they are true), I am simply saying that, from an objective viewpoint, your reasons cannot be presented as proof of the bible’s claim to divinity.

Conclusion to #2:  There are many different religions that believe in a Creator God, and these religions have sacred writings.  Adherents to these religions will claim that each of their sacred writings are widely read, that people have given their lives to make its message known, that these writings make sinful lives good and worthwhile and that it helps them encounter God.  Nevertheless, these sacred writings contradict one another, so they cannot all be true.  Hence, the things you presented in Point #2 cannot be used as proof of the divine inspiration of God, because everyone can make the same argument about their sacred writings (regardless of whether or not their beliefs are actually based on truth).

A Further Point to Ponder:  Let us say that there is a man named Joe who has no religious background.  He finds himself spiritually hungry and is looking for the "correct religion."  He has been shopping around amongst Christians, Muslems and Mormons.  Based on what you have stated in Points 1 and 2, how would you explain that the bible has a valid claim to being divinely inspired while the Koran and the Book of Mormon are not?  (I am not suggesting that these other books are divinely inspired, I am simply offering this as an exercise – I think that belief in a book needs to be anchored in something outside the book).

Point #3

Because it is inspired of God. All Scripture is inspired of God…(2 Timothy 3:16). In addition to saying so, it gives convincing evidence of really being inspired by God; for example many of its prophecies have already been fulfilled. Catholic doctrine also states that this book is inspired of God.

1)  I believe that what you have said here is true.  Also, Catholic doctrine says that it is inspired, but that is because of the authority of the Church, as I explained above.
2)  I believe that prophecies of the bible have been fulfilled.  But I disagree that it is "convincing evidence."  My belief is based upon faith, but "convincing evidence" means that an objective examination of the bible will conclude its validity.  Human experience tells us that this is not so.  If the bible gives convincing evidence as to its divine nature then why are there plenty of atheists and skeptics within Christian communities?  Try to demonstrate the "convincing evidence" of the bible to an atheist and see how far you get.  And for that matter, why isn't the whole world Christian by now?  The bible has been around for centuries and you yourself admit that it has been spread all over the world in different languages.  So why are there still plenty of non-Christians?
3)  In terms of 2Tim 3:16 (that all Scripture is inspired of God) keep in mind that Paul is writing about the Old Testament whenever he talks about "Scripture."  For example, scripture scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, generally date 2Tim prior to the writing of the gospels.  So anyone who is not prepared to toss out the New Testament should be careful concerning how 2Tim is to be interpreted.

Conclusion to Point #3:  The bible presents evidence as to its validity, but, as a general rule, this evidence must be accepted upon faith.  As such, it is only "convincing" to those who believe.  To those who do not believe, the bible does not present any "convincing" evidence, and I am sure there are hordes of atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. who will give a sound intellectual rejection of any of this biblical evidence in question.  Although I am sure there are exceptions, I present my conclusion as a general rule.  If the bible offered convincing evidence then everyone would be Christian.

 Point #4

The Bible contains everything that is necessary to bring the Christian to perfection. The verse quoted above continues, All Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching - for reproof, correction, and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

1)  As I pointed out above, Paul, of course, did not say that the "bible" contains everything that is necessary to bring the Christian to perfection, he said (as you then quoted "Scripture").  You have taken his use of the word "Scripture" and applied it to the bible, a book that would not be compiled for approximately 400 years.  When Paul said "Scripture", he meant "Old Testament."
2)  Paul said that scripture is useful for reproof, correction, etc., but neither here or elsewhere does he say that only Scripture is to be used for such things, as what Sola Scriptura claims.

We need add nothing from tradition to bring the believer to this fully competent and equipped state.

Well, we had to add the entire New Testament didn't we?  If you are using Paul's quotes from 2Tim to reject Sacred Tradition then I could make the same argument and say that you should dump the New Testament.  Here again, when Paul said "Scripture" he meant Old Testament.  He wrote this prior to the gospels and prior to Revelation.

Conclusion to Point #4:  2Tim speaks only of the Old Testament, not of the bible as we know it (as parts of it had not been written and the Canon of Scripture with which the bible is compiled had not been laid down).  Furthermore, although Paul speaks of the importance of Scripture, he does not say that Scripture alone is to be used.  If we interpret 2Tim to mean that we should not use anything outside of Scripture to bring "bring the believer to this fully competent and equipped state" then we need to not only toss Sacred Tradition but the New Testament as well.

You have interpreted 2Tim to mean that Paul was saying to rely only on Scripture and not Tradition.  This contradicts what Paul clearly states in:
2Thess 2:15 - "Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."  Here Paul clearly states that he teaches not only by tradition, but by tradition that is not specifically found in writing.  Yes, it is found "by letter" but also "by word of mouth."
2Thess 3:6 - "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition you received from us."
1Cor 11:2 - "Maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."
Phil 4:9 - "What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do"

Point #5:

Because, as the apostle Peter informs us in his second letter, the Bible is more reliable than that which he had seen with his eyes and heard with his ears because it was written by men impelled by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16-21). It would seem obvious that if the Bible is more reliable than what Peter himself had seen and heard, it is also more reliable than any tradition which contradicts it.

1)  Not one single Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church contradicts the bible, nor have you successfully demonstrated this otherwise - not here, nor within any topic in this forum.
2)  2Peter 1:16-21 speaks of the "prophetic word."  Peter does not say "bible," nor could he be speaking of the bible as we know it.  He was referring to the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, the prophecy of which has been fulfilled in Christ.  There is nothing in there about scripture alone being the sole resource for Christian guidance.  The text itself does not support the interpretation that you have given it.

Conclusion to Point #5:  Peter was not speaking about the bible as a whole but specifically about the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, which have been fulfilled in Christ.  Furthermore, I do not really read this passage the way you interpreted (that Scripture was more reliable than what Peter saw with his eyes or heard with his ears).  Peter said that the "prophetic word was made more sure" because he personally saw and heard its fulfillment at the Transfiguration.  Hence, we should believe what he says about Jesus because his eyewitness account of the Transfiguration backs him up.  This is an eyewitness testimony, rather than a "cleverly devised myth" (verse 16).  In any event, there is nothing truly in there that supports the primacy of Scripture in the manner you have presented.

END OF PART ONE (Please see next post for Part Two).

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Rev. Eric]

I now continue with my two-part answer to Ayodhya’s initial post.

PART TWO

Point #6:

Some misinterpret a part of this Scripture and say that only the Roman Catholic church is capable of interpreting the Bible. The passage, however, speaks of God's guidance of those who wrote the Bible, and does not say that only certain ones can interpret it.

1)  You are referring to the passage where Peter says that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's personal interpretation.  You are correct that many Catholics use this quote when talking against personal interpretation, but I don't.  I have never been comfortable with that whole 2Pet approach, so I will leave it up to other Catholics to elaborate on it.  I personally do not use 2Pet in order to debate issues concerning Scripture, Tradition and interpretation.

2)  All Catholics are encouraged to read the bible and see how it speaks to them.  This is a type of personal interpretation and we call it “Lectio Divina” (“divine book”).  But only the Magesterium of the Catholic Church has the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit to make official interpretations.  The bible does not clearly state that the Church does this (although Catholics see this in the authority bestowed upon Peter), but human nature emphatically demonstrates that personal interpretation of Scripture does not unerringly lead to truth.  As we have already seen, Protestants interpret scripture to say contradicting things concerning abortion, divorce and women pastors.  Also, as I have already mentioned, Arius used scripture to teach that Jesus was a created being and not co-eternal with God.  So where will I turn to for truth?  I will not turn to personal interpretation of Scripture, but rather to the Church, which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1Tim 3:15).

Furthermore, Scripture is not always easy to understand.  Peter admits that for many Christians the writings of Paul are "hard to understand" and that Scripture may be misinterpreted and twisted by "lawless men."  (2Pet 3:15-17).

In Acts 8:26 ff. we see an Ethiopian reading Scripture.  The Holy Spirit is present, but the Spirit does not enter the man and guide him in his understanding.  Rather, the Spirit brings Philip, a member of the Church.  “Philip asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’  And he said, ‘How can I unless someone guides me?’”  And Philip did just that.  But where is the personal interpretation of Scripture in this story?

God, in His mercy, has not left humanity in such a sea of confusion over conflicting personal interpretations.  He has empowered the Magesterium to interpret Scripture with the same guaranteed guidance that went into the writing of it.

Conclusion to Point #6:  Personal interpretation of scripture cannot be the way the Holy Spirit intends for the creation of doctrine.  We see time and time again how personal interpretations contradict one another.  The truth cannot contain contradiction.

Point #7:

(Concerning the believers of Beroea) Each day they studied the Scriptures to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). If they did well to test the teachings of the apostle Paul by comparing them with the Scriptures that they already had, how much more should we apply the same test to the traditions of the church today?

I agree whole heartedly.

But keep in mind that the Jews of Beroea were not looking in Scripture to make sure the teachings of Paul were in there.  After all, they were examining the prophecies of the Old Testament.  But Paul was telling them that these prophecies were fulfilled in Christ.  The Old Testament does not give much in terms of concrete data as to who the Messiah will be, what His nature is, and how He will save His people.  And the Old Testament certainly does not state that the Messiah will be God manifested in human flesh.  So we can assume that Paul was telling the Jews of Beroea a lot of things that were not in scripture.  But these Jews used Scripture to make sure that the Christian message matched up with what was prophesized.  They were making sure there were no contradictions between prophecy and Paul's account of fulfillment.

Conclusion to Point #7:  The rule concerning Sacred Tradition is that, although it does not need to be found in scripture, it cannot contradict Scripture.  In light of this, Scripture can be used to test for contradictions.  As I said above, truth cannot contain contradiction.  Scripture and Sacred Tradition are to be in harmony with one another, but harmony does not mean that a Tradition needs to be clearly described in Scripture.  If it is then it is not a Tradition in the first place (technically speaking), but Scripture.

Point #8

The New Testament speaks a great deal about tradition, and condemns it when it is contrary to the word of God. Jesus said: You disregard God's commandment and cling to what is human tradition¼ That is the way you nullify God's word in favor of the traditions you have handed on (Mark 7:8,13; see also Matthew 15:2-6; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Galatians 1:14).

Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the New Testament ever condemned all tradition, only specific interpretations (called traditions) of specific Jewish laws.

Mark 7:8,13 / Matthew 15:2-6  -  Jesus is responding to the criticism that His disciples did not wash their hands before they ate.  He was not speaking about traditions as a whole, but about how the Pharisees equated ritual purity with spiritual purity.

Col 2:8 - Paul is referring to "human traditions."  Obviously he makes a distinction between these traditions and the traditions that he, himself, circulates (as I have already listed above).  This distinction is between human tradition and Sacred Tradition, and Catholics also make this distinction.  But Paul cannot be condemning all tradition in Col if he also tells us to follow his traditions in other passages.

1Thess 2:13 - Paul refers to the "Word of God" that people have received from the Church.  "Word of God" here refers to divine revelation, which can come through both scripture and Sacred Tradition.  The prophets, for example, received the "Word of God" orally, and they spread it orally.  Some of it got written down, but these messages were the "Word of God" regardless of whether or not any of it was ever put into Scripture.  Furthermore, 1Thess cannot be speaking against Sacred Tradition if in 2Thess (as I have listed above) Paul tells us to hold onto it (and stay away from those who don't).

Gal 1:14 - Paul says that, prior to conversion, he was zealous for “the traditions of his fathers.”  Once again, he cannot be referring to Sacred Tradition, because he elsewhere stresses the importance of Sacred Tradition (as I have listed above).  Furthermore, as Sacred Tradition comes from Christ, it is not the traditions of anyone’s fathers.

Conclusion to Point #8:  Neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer condemns all tradition.  Only specific traditions are condemned.  Paul warns us about certain traditions while telling us to hold onto other traditions.  The traditions he tells us to hold onto fall into the category of what the Catholic Church calls Sacred Tradition.

Point #9:

Some, trying to justify the authority of the Catholic church over that of the Scriptures, remind us that the Bible does not contain everything that Jesus and the apostles taught. This is certainly true and the Bible itself affirms it. This fact, however, gives us no authorization to accept the many Catholic doctrines which are explicitly contrary to teachings of Scripture (Revelations 22:18-19; Mark 7:3-13).

1)  Name me ONE Catholic doctrine that is "explicitly contrary to the teachings of Scripture" and I will gleefully concede your point.  All I have seen in your posts in this forum so far is that Catholic doctrine contradicts your personal interpretation of Scripture.  I certainly do not consider that being “explicitly contrary.”  Explicitly means “clearly and precisely.”
2)  The "book" mentioned in Rev. 22:18-19 specifically refers to the "Book of Revelation" - not the bible.  No Catholic doctrine "adds" or "takes away" from the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, so we are not in violation of it.
3)  I have already commented on Mark 7 above.

Conclusion to Point #9:  Catholic doctrine does not contradict Scripture, but only the personal interpretations of Scripture of some Protestants.  As Protestant personal interpretations contradict one another, such interpretations cannot be held as the measure by which Scripture is to be understood.

Your Closing Comments:

The Bible contains all that is needed to bring us to faith in Christ, and to help us grow in that faith. (John 20:30-31; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

1)  I have already addressed 2Tim above.
2)  Jn 20:30-31 says that he has written certain things so that we can believe that "Jesus is the Christ."  If you are holding up Jn 20:30-31 as proof that we do not need Sacred Tradition in our Christian Faith then I can use the same argument to say that we only need the Gospel of John in our Christian Faith.  After all, John was referring to what he, specifically, wrote in his gospel.

The great majority of the differences between Bible believing Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church do not come from different interpretations of the Bible or different Bibles, but from a difference in what is the "final authority." The Bible must be interpreted in the light of the Bible itself and neither twisted nor set aside to honor the pronouncement of popes, councils, or tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6).

Do you realize that what you said concerning popes, councils and tradition can be said of you?  You have accused Catholic teaching of "explicitly contradicting" scripture, yet you have never demonstrated this to be so.  You hunted down what the bible has to say against tradition but did not check to see if it said anything good.  In my opinion you have quoted some of your Scripture passages out of context.  Could I not call this “twisting” Scripture in order to “honor” your own “pronouncements”?

Furthermore, there is plenty of "Scripture twisting" among Protestants in general who profess to interpret the bible in light of the bible itself, as Tina, Seeker and I have demonstrated.

But now let us get down to the heart of the matter:

The Bible must be interpreted in the light of the Bible itself.

This, it seems, is a teaching that you are trying to have us accept.  But this brings up some important things to consider:

1)  Where in the bible does it say, "The Bible must be interpreted in the light of the Bible itself"?  This is not in the bible.  Therefore this teaching does not come from the bible and, as such, this teaching is a tradition.  Furthermore, unless you can show me where a person who supports this teaching claims divine authority to lay down Christian doctrine, this teaching is, by the very definition of the term, a "tradition of man."

2)  Where in the bible does it say that Scripture is, as you put it, the "final authority"?  If this is not found in the bible then you have ascribed an authority to the bible that the bible does not claim for itself.  As such, this is a paradox.

3)  The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity states that God exists in three, and only three, Persons.  Furthermore, these Persons make up One God while also, at the same time, are distinct from one another.  This is accepted by all mainstream Christian Denominations.  Nowhere in the bible is this doctrine given, and, as a matter-of-fact, there are certain Christian sects that reject this doctrine simply because it is not found in the bible.  If you believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity then you believe in a Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.  If it is ok for the Church to formulate this Sacred Tradition, then why not other Traditions?

4)  I have discussed the Canon of Scripture within other forum topics.  The Canon of Scripture is the list of the books that comprise the bible.  The bible itself does not tell us what books belong in it.  Furthermore, the bible itself does not tell us how to discern what is authentic Scripture and what is not.  Therefore, the Canon of Scripture itself is Sacred Tradition.  If you do not believe in Sacred Tradition then there is no reason why you should not look into the possibility of the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, the Acts of Pilate, the Gospel of Mary, and such as being the divinely inspired Word of God.  But if you believe in the Canon of Scripture then you believe in Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.  If it is ok for the Church to formulate this Sacred Tradition, then why not other Traditions?

Now that I am finally at the end of my comments on this issue, let me restate my position concerning this topic:  Ayodhya, if you, as a Protestant, desire to hold the bible as your final source of Christian teaching then, by all means, do so.  But is it right for you to criticize Christians who do not do likewise?  I have no reason to doubt that by using the bible (and not Sacred Tradition) you can, and do, experience the Christian Faith in a profound and powerful way.  But as far as I can determine, this can only be said to be your personal preference, and not a mandate that all Christians should follow.  Therefore, I see no reason why Catholics should not continue to practice the Faith the way we have for 2000 years.

Wow, what a long post!  But, hey, I warned everybody!

Ok, this probably all I’ll be able to post for a couple of days.  As I stated above, my seminary LAN is shut down for a couple of days.  The only reason I am online right now is because I am renting a PC at Kinkos, but I may not be able to make it back here.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Seeker]

Well worth the time it took to read this!

[Rev. Eric]

Thanks Seeker!  It took all afternoon to type it, so I am glad that it got read.  

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[DavidFilmer]

If Ayodhya plans to cut-and-paste the works of others, the least he could do is attribute it. Ayodhya plagerized this content from the book "Understanding Roman Catholicism," copyright 1995 by Rick Jones, which is posted (with permission and attrition) on Jack Chick's website (Jack Chick is a professional anti-Catholic):

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/218/218_02.asp

(scroll down about 2/3 of the way to find "Why Follow the Bible?")