|
Consider:
*
Do you reject the concept of divinely revealed unwritten
tradition? Click
here
*
Do you believe that the earliest Christians read the Bible? Click
here
*
How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, considering that it
was not written until years after Christ's death (the book of
Revelation wasn't even completed until around 100 A.D.!)?
*
How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, considering that it
wasn't formally codified for hundreds of years?
*
How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith considering that
Christians pre-date the Bible? In fact, New Testament Scripture was written for those who were
already Christian!
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why didn't Jesus write a
single word of it?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why didn't Jesus promise
his followers a Bible?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why didn't Jesus say that
the Bible would remain forever, as he promised that his Church would
remain forever (see Mt
16:18)?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why didn't Jesus recommend
that we read it? If it was necessary to our salvation, why would
Christ not even mention it?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why does Jesus not refer
to it even once? (All of Christ's references to Scripture are limited to the Old
Testament).
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why did it take so many
years for all of it to finally be written?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why were the New Testament
letters issued singly by their authors to certain groups of people
rather than compiled together and marked as "scripture"
for all persons?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why does Jesus command the
Apostles to preach rather than write Scripture?
*
How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, considering that most
of the early Christians were illiterate? In fact, throughout most
of history, a large number of people have been illiterate and uneducated.
Even today, many persons are illiterate.
*
If the Bible was necessary to salvation, why would Christ not have
left no earthly means to easily prepare and propagate it for many hundreds of
years (e.g. a printing press or other method of printing)?
Surely, converts were made much faster than Bibles could be
hand-copied!
*
If the Bible was necessary to salvation, why would Christ not
ensure that its production and distribution would not be
cost-prohibitive? Further, why wouldn't Christ or the Apostles
initiate literacy classes so the people could actually read the
Bible?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why doesn't Scripture say
so? Why is it you base your salvation in the "bible
alone" theory when your theory itself is not contained in the
bible that you claim to take as the sole rule of faith?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why does Scripture say to
follow also the oral traditions (see 2 Thes. 2:15)?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why was Christ's message
passed down by the Apostles mostly by the spoken - and not written
- word (cf. Mk. 16:20, 2 Tm.
2:2)?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why is so little of it
written by the original twelve Apostles?
*
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why were portions of it
(e.g. the New Testament letters) written to specific groups of
people rather than to all persons? Why did the authors not mark
them as Scripture? Why didn't they indicate that the letters should
be saved and distributed? Why were the letters scattered in
various locations? Why didn't their authors note that all the
letters would eventually be compiled? Why didn't the earliest Christians
ever get to see a completed Bible?
*
If the Apostles believed in "sola scriptura", why did
they themselves not have complete bibles? Why did they not at
least specify which books were to be considered Scripture?
*
If the Apostles believed in "sola scriptura", why did
they not write more Scripture? If the Bible is so important, why
did they not even distribute Scripture or make any known
references to acquiring it?
*
Does it not bother you that the earliest Christians were not - and
could not possibly have been - "bible only"?
*
How could the "bible alone" theory ever work considering
that the bible never tells us which books should be a part of the
Bible? Remember that Scripture itself tells that certain spurious
writings tried to pass off as genuine (see 2 Thes. 2:2).
*
If the Bible alone was the sole rule of faith, why does Scripture
say that faith
comes through hearing, not reading (see Rom. 10:17)?
*
If the Bible was the sole rule of faith, how could the uneducated,
the ignorant,
the retarded, children not yet able to read, etc. ever be
saved?
*
If the Bible was the sole rule of faith, does it not bother you
that there are no original manuscripts and that you have to rely
on others to translate copies for you? Does it not bother you that
each translation of the bible is different? Does it not bother you
that Protestant bibles have been shown to be tainted with many
errors and mistranslations?
*
How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith considering that
"without any authority there could be no way to ultimately
(and certainly) resolve the problem of competing
interpretations"? Note: For more on personal
interpretation of the Bible, click
here.
*
If the Bible was the sole rule of faith, does it not bother you have
to rely on someone else to tell you which books actually comprise
the Bible? Why does Scripture not tell you what books it is
comprised of if it is the sole rule of faith? Why do you (most
likely) use a translation of the bible which omits books that were
accepted by Christ and the Apostles? Note: Click
here for more on this topic.
*
If the Bible was to be the sole rule of faith, why does Scripture
say that it is only "profitable" (or "useful")
to salvation, rather than "sufficient" for salvation?
*
If the Bible was the sole rule of faith, "why does Scripture
show persons going to the Apostles and presbyters (priests) to
enter the Church rather than relying on the Bible?"
*
If the Bible was the sole rule of faith, why does it not give
detailed instructions for Baptisms?
*
If the Bible was the sole rule of faith, why does it refer to
deadly sin (1 Jn. 5:16-17),
but not explain what deadly sin is or what to do about it? Is
"deadly sin" really to be considered unimportant?
*
How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, considering that it
is so easily misinterpreted?
*
If the Bible was to sole rule of faith, why is this concept not
biblical, not practical, and not
historical?
*
If the Bible were the sole rule of faith, why is it so complex?
Why do some passages seem to contradict each other? Do you suppose
that salvation is only open to those with extraordinary
intelligence and excellent memories (remember that most of us
can't memorize the entire bible)?
"A competent religious guide must be clear and
intelligible to all, so that every one may fully understand the
true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book
intelligible to all? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and
difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the
learned." {Gibbons}
*
Why do you believe in the "bible alone" theory when Scripture
says that not all has been written down (cf. Jn. 20:30, Jn.
21:25)? "Now
the Evangelists are silent as to the greater part of Christ's
teaching; for whereas He preached for the space nearly of three
years, all the teaching which they have written down would
scarcely, one might say, suffice for the discourse of a single
day. For out of a great many things extracting a few, they have
given only a taste as it were of the sweetness of His
teaching." (St. Theophylact)
*
Why do you believe in the "bible alone" theory
considering Scripture
says that...
One
should take as the norm the words heard from (not
written by) St. Paul (see 2 Tm. 1:13). How
can this be if the bible is the sole rule of faith?
What
was heard (not read) was to be passed on (see 2 Tm. 2:2). How
can this be if the bible is the sole rule of faith?
What
was heard (not read) was to remain (1 Jn. 2:24).
How can the bible be the sole rule of faith if what is heard
(and not read) is what is to remain?
One
is to keep doing what was heard and seen in St. Paul (not
read) (see Phil 4:9) If the bible was to be the sole rule of
faith, why instruct persons to do what was heard and seen (and not
read)?
Paul
was to set all things in order when he came (1 Cor. 11:34).
Why did he not write them down if the bible was to be the sole
rule of faith?
Christ
had much more to tell - which wasn't included in the
Gospels - that would come from the Holy Spirit (see Jn. 16:12-13).
Do you imagine this instruction of the Holy Spirit is not
important since it was not written down in Scripture?
Decisions
of the Apostles and presbyters (priests) were reached (not
read) and handed on (not written down) and they were to be
observed (see Acts. 16:4). How can this be if the sole rule of
faith is the Bible?
St.
Peter and the other Apostles were given the authority to bind and
loose and their decisions are to be ratified in heaven (Mt 16:19, 18:18).
Is it not then important to know what they loosed and held
bound? Why are such decisions of the twelve Apostles not in Scripture
if the Bible was to be the sole rule of faith?
*
Does it not trouble you that the concept of "bible alone
Christianity" didn't exist until about 1500 years after
Christ's death?
*
Although you may claim you believe in the "bible alone"
theory, do you actually live by this? Do you ever use the word
"Bible" or "Trinity"? Are you aware that
neither of these words is in the Bible? Note: Click
here for 'Is Your Faith Biblical?'
*
Do you, perhaps, rely on the Bible alone because you reject the
concept of authority in religious matters? Why is it you reject authority
on one hand, but rely on the Catholic Church's authority on the
other hand to determine the canon (list of inspired books) of the
Bible? Note: For more on
authority in the Church, click
here.
*
Do you realize that if you rely on the Bible alone for salvation,
you have already placed your salvation in the hands of the
Catholic Church? You must know that she was the one who determined
which books were inspired and she is the one who protected and
preserved Holy Scripture. Without the Catholic Church, you could
not even own any translation of the Bible.
In
Closing...
"If
we had lived in the first twenty-five years of the Church, how
would we have answered this question: 'How can I know what I am to
believe?' We could not have said, 'I will look in the Bible.' For
there was no New Testament Bible then. We would have believed
what the Apostolic Church was teaching, and, until the invention
of printing, it would have been difficult for any of us to have
made ourselves so-called infallible private interpreters of the
book." (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
|
