Where in the Bible does it say that ONLY the Bible should be used to determine the Faith of Christians...?

Question

How did the Christian Church (the Body of Christ) exist for the first 1,500 years without the false doctrine of "sola scriptura"?

Since there is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired....how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?

Is it because The Church gave us the Bible - and not the other way around? Hmmmm?

Or, do evangelicals actually believe that St. Paul and the Apostolic Fathers ran around the known world with leather-bound King James Version Bibles (Red Letter Edition) under their arms?

Answer 1

This is a good question, Father K. I believe the answer lies within the Bible itself. Let me first state that I support sola scriptura.

For example, Paul wrote sooooo extensively on many different subjects, but we see nothing conclusive on doctrines such as transsubstantiation, "investigative judgement," the inerrancy of the Pope, etc. To the minds of folks like me, these are all doctrines developed by the reasoning of men, not by law from God.

Similarly, Jews argue that their oral tradition (Talmud and Midrashim) are equal to -- and sometimes BETTER THAN -- God's own words in the Tanakh. Christians see no conclusive evidence that God meant the Jews to develop such extra-Biblical means of utilizing and interpreting His laws.

Isn't it illogical for some Christians to discard sola scriptura, yet challange the validity of Jewish oral tradition because it's not the word of God? What's the difference?!?!

As far as the accepted cannonical books of the Bible, I believe we should adhere to the books that were confirmed as being truly Apostolic by the early Church fathers. Any book that contains inaccuracies or theological conflicts with the accepted cannon must be discarded. But that is my own opinion.

Answer 2

As always, there's not much I can add to what Suzanne has said. I would put emphasis on the books of the Bible being supported from both inside and outside the Bible, whereas other documents fail on those grounds.

You've already referenced the passage in James, which would have been included in my answer. I think that the end of Revelation is often misunderstood, particularly the use of the word "book." Rev 22:18-19 is an admonition to anyone who adds or takes away from "this book," which I sometimes hear means the entire Bible, not the Book of Revelation.

Answer 3

First, I'm as human as anybody else and I recognize that I see "through a glass darkly." That means our perception of God is always going to be cloudy so long as we inhabit corruptible flesh. Therefore none of us should imagine that we've got it down regarding His perfect will; instead we should try to make sure our doctrines agree with the Greatest Commandment, to love the Lord our God with all our being and to love our neighbors -even our enemies- as we love ourselves.
Jesus upheld the Law and the Prophets and pointed to the New Testament (John 17:20) as His way of bringing truth to us. On that endorsement, we Christians should be confident that we will not err if we ascribe to the writings from Genesis to Revelation.
The trouble comes when we use a standard that is not absolute to judge and discern by. We have only the scriptures as tangible, doctrinal instruction from God, and when any of us choose to apply liberal interpretation to it or to subject it to the infinitely variable dictates of human consciousness, then who or what becomes authority? Marian doctrine is not in the Bible. Transubstantiation is not in the Bible. Homosexuality as an acceptable expression of love is not in the Bible. If a person chooses by whatever standard to accept these things as truth and revelation, that is between that person and God. But it doesn't seem to me that requiring acceptance of these interpretations is mandated by our Lord. Sola scriptura may not be the 11th commandment, but it does seem to be the safest position for those who know the human mind and heart can lead us astray. This Bible keeps us anchored. Once the interpretations of men are given equal authority, we are stepping into chaos.

Answer 4

Jesus said man does not live by bread alone but every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

St. Paul and the apostles while not having the King James Bible would have had access to the Septuagint and thus the early writings of the law and the prophets. Peter quotes the prophet Joel on the day of Pentecost.

Answer 5

Sola scriptura is not in the bible. It was a man made thing. We have to follow the bible and tradition. Before the bible the apostles were already Christians even without sola scriptura.

Answer 6

Sola Christos!

Fr., let me add a perspective others may not bring to the conversation.

Western Christians, in general, tend to let their heart follow their mind. In other words, their faith follows their reason more than it needs to. I have come to a place where I accept many of the things I believe by faith and for the sake of faith alone. My reason may very well do something completely different, because they operate independently.

I do not need to think my way into leaning more on tradition for what I believe about Christianity, because a study of history and common sense lead me to do so. It may or may not be part of my personal faith, but is what I believe about Christianity, nonetheless.

I believe history and common sense dictate that your argument is correct. I do not need to justify it from tradition or argue it from scripture. Luther needed to reinvent the wheel and had to justify doing so because he was developing a new systematic theology. His basic foundation of using scripture as a check and balance with tradition (not over and against it) isn't a bad thing. The problem was that he did that outside of Mother Church.

Answer 7

If it weren't for doctrinal misinterpretation there would not be such enmity due to differing understandings, foremost among these is religious based hate, when Jesus command loving even enemies - thus to think as no one as enemy. It's impossible to love someone when you're condemning them in lump with their temporary shortcomings. If Jesus loved even those who killed him, or rather his body, then what cause have anyone for hating another except it be of their own self, and not of Christ's teaching.

With such a strong base of conviction for love, it would be likewise impossible to condemn other teachings which are believed to be helpful by their adherents. This does not advise not cautioning, but merely not assuming you're 100% right, which according to Christ's teachings is for God and His Messengers, and not human interpretations of their sayings.

These limitations of Christ's claimed followers is likewise not helpful to condemn, though cautioning is ok, but merely saying what is truthful is best without condemnation, or need for caution.

Humans aren't perfect, if we were there'd be no hope of betterment and feeling of good of overcoming. If we see this, and only look toward the good which is possible, and not what has been so far, then we can make progress, but if we dwell on what was, and now is in consequence, then we are stagnant on former things. Better to forget former things, and live the potential as much as each can manage, whether little or a lot.

Indeed, Love binds the physical, and all other realms together, without which there'd be merely void.

"The Lord Christ said, 'He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father' -- God manifested in man.

The sun does not leave his place in the heavens and descend into the mirror, for the actions of ascent and descent, coming and going, do not belong to the Infinite, they are the methods of finite beings. In the Manifestation of God, the perfectly polished mirror, appear the qualities of the Divine in a form that man is capable of comprehending.

This is so simple that all can understand it, and that which we are able to understand we must perforce accept.

Our Father will not hold us responsible for the rejection of dogmas which we are unable either to believe or comprehend, for He is ever infinitely just to His children.

This example is, however, so logical that it can easily be grasped by all minds willing to give it their consideration.

May each one of you become a shining lamp, of which the flame is the Love of God. May your hearts burn with the radiance of unity. May your eyes be illumined with the effulgence of the Sun of Truth!"

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 25)

Answer 8

Modern day Christian doctrine rests upon the premise that God preserved the Bible in an absolute infallible and pure state, in order that all men should know the (historical) truth and believe in the Son of God. Their doctrinal position is that if God permitted the Bible to have been altered, then the present day church could not be genuine.

Based upon this dogmatic presumption that the Christian Church must be maintained in order for man to be saved, they reason that God would not allow the written word of the scriptures to be corrupted. Thus, modern Christians cling to this doctrine -- ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- evidence that demonstrates conclusively that our Bible has been severely altered and edited -- because they fail to grasp the very foundational principles of the New Covenant itself -- principles that are not historical, but spiritual.

It is not until we understand that the Bible is a road-map that leads us to the Gate of the Kingdom, and the Word that is written in our hearts -- rather than a final revelation from God to man -- that we are able to even begin to come to terms with the Spiritual Gospel of Christ that can never be corrupted.

When directly confronted with the overwhelming evidence and facts with respect to the wholesale corruption of the scriptures, the fundamentalist defensively responds with the rather absurd assertion that "God wrote the King James Version of the Bible". Thus, no amount of rationale will convince them that because we are the prodigal sons of our Heavenly Father, and the Kingdom is within us (Luke 17:21), that all those who truly live a consecrated life will be shown the undefiled Word of God that can be accessed by journeying along the narrow path that opens the "strait gate" that leads to the indwelling Temple (1 Cor 3:16).

The great truth which the modern Christian fails to comprehend is that, even in its corrupted form, the Bible as it has been passed down to us is sufficient to manifest the Living Word of God in the life of the individual believer.

One only has to open the New Testament to almost any page to find the message: If the believer consecrates their lives -- becomes teachable by releasing their minds from an adherence to the doctrines of men -- forgive and judge no one -- live a simple life that is unencumbered -- do no harm to any of God’s creatures -- and seek in solitude the companionship of the Lord in the inner Temple -- that the Holy Spirit will Anoint and Teach you all the Mysteries of God as the believer begins the journey home to the Kingdom.

If the believer begins to live the consecrated Christian life -- free of the thinking and entanglements of this world -- then the indwelling Word will reveal all things to those who are sincere in their search for the Truth.

Answer 9

Outstanding! Father K does it again.

Yes, of course the Bible was compiled and authorized by the Church. Scripture is not perspicuous and therefore must be interpreted through the Magisterium, the tradition and close reading.

I also like the fact that the Church has Augustine and Aquinas.
I wish there were a few more catholics and few less Evangelicals around.

Answer 10

Kait and Suzanne gave wonderful answers, cheers!

Okay, clever, Father K, so you are arguing the old Catholic standpoint that tradition outweighs scripture because it was through the tradition of the early church that we got our scripture in the first place.

I would actually agree with that (I'm one of those protestant "fundie xians" btw) but only to a point. Tradition gave us scripture yes, but to say it is paramount to the Word of God invites the possibility of abuse. Why not instead say that tradition outweighs scripture only insofar that it does not go AGAINST Biblical doctrine? Meet us halfway perhaps?
:) God bless!