Should Christian Faith be based upon the Holy Bible Alone or the Foundation of the Apostles of Jesus Christ?

Question

Some Protestants say only the written Word of God.

Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestant Christians state on the foundation of the Apostles.

Which is it and give biblical, or other proofs of your convictions.
No offense meant for either side of this debate.

Some Christians believe that Apostolic Succession and the Written Word combine together.

Other Christians believe you only need the Written Word.

The written letters were composed after the Apostles were commissioned to Proclaim Jesus Christ to the world?

Answer 1

If it were only the Bible, then you would think that you could find a statement in the Bible that would say "Bible alone", or "Scripture alone", but you can't, because there isn't.

There are plenty of Biblical examples asking us to follow traditions. Here are a few:

1 Cor 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.


2 Thess 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.


2 Tim 1:13-4 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.


2 Tim 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.


We need to remember that Jesus and Paul both accepted Non-Biblical oral and written traditions. Protestants defending sola scriptura(Bible alone) will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example:

A) Matt 2:23: the reference to “…He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down “by the prophets.” Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s Word” was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.

B) Matt 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down is taught.


And now two examples from the Apostle Paul:

C) In 1 Cor 10:4, St Paul refers to a rock which ‘followed’ the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exo 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does.

D) 2 Tim 3:8: “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses…” These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exo 7:8 ff), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

These examples show us that although Sacred Scripture is crucial to our understanding God's Will for us, it is by no means the only method of revelation to us. Sacred Tradition is also part of His Revelation to us.

God Bless
Robin

Answer 2

Yes should be based upon the Holy Bible & the Foundation of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.............Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, No (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the same non-Catholic Christian denomination in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to interpret the entire Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

Answer 3

Christianity is based on the New Testament which is a collection of Gospels that were chosen by Church Fathers at the Council of Nicea. The problem that I find with that is that they excluded more Gospels than they included. Therefore, the New Testament is not the complete story or word of God. The Old Testament is also the word of God and it should not be ignored. If you pick and choose which Gospels you think are appropriate and which are not, then you can make the word of God say anything that serves your purpose. I don't think that that's the way to go about it. The complete story is always the best story.

Answer 4

This is a good question and, in a nutshell, they amount to the same thing.

Firstly, yes, the Christian Faith should be based upon the Holy Bible alone - that is, the canon of Scripture, not apocryphal writings which were not approved from the earliest days. This is called 'sola scriptura' - scripture alone. You are very safe if you keep to this as this is the only inerrant yardstick of what is true Christianity.

If you read the Gospels, you will see it is the record of how the Lord trained his disciples until the time came when their training was, in effect, complete. It was time to go, so he suffered and died in a manner they just couldn't get their heads round. When he rose again and began to teach them in the light of what had just happened even deeper things than they had been able to grasp before, they began to see how his death and resurrection were the final keys to the body of his doctrine. It is at this point that the Lord's disciples become his apostles. They are graduating.

This is all set down in the Gospels, but then we move on to the Acts - to the ascension of the Lord, to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (the birthday of the Church) and to the history of the Early Church in the first decade or so after. The Letters fill us in further on the Church's beliefs and doctrine.

What happened, at the Day of Pentecost, is that Peter became the impromptu leader and spoke for all the apostles on what the Jews (and the world) should know about the Lord Jesus. This was the first Apostolic teaching session.

Afterwards, when three thousand had responded to Peter's call, they used to meet in Solomon's Porch in the Jewish Temple (where Jesus often used to teach) and there the Apostles taught the people everything they needed to know about getting saved, baptised, and after that, how to order their new society.

Jesus was not teaching anymore, but it was the Holy Spirit, through the mouths of the very Apostles who had sat at the feet of the Master and learned from him, who were now giving the people the foundational Jesus wanted them to receive.

As time went on, there were a lot of false ideas - heresies - which started to circulate, but these were recorded in the scriptures (mostly the Letters) and dealt with by the Apostles - including St. Paul - at the time. People were taught to know the difference between truth and falsehood.

So the people were thoroughly taught from the mouths of the first Apostles of the Lord and this doctrine is passed down to us in the written word. This is the foundation of the Christian Faith, as it is totally in accord with scripture, because the doctrine was written down and distilled from their mouths just as they taught the people.

After that, there came others - St. Paul calls them 'grievous wolves' (Acts 20:29) and many heresies began to take root among the followers of Jesus which were contrary to the Apostles' teaching. Not all was bad, but many teachings of the Early Church Fathers were grievously in error.

The Apostolic teaching is preserved for us in the pages of scripture. What followed was men claiming to be in the Apostolic succession who in fact spoke heresies and led the sheep astray, but these things were written down in scripture so that we might know the truth.

I hope now you will see that there is no contradiction between teaching based on the Holy Bible alone and what the first Apostles of our Lord taught, because the source is the same - 'sola scriptura'.

Answer 5

for the catholic faith, we believe both on the bible and the teachings of the apostle...
actully the catholic church's doctrine and faith is based on the 3 major sources which is the magisterium,tradition and above all the holy scripture..
we believe that Jesus founded the one, holy catholic and apostolic church through Peter, the first pope...there it shows that catholics are based upon the apostolic works...
the holy scripture also the main source of all the teachings of the catholic church especially in morality and spiriyuality...
in your question i believe that teachings and doctrine must be based on both things because the holy scrpiture is the living word of God in which Jesus was the word made flesh and through the apostles of Christ, the salvation was brought to everyone especially the Gentiles...they endured all the hardships just to proclaim and preach the salvation brought by Jesus, the only son God, word made flesh...

Answer 6

Just like you said, there is no doubt that Jesus (pbuh) is returning and there is no doubt that the anti-Christ will come to deceive many people before his return. It's not exactly who Jesus (pbuh) accepts, but rather who of US accepts him when he returns. That part is up to us, we get to choose whether we accept him or not. And our faith will determine our choice because those who are weak in faith will follow the anti-Christ instead, may Allah protect us from him and his corruptions. From what I know through many lectures, the majority that will follow Jesus (pbuh) will be Muslims true to their faith, and also some Christians who see the truth once he returns. But even many Muslims who are weak in faith will end up following the anti-Christ because he is very deceptive with his powers. The bottom line is, those who truly believe in One God and do not associate Jesus (pbuh) or anyone else to Him will see the truth inshallah and will be the ones who accept Jesus (pbuh). Those are the people with such strong faith that makes them aware of the deceptions of the anti-Christ. To my Muslim brothers and sisters, take the opportunity to memorize the first and last 10 verses of Surat al-Kahf so that if we live in the era of the Dajjal and Isa (as), we will be protected from the deceptions and be on Jesus' side! Salaam~

Answer 7

Only the bible. If you believe in the protestant god(this can also vary on different versions of the bible) if he would have wanted it to be scripture it would be in the bible. Again there is going to be a huge debate as to what version of the bible is the correct one. Its going to be a never ending battle though, because everyone and every religion digests the bible differently. Meaning whether things are meant to be metaphorically taken or literally, the time of when things in the bible happened, etc...

Answer 8

You should rely on your own god given ability to logically reason. The christian faith was basically taken from the Holy Bible so it would make sense that this forms the backbone of what you believe and how you worship.

Answer 9

What exactly is this "foundation of the Apostles" that you refer to? How is it different from the Bible?

I got no problem with additional teachings. But anything that takes priority over the Word of God, anything that contradicts or undermines the Word of God, or anything that is held to the same level of respect as the Word of God, has no place in Christianity.

Answer 10

The teaching of Christ is the only criterion for Christianity.