I think that the most worrying thing in the doctrinal separation between Catholics and Protestants is found in the question in the title: Will everything be in the Bible? To this question, Protestants answer yes, using the same Bible that Catholics use to say no. Why is there a big difference in such a simple question?
To understand this, the important thing is to analyze the following: Protestants say that everything is in the Bible. If so, the Bible should say so and self-answer questions that are contained in it. If it is as we Catholics say: that not everything is there; The Bible itself should say so, and know that there is something else apart from the Bible.
Protestant arguments
Ø Only the Bible contains the truth of God
Ø Everything is in the Bible to be saved
What are they based on to say this? Obviously, when I ask a Protestant about the doctrine of “Sola Biblia” they respond with quotes that “supposedly” argue this.
First of all I want to make it clear that Catholics DO BELIEVE in the Bible, and we know that it is inspired by God; because sometimes they reproach us as if we doubted their inspiration.
The national anthem of Protestants to argue about Sola Biblia is this:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3, 16-17) Valera 1960 version.
Let’s analyze this quote in parts.
The first part says: all Scripture is inspired by God. It is sad that a Protestant says that the Bible is the Word of God based on itself; If we look at the Quran, it also says that it is the word of God, and yet a Protestant will not follow Allah because of that. Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word of God because we know from history that Jesus founded a visible Church, and that this Church determined which books should be considered the Word of God and which should not, and we corroborate this with what it says, not as Protestants do, who, as the Bible says, then they believe. The important thing about this part of the quote is that the authorship of the Bible is given to God; It says nothing about this Word being the only rule of faith and containing everything. The second thing shown is that: it is useful for several things. The passage does not say that ONLY Scripture is useful for…, which would perhaps make us think that everything is in it. An evangelical convert to Catholicism, Jimmy Akin, wrote a reflection on this passage, comparing it to a hammer. He said: a hammer is useful for driving nails but it does not mean that all nails must be driven by hammers. With the Word it is the same. It is useful for several things but it does not mean that all things should be known from the Bible.
The Word is an excellent tool given by God to man so that we can know Him better, but it must be given its correct interpretation. In this regard, I quote Cardinal John Henry Newman, a former Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism in the late 19th century. He led us to reflect on the entire Timothy passage, not just verses 16-17. Paul tells Timothy:
“But continue in what you have learned and are convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned; and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 3, 14-15)
Let’s get into history: Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus at a very young age. What Scriptures will you have known as a child? Surely they were only those of the Old Testament, since at Timothy’s age there was no New Testament. So, under the Protestant mentality of wanting to demonstrate with this quote that everything is in the Bible, we would leave out the Gospels, the Letters or the Apocalypse since this was considered part of the Bible much later. Obviously, when a Protestant sees this, he has to shake his head and reflect; This quote does not cover all of its 66 books as proof that it is the only thing necessary as a rule of faith. In this way, Cardinal Newman made us see that this text of Timothy fails to ensure that the Scriptures are the only thing necessary as a rule of faith.
Another text used by Protestants to demonstrate the sufficiency of the Bible is:
“Jesus also did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (Jn 20, 30-31)
Protestants imply that although Jesus did many things, only those in the Bible are necessary. This is completely false. From the outset, we would be referring only to the gospel of John; We would leave out things like the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew and Luke), the childhood of Jesus (Matthew and Luke), The Last Supper with bread and wine (Matthew, Mark and Luke), etc. This text is not indicating that what is there serves us to make doctrinal treatises on religion, but only to show the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah;and knowing this will not give us salvation, because even the demons know that Jesus is the Messiah (Mk 5).
If we analyze, the other things that Jesus did and are not in the Bible, the Apostles taught them orally in their preachings. Was this not important for the first Christian communities? Or when these books were written they disdained teaching for the sake of reading? And if they read these texts, weren’t the apostles the ones who explained it?
One more text, which they rarely use but I have heard it:
“Search the Scriptures, for in them you seem to have eternal life; and they are the ones that testify about me.” (Jn 5, 39) As the text very well says, it is the Jews and NOT JESUS, who believe that in the Bible they will find eternal life. Jesus adapts to the mentality of his people; It does not seek to scandalize him but rather to make him see things. Jesus knows that the Jews believe they find eternal life in the Old Testament, and that is why he invites them to see that even in those Scriptures it is witnessed that He is the Messiah. Again, if we are literal like Protestants, we would leave out the New Testament. And so, any quote they want to look for to justify Luther will be a knife against themselves, since it will never refer to the entire Bible.
Scripture uses the word “Gospel” in many passages; We understand it as if it were referring to one of the four that are in the Bible, but the truth is that it refers to the ENTIRE message of Jesus that was preached by the apostles. Paul illustrates this very well in his letter to the Galatians:
“I will remind you, brothers, that the Gospel with which I have evangelized you is not the doctrine of men.” (Gal 1, 11) The Gospel (speaking in the singular) that Paul refers to is none other than the message he received from the Lord. Furthermore, Paul confirms to us that his letters do not contain the only truths;very clearly he says that he has already evangelized them before (it must have been orally), and now in Scripture he only REMINDS them, he does not say that he evangelizes them with the letter. Let Protestants stop here and think carefully about this.
Reading a text like (Col 3, 16) that speaks of the Word of Christ, makes us think that if until then there were no gospels, that Word was the tradition transmitted from generation to generation.
When the film Stigma emerged, a message was shot that the Church had hidden books like the Gospel of Thomas; This only gave the movie a rating, nothing more. The truth is that these books are sold in any Catholic bookstore, and even I read them when I was studying at University. But a question arises: Why were they not recognized as part of the New Testament? When in the second century an attempt was made to show that the revelation of God continued to occur after the Apocalypse, books emerged such as: the gospel of Peter, of Thomas, the protoevangelium of James, etc. These books were not accepted by the Church. If until that time there was no New Testament, how did they know that these books should not be considered? Where was the Bible as a rule of faith to exclude them? It was the Church with the authority it had from Christ to bind and loose that determined that these books were not in accordance with THE TEACHING of the apostles, that is, with the Church at that time; They did not say that it was against the Scripture of that time. Discuss why the Church had the authority to order the Bible.
What the Bible says
Once we have shown that the quotes that are taught to Protestants to enclose them in the “Sola Biblia” are misinterpreted, let’s look at how the Bible expresses that what is written is not the only thing.
Let’s start in the apostolic era. We know that Paul was the first to write, and we know that in his letter to the Corinthians he talks about the Last Supper. How did he learn from this, if he wasn’t there? Surely he did not read it anywhere, because until then there was no book of the New Testament. Some preaching of the apostles was what led him to learn this mystery. It means that oral teaching was what prevailed in the first Christian communities.
Saint John in his second Letter expresses:
“I have many other things to write to you but I have not wanted to do it with ink and paper, because I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that our joy may be fulfilled.” (2 Jn 1, 12) Juan is not saying that he wants to go explain the letter to them; For him, the teaching he can give them orally is more important than what they read from his letters. John knows that by going to preach to them orally, the people’s joy will be complete. Furthermore, Jesus commanded them to preach, not to write. (Mt 28, 20), hence only five disciples decided to write: Peter, John, James the Lesser, Judas and Matthew, while ALL twelve preached without paper.
The reason why the Letters began to be written was because of the impossibility of the Apostles to reach all peoples. In this situation, letters were used to make some recommendations and exhortations BUT THEY NEVER REPLACED oral teaching. If we read the Letters, there are many things that communities need to know so that the authors only make recommendations about this. They do not extend their letters to teach them new things.
Ø In the letter to the Corinthians, Paul does not teach them how to do the breaking of bread, but rather scolds them for the way of celebrating it. (1 Cor 11)
Ø In the letter to the Hebrews, he does not repeat the first teachings about Christ;takes them for granted (Heb 6, 1-3)
If we read the Letter to the Galatians it says:
“I would like to be with you right now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you.” (Gal 4, 20).Paul is aware that a people must be listening to the appropriate preaching for each circumstance. That’s why “change tone” is mentioned. With simple Scripture this was not possible, and for that reason Paul would like to go to Galatia to make them see things with an appropriate tone of voice. If, for example, someone left a note for another person about something; The person who arrives will not know better in what tone he said it than if the other person had told him personally;but when it comes to bringing the Gospel of Christ.
It can be clear to us how Scripture itself does not seek to be self-sufficient, but rather one more tool from God to communicate to man. It is not that it is below apostolic preaching but it is subject to it.
Something important is missing from the Bible…
Let’s start with a simple question: If everything is in the Bible, in what quote does it mention that the New Testament should contain 27 books and what are these books? No Protestant will find it. Who decided this? Protestants usually pretend to be distracted by this. And I say this because I have asked you this question and the most normal answer is: “the Lord revealed it by the Holy Spirit.”Ahh, that was revealed by the Spirit, but when we talk about what the Church teaches and is not in the Bible, and we say that the Spirit revealed it, that is not the case. A Christian does not settle for the tree that gives the most shade.
What do we Catholics say?
We say that there is only one Revelation given by the Holy Spirit;and that this revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Both come from the same source, only the way in which it is manifested differs.
So, we see that for Catholics there exists something apart from the Bible: Tradition.
With respect to Tradition, Protestants have sought to make it seen as a matter of men and not as a revelation from God. First I will show the quotes that they use to attack Tradition:
It should be said first that for them, in any quote that appears the word “tradition” already refers to what we Catholics say, but this is false.
“Thus you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition.” (Mt 15, 6) In this passage, Jesus condemns the Pharisees because they give more importance to a Jewish tradition such as “washing one’s hands” than to fulfilling God’s command. This passage does not go against the Sacred Tradition taught by the Church, since this Tradition is based on the teaching of Jesus that was transmitted orally, not on Jewish traditions. Anyway let’s analyze something: The Greek word for “tradition” is translated as paradosis.And it is the same word used in Thessalonians:
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the doctrine that you have learned, whether by word or by letter from us.” (2 Thes 2, 15) The strange thing is that the evangelicals have put this word and translated it as “doctrine”, which has another word in Greek, didaskaleo.In any case, doctrine or tradition could be used but Why do they use “tradition” when referring to men, and when referring to apostolic teaching they use “doctrine”? This sounds strange, why not leave “tradition” in both cases if it is more in line with the Greek text? This is what Protestant followers don’t know about how their leaders play with the Bible, making it appear that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only ones who alter it. In any case, the previous quote makes us see that the apostles themselves supported either of the two forms of teaching: oral and written.
Another altered passage is 1 Cor 11, 2 they change the word traditions to “instructions” which has another meaning in Greek paideianever paradosis. It is sad to see a Protestant boast about the “Sola Biblia” when even that has altered him.(If Protestants do not believe the above, they can corroborate it in a Spanish-Greek interlinear translation edited by serious scholars.)
Another quote used by Protestants is:
“See that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of men.” (Col 2, 8) Again this quote is used only because the word “traditions” appears.. If we understand the reason for the letter to the Colossians we can see that this town was being invaded by new ideologies that did not correspond to the apostolic teaching, and for this reason, Paul warns them not to get carried away by this. These currents went against what the apostles taught ORALLY, they did not go against Scripture. How can we understand that this is not what the Church calls Tradition? Saint Paul himself will answer this question in his letter to Timothy:
“What you have heard from me before many witnesses, entrust this to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2, 2) If we read correctly, four consecutive generations are mentioned here: 1 (Paul), 2 (Timothy), 3 (Men chosen by Timothy) and 4 (These men teach others). This is what the Catholic Church calls Sacred Tradition: the teaching of the apostles that is transmitted from generation to generation under the seal of the Holy Spirit; This teaching is not literal in the Bible, but it is supported by it and never contradicts it. They could refute How do we know that this teaching has been maintained without human interference? Let’s start from the base: Jesus. No one doubts that what Jesus taught his apostles was different from what they preached. How could they understand these things? Many times the apostles found it difficult to understand the message of Jesus (Mt 15, 16; 16, 9;) but there comes a time when they will be able to understand EVERYTHING:
“Then he opened their understanding, so that they could understand the Holy Scriptures.” (Lk 24, 45) From this moment, the apostles would understand all the mysteries contained in the Old Testament, and they would also BE ABLE TO DISCERN what books the New Testament should contain. Was this knowledge left only for them? No, Jesus told them that he would send them the Holy Spirit:
“But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth… and will show you things to come.” (Jn 16, 13) In other words, the Spirit would teach new things. This presence would transcend the death of the apostles, which is why they transmitted their knowledge to a new generation under the action of the Spirit. The book of Acts shows us how the seven deacons were chosen:
“Seek therefore, brothers, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 6, 3) Later it will be seen that this service was granted by laying hands on the deacons (Acts 6, 6) What was achieved with this? It was achieved that the teaching was not lost but was witnessed by the Spirit, just as happened to Timothy in (1 Tim 4, 14).If we continue reading Acts, we will see that these deacons possessed the wisdom to know the mysteries of the Old Testament. For example, Stephen (Acts 7), Philip (Acts 8, 26-39) Being simple deacons they had the same wisdom as the apostles. This cannot be explained for any other reason than the action of the Holy Spirit to maintain the unity of the Church in a single faith. They did not read the Scriptures as the only way to find eternal life. It was the Tradition of the Church that led them to profess their faith, a faith that was always in accordance with the Scriptures until then.
Trying to understand Scripture without Tradition led to many heresies like those of Arius. He thought that Jesus was the son of God but that he was referring only to language; But interpreting the passage of Col 1:15 in his own way, he went so far as to say that Christ was a creation of God, which went against what the Catholic Church taught about the Divinity of Christ. This is an example that only those delegated by Christ can correctly interpret the Word of God, since they were the depositaries of the faith. Paul tells Timothy about it:
“Keep the command, preserve it from everything that can stain or adulterate it until the glorious coming of Christ Jesus our Lord.” (1 Tim 6, 14). This is what the Magisterium of the Church has done: try to preserve the message of Christ just as He preached it, which is why I challenge you to search all the two thousand years of the Church to see if you find a justified change in doctrines on any point.
The impact that this doctrine of the “Single Bible” has on the intelligence of a Protestant leads them to want to justify everything there, but they are not coherent. There is a question I ask you to analyze this phenomenon: Do you believe in purgatory? No, of course not, that’s not in the Bible. Given this response, I ask you again: What is not there? The word purgatory or what it means? Many remain silent because they do not even know what purgatory really is, they did not know it when they were “supposedly” Catholic, much less now. Protestants generally have our doctrines distorted, which is why they are reluctant to understand them. In any case, the word purgatory does not appear in the Bible but its content is implicit. I ask Protestants again: Why do you believe in the Trinity if it does not appear in the Bible? They tell me: Of course it is, it is implicit! I answer them: purgatory is also implicit although the word does not appear. They remain silent and leave. I really don’t understand why a question like this doesn’t make them shake off and take off the blindfold they put on their Church, they have half the truth, and misinterpreted it.
Anyway, let’s think about something. As long as Sacred Tradition was allowed to reign as a rule of faith alongside Holy Scripture for fifteen centuries, there was no weakening within the unity of faith. As soon as it occurred to Martin Luther, to justify his doctrines, to renounce the Tradition of the Church, to remain only with the Bible, thousands of different sects have emerged under the Protestant denomination: Lutherans, Calvinists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Adventists, the Church of Moon, etc., and I could not finish counting them;all of them believing themselves to be the only owners of the truth. If we examine the advantages of inventing this doctrine six centuries ago, we will see that it is the worst thing that has happened to Christianity: it is a sign that it was the doctrines of men. The Tradition, although it has been maintained by men, the successors of Peter in the apostolic chair, has never had doctrinal errors. Jesus Christ preserved Peter from his faith, implying that with respect to doctrine he would always have the truth, but he did not do so with respect to his human behavior; The proof is that he denied Jesus, he set a bad example when Paul scolded him, because his behavior was not in accordance with his teachings. Thus, although many argue against Popes and things they have done, these acts are erroneous in their behavior, but never in doctrinal points. Anyway, the truth is one: not everything is in the Bible; God manifested himself to us in Scripture and Tradition, in what was written and what was preached.
Author: Anwar Tapias Lakatt
Source: Apologetica.org
