How do we know for a fact that scripture (the Bible) is the inspired word of God? There are many books that claim to be inspired, take the book of Mormon for example. There are hundreds of early church writings. Most of us have never given it any serious thought as to why they believe the bible is the inspired word of God. What authority put these books together and called it the bible? This may not be an easy question to answer if you have rejected the Sacred Traditions and the authority of the Church that Jesus Christ originally established on earth, there is no longer any objective authority for this claim.
Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Jews put together the old testament and The Catholic Church put together the new testament and it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage 397 years after Jesus death and subsequent approval by Pope Innocent I, that a New Testament was put together. Prior to that date, hundreds of gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around in many different languages, some not so good or some even controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the good writings from the bad and selected the 27 books that are now found in the New Testament bible today.
So far as we know, Jesus himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he command the Apostles to write anything. The Catholic Church operated for many years by word of mouth and Sacred Traditions that Jesus and the disciples established and handed down and guided by the Holy Spirit to insure it would not be changed. In much later years, some of the early Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books, which were finally selected almost 400 years later and that now comprise the New Testament that is used today by all Christians. It may be a surprise to some but the gospels where not all written by the original 12 apostles themselves. Most of the other documents included in the New Testament are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church and to reinforce the teaching of the Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. The vast majority of the new testament are letters that were written by Paul.
The doctrine of the bible alone or ‘sola scriptura’ is itself unbiblical. No where does the Bible claims such a status for itself.
The teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority (sola scriptura) is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It is a false doctrine. In fact scripture reveals that it is not just scripture alone. In Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 15 Paul writes “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions that you were taught, either by and oral statement or by letter of ours.” Also in Thessalonians chapter 3 verse 6 “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the Traditions they received from us”. These Sacred Traditions are called Doctrines of the Church and have there foundations rooted in Scripture and have remained unchanged. They are different then human customary traditions which can and have changed over time. These Sacred Traditions or Doctrines, were handed down by the Apostles and while the depth of understanding has changed the Sacred Traditions have never changed in over 2000 years.
The Church was in existence throughout the entire Roman Empire, before a single book of the New Testament was even written. Long before St. Paul’s beautiful epistles were written later in his life. The Bible came out of the Catholic Church; the Church did not come out of the Bible.
The passage most commonly used to dispute this by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. In the King James Version, the verse reads this way: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient” — which is, of course, exactly what most people think the passage means. It also does not tell us what scripture is profitable. At the time that was written the only authoritative scripture recognized was the old testament.
The context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and Sacred Tradition in his ministry as a bishop. “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy .Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = “God-breathed”), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:14-17). In verse 14 Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings–the Traditions–that he received from the Apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral Tradition in 1:13-14, “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” (RSV), and “. . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the “pattern” for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as “profitable” for Timothy’s ministry.
The few other verses that might be brought up to “prove” the sufficiency of Scripture can be handled the same way. Not one uses the word “sufficient”–each one implies profitability or usefulness, and many are given at the same time as an exhortation to hold to hold fast to the oral teaching of our Lord and the apostles. The thing to keep in mind is that nowhere does the Bible say, “Scripture alone is sufficient,” and nowhere does the Bible imply it.
Understanding Scripture’s Role
If you recognize Scripture for what it is, you’ll see it wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians to reinforce the teachings.
The Bible is not a catechism or a full-scale theological treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You won’t find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospel and the general epistles such as James, 1 & 2 Peter) as provisional documents by St. Paul to address to particular audiences for particular purposes.
Most of the epistles were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g. 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.”
The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books have been left out of the canon? Again who decided?
The Catholic Church did. A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the Book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?
The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All christians wether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical and no others.
Have you ever even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries older that the originals. Like it or not, you are trusting in the Catholic Church for that in fact those copies are accurate as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures.
If you happen to have the writings of the early Church Leaders, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings are, at least in the case of the Apostolic Fathers, rather short, and you can demonstrate that these writings seem every bit as orthodox and inspiring (not to confuse the term with “inspiration”) as the New Testament writings themselves. Then read aloud the book of Philemon or 3 John or some other short canonical book.
What’s in these books that so obviously makes them inspired? If you didn’t know that Philemon was written by Paul or that 3 John was written by John, would you give either a second reading? Would you automatically assume they belong in the Bible as canonical Scripture? It’s not disrespectful to say they don’t have much doctrinal content in them–and that’s not surprising, since they’re too short to contain substantial doctrinal discussions. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well enough without either.
Again neither book claims inspiration for itself. If there is, as a matter of fact, more solid Christian meat in these other, non-canonical writings (that is–if they contain more Christian truths and no religious errors)– then how can you say it’s obvious which books are inspired and which aren’t?”
The fact is, the only reason we have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine (an early church leader) put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.’ Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.
The reason people accept these books is that they were in the Bible someone gave them when they first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of “Tradition”, because Tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on Tradition rather than on Scripture itself!
The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Most can not give satisfactory answer and aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture alone or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.
After you answer that question–and there’s really only one answer that can be given–you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Protestants even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’
We Agree on the Essentials, but we disagree on secondary matters.
Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such the Eucharist, or baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the justifying process?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible. All claim to be ‘Bible only Christians,’ but which Protestant Church is right?”
If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God–if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth–why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many bibles?
The Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles which were collect and burned by the Catholic Church in times past, were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the Holy Word of God. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ’s Gospel. King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry’s advisers: “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those “Bibles” precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were indeed replaced by accurate editions. No Christian scholar today will dispute that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations that the Catholic church is accused of collecting up and burning, were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics alike.
BIBLE ALONE OR BIBLE PLUS TRADITION
The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition. Many assume that only the writings of the apostles are the word of God. However, their oral transmission of the faith is also considered the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).
1 Cor 11:2 – hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 – hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 – shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 – not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 – heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20:35 – Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2 Tim 1:13 – follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 Tim 2:2 – what you heard entrust to faithful men
2 Pet 1:20 – no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1 Pet 1:25 – God’s eternal word=word preached to you
Rom 10:17 – faith comes from what is heard
1 Cor 15:1-2 – being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 – go to whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 – chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
St. Athanasius (360 AD): “let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian …. “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28. Origen (c. 230 AD) “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2.
This is awesome and just right! everyone ought to read this and stop persecuting the Catholic Church. because she has given the manna of life, the Holy Scriptures
All Christians believe in the Holy Trinity, the teaching that God the Father spoke and that was the Word and the love between the Father and the Word and the Love between Word and the Father was the Holy Spirit and that they live in a community of love…..difficult to understand at first and always a mystery but as most Catholics know, it is handed down by tradition. Sorry to all my protestant friends, The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not in the Bible…..
Yes it is. The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).
No its not. If you can work out the true meaning of the Trinity from one phrase then you are sadly mistaken… It took over three hundred years of discussion by those early Catholics to work who was who, and come up with a clear understanding…..From the phrase”’
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” there is a hint but nothing clear, that each is a Person and each is God, never mind on trying to work out who the Holy Spirit is…therefore our understanding of the Mystery of the Trinity, as we know it today, came from the time after the final writing of scripture.. and to be honest is still being discused today…That is why it is a mystery..
Hey guys, you both are making valid points. I would recommend going to the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Look at the break down of the profession of faith that goes into detail on the mystery of the Trinity.
See http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm
The dogma of the Trinity is rooted in scripture; however you have to look to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church to get the fullest understanding of the truth of this mystery as God has revealed it to His Church thus far.
Thanks for the comments
[…] “The Jews put together the old testament and The Catholic Church put together the new testament and it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage 397 years after Jesus death and subsequent approval by Pope Innocent I, that a New Testament was put together. Prior to that date, hundreds of gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around in many different languages, some not so good or some even controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the good writings from the bad and selected the 27 books that are now found in the New Testament bible today” (David Elbert). […]
[…] Source: Where did we get the Bible […]
Excellent article.
“Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient” — which is, of course, exactly what most people think the passage means. It also does not tell us what scripture is profitable. At the time that was written the only authoritative scripture recognized was the old testament.”
Also, at the time of Paul’s writing 2 Timothy, the only “all scripture ” that existed was the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles. No Gospels had been written yet. Therefore, a Protestant believing 2 Timothy makes the claim all one needs is scripture, well he must disavow the gospels because they weren’t scripture yet.