"The Holy Bible" is one of the most well known books in history. It seems to be entirely another story how well everyone knows the Bible's history, or what is actually in it. Most people will generally admit that it is the "inspired word of God", but from there the comprehension of this inspired word varies greatly among so many people who insist on calling themselves "Christian" while they hold contrary interpretations to the next man who insists that he is a "Christian" with the truth.
"because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct, in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed for every good work." (2 Tim 3:15-17
Those who bring this forth must be reminded of two things:
Now you must make them realize that Christianity is traditional by its very nature. When speaking of "tradition" they are likely to quickly quote an excerpt from the Bible saying that it is bad:
"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8)
A rush to condemn tradition only reveals their ignorance of scripture. You can now show them that the Bible speaks both of good and bad tradition, but that it is the existence of GOOD TRADITION that tells against their notion of "scripture alone":
"Therefore brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:14)
From here it is well to remind them of a few facts concerning the New Testament writings. The Bible was compiled around the year 397 A.D. Each of these individual writings were written by different men, in different places, for different purposes, to different people without the intention of ever being put on a par with the "Holy Scriptures" of the Old Testament. Nor did these individual writers intend to cover ALL of Christian doctrine in their particular writing or ever expect their writing to be saved for all time and compiled with the writings of others.
"And how can I, unless some man show me?"
This clearly shows that "faith cometh by hearing" and that the Holy Scriptures are subordinate to those who are sent to teach us their meaning....the officials of Christ's Church.
How often we as Catholics run into circumstances where we are confronted by a "Bible-believing Christian" and challenged to "prove from scripture" this or that doctrine. They make it their business to memorize so many quotes from the scriptures! Once they hear that you are a Catholic they become determined to ask questions they presume you cannot answer. They will more often than not choose questions they think cannot be answered with any scriptural quote. Not being able to give a quote, you will be made to feel that you are wrong and they are right, and that you do not know your religion! What should we do in these circumstances? What should we say?
The best thing, of course, is to avoid these confrontations as best we can. The ideal course for a Catholic is to give good moral example to those around us; this is the best sermon we could possibly give. But fallen human nature being as it is we have to face the consequences of our good example. We have to expect that others may likely think Catholics are hypocrites, and they may set out to prove it to themselves by giving you the occasion to act or say things that are uncatholic. And this "testing" may go on for a long period of time. It takes resolution, consistency, prayer, patience and humility.
The focus here, however, is how to deal with those particular circumstances where we cannot avoid a challenge to our scriptural and religious knowledge, especially by a "Bible-only Christian". Our attitude to begin with must be one of patience with their attack, and an outwardly peaceful confidence that you have the truth and are not bashful to profess it, NOR ashamed if you do not have a ready answer. Fallen human nature wants to see some kind of extreme in your demeanor - they may try to take advantage if they see you are reticent, or if you become overly defensive. It takes some practice, like all virtue, with trial and error.
The "Bible-only Christian" must be shown that you are willing to speak on the subject and just as willing to let it go....and just as willing to pick up the subject again if need be at any time with the very same demeanor. Do not let them see a significant change in emotions, and if you do get emotional, let them see how easy it is for you to immediately put those emotion away and go back to business as usual without a change in rapport with them.
Above all, try to keep your arguments logical while expecting them to either come up with something absurd, or to blatantly try to turn the subject to another topic. It is these types of things that lead to an emotional conversation. They will most often expect you to give all the answers while they pick and choose the questions at random in order to stump you and pretend that they have won a complete victory by your inability to answer one particular question.
You may answer these questions for as long as you wish according to your ability, but it is often smart to immediately prevent yourself from being put only on the defensive. It is the Lord's will that all men become Catholics and you may be a small part that leads them in that direction. We must try, in the process, of not appearing to enjoy winning a victory on any one point but to simply make that point look reasonable and logical in a matter-of-fact way. Conversions do not come about by speaking about what you have in common with them, but about the truths that are opposed to their error. Since fallen nature rebels at being told it is "wrong", it takes much prudence (and grace) to convince the "Bible-only Christian" of the truth so that they may renounce their errors.
Different methods can be used for different circumstances. When one actually lives, or works with, a "Bible-only Christian" it is best to let THEM start the confrontations and keep them short, unless they seem pleased or at least willing to hear what you have to say. You can then expect the confrontations to reoccur periodically. If your confrontation is an infrequent one, and you expect to rarely or never see this person again, it may be well to force the issue somewhat so as to give them a complete argument to think about after they have left.
One good method of dealing with those who proceed to drill you with religious questions is to put them on the spot for doing so: since outwardly the act of questioning suggests an interest in the subject, you should assume they are in fact INTERESTED in Catholicism rather than just setting you up to try and stump you. Take advantage of this apparent interest of theirs and ask them a question such as, "Apparently you are interested to learn something about Catholicism. Since I cannot really do justice to the subjects you are asking about, and have little time to get into one of them in-depth enough, how about if I refer you to a good book that will answer all of your questions in detail, and at your leisure?" If they decline the offer you may ask them straight out why they are asking questions, or if they really want answers.
You may feel incapable of handling a confrontation with a "Bible-only Christian" if they approach you in a way that is not just in the form of questions. In this case, how can you take the initiative, put them on the defensive and present a good position despite the fact that you cannot quote scriptures off the top of your head?
First of all you must understand a few basic facts about these people to determine their weakness and underlying cause for all their errors. All of their arguments are based on SCRIPTURE QUOTES and THEIR INTERPRETATION of them. They consider anything that is not found in scripture to be unchristian.
What needs to be done, politely, is to hold them to the subject of the Bible itself. Tell them that there is no sense of talking about any particular issue in the Bible unless you discuss the source of all their arguments; that which they base every argument on. What must be addressed is their scripture-only stand (in Latin "sola scriptura"). You must prove to them that this scripture-only stand is unscriptural itself. You must prove to them that it IS in fact scriptural to be taught doctrine that is apart from scripture; that scripture itself is not directly necessary for the teaching of doctrine. They very well may try to proceed to argue different points of scripture anyway and even suggest that you are just trying to avoid talking on the subject because you do not have any answers. You must here let them know firmly that Catholicism DOES have the answers, and that you KNOW that there is no sense in arguing lesser points if you disagree with the basis for all their arguments in the first place.
"Bible-only Christians" are comprised of Protestants in general, "born-again Christians" and just plain fallen-away Catholics. You may even come across a Jew who attempts to argue using New Testament scripture, but to these you can simply express the inanity of someone arguing from scriptures that they do not even accept themselves.
The arguments of these "Bible-only Christians" will most often attempt to show you that something Catholics believe or do is wrong "because it is not in the Bible". What they must be asked first of all is, "Where do you get the notion that all Christian doctrine is to be found in Scripture?" or "Where does it ever say that we only need the Bible and nothing or nobody else to teach us our religion?"
We have seen them try to use one quote to support their notion that "scripture only" is scriptural. In a personal letter to the Bishop Timothy, St. Paul writes:
)
1) This quote merely says that scripture is "profitable" or useful, but by no means excludes the fact that doctrine can be found elsewhere.
2) When St. Paul wrote this, he intended by the word "scripture" to mean ONLY the Old Testament scriptures which were the only ones in existence at that time.
"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." (2 Tim 3:6)
St. Paul commanded that we follow tradition whether written or unwritten. Do the "Bible-only Christians" follow any unwritten tradition as St. Paul commanded? To know whether something is "tradition" they must be able to affirm that it is a teaching that has been handed-down from the apostles and believed by all Christians of all ages. This is a fearful prospect for "Bible-only Christians" and their knowledge of history is very poor. But if St. Paul commands that we follow tradition, we are also commanded to know whether what we believe has been at least handed down through all the centuries. What we believe now cannot contradict what Christians have always believed; what we believe now must be implicit in Christian beliefs and practices in every century everywhere.
These "Bible-only Christians" would almost have you believe that somehow the Bible just came to be without any decision of any men....a book that practically fell from heaven without any original intentions to the chapters and books....words of God just sitting their on a page for men to interpret themselves in order to gain salvation. Almost as if Christ told the apostles above all else to make sure to create a compilation of writings for people to read as sufficient for their "religion"! This type of mentality did not come to be until about 1500 years after Our Lord died. Before then Christians held the Bible as divinely inspired writings designated as such by the Church which Christ founded.
When one looks at history even closer they can see how absurd this "scripture only" mentality is. During the time from the apostles, until the year 397 A.D. about 12 generations of Christians lived and died. All of them had lived their lives without ever seeing the Bible. Some of them were able to see certain individual writings that were later included in the Bible, but even then most of the average Christians could not read. Ask the "Bible-only Christian", "if the New Testament is so important and self-sufficing, how could so many generations have successfully learned and practiced their religion without it?"
Around the year 397 A.D. it was the bishop of Rome primarily, and the other bishops, who officially determined which writings would be accepted, and which would be rejected for this New Testament Bible. Up until then there were some writings revered by Christians which were decided would NOT be included in these Holy Scriptures. Ask the "Bible-only Christian", "How could mere men decide which writings will be included as Holy Scripture and which will be rejected?" Apparently they DO accept the decision of men to decide which is inspired and which is not.
After the Bible was compiled, Christians for centuries still learned and practiced their religion primarily without reading the Bible. One major reason was because the average Catholic could not read. The other reason being that paper was scarce and expensive such that it took a very long time for a monk to transcribe by hand one Bible, and after doing so it was so valuable and sacred that they needed at times to chain the heavy book to a stationary structure, not only to prevent unbridled devotion, but also desecration and theft. And these "Bible-only Christians" will have you believe that somehow, by chance, the Catholic Church became corrupt, and an Antichrist, but still managed, while working for the devil, to preserve the Holy Scriptures intact and uncorrupt for centuries with devotion and painstaking care!
How did Christians then live and die for centuries upon centuries and learn and practice their religion the way Christ set things up to be? They learned by hearing. St. Paul says, "Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17) Christ came to found His Church upon Peter, the apostles and their successors saying, "He that heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16). Christians looked to the Church as the ultimate authority in Christ's name and learned their religion from them from the beginning. And we see this ultimate authority in a visible Church when Our Lord says, "if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." (Matt. 18:17)
Just as in the year 94 A.D. or 261 A.D. or 520 A.D., Christians lived and died looking to the ecclesiastics of Christ's Church learning their Faith by hearing that which was contained in both written and unwritten tradition from the time of the apostles. In all ages, being Christian was synonymous with being Catholic and accepting the papacy and all the bishops around the world.
If anyone cares for simple statistics they will see that ever since the printing press was invented in 1450 A.D. and people began to get a copy of the Bible very easily, certain people started to imagine that their own private interpretations of the Bible were true regardless of how they opposed tradition giving rise very shortly to the "Reformation" only two generations later.
You will find that these "Bible-only Christians" will very quickly criticize any claim of infallibility for one man, the Pope, and put Catholics down for following him, yet these same people will claim that when THEY read scripture privately themselves, THEY will be guided in all truth by the "Spirit" and want you to follow THEM! How could they forget the lesson in the Bible of the Ethiopian official reading the Old Testament scriptures on the chariot? This was not a sensational story, but St. Luke felt it need to be told to teach us something. The story in the Acts of the Apostles tells us of this official who could read, and was well educated, yet after being asked by St. Philip, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?", the Ethiopian official said,
Scripture implicitly states that it is not open to private interpretation. "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)
In speaking of the contemporary writings of St. Paul, St. Peter writes, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16). If the Holy Scriptures are not open to private interpretation, then we would need an infallible guide to interpret the Scriptures correctly. That infallible guide is the Church. Again, "if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." But what church can they go to fulfill this command of scripture? Will they go to the "First Baptist Church of Christ" two blocks away? Or, will they go 5 miles away to the other "First Baptist Church of Christ of the Resurrection" that holds their own and different private interpretations of scripture?!
Never move on to any other subject if they do not agree on the basics...that doctrine can and must be taught apart from scripture, that there is a visible church sent by God and guided by God in all truth to teach the common people the correct interpretation....as it has always been.
It is interesting to ask these people directly if they ever get their interpretations from other people and books rather than everything themselves straight from scripture. The answer to this question is inevitably "yes". Ask why they follow someone else's interpretations and condemn Catholics for following authorities that only teach according to unchanging and verifiable tradition. Ask them if they are personally infallible in their reading of scripture (contrary to that of the Ethiopian), or ask if these people they get their interpretation from are infallible.
Don't let yourself be swayed to converse about any other topic unless, or until, they see the contradictions here about the Bible, private interpretation, and tradition that is unwritten. It must be repeated here that the best course of action is to avoid these confrontations altogether while being determined to always give a good example as Catholics. In the meantime it is for us to pray and study our Faith to the extent that we can give to others a sufficient answer to some of the more basic questions, and if they appear to be generally interested, direct them to a good book on the subject of their interest.