Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/misc/assorttx/bibonly1.txt

Text File | 1989-04-08 | 19KB | 416 lines

This is a text file of a pamphlet entitled:

                        CATHOLIC RELIGION

                            PROVED BY

                        PROTESTANT BIBLE


        +-----------------------------------------------+
        |                                               |
        |   This booklet recalls how Christ's Church    |
        |  existed 350 years before the New Testament   |
        |  was under one cover and over 1400 years be-  |
        |  fore it could be printed; which completely   |
        |  refutes the "Bible Only" theory of today's   |
        |  400+ sects.  Meanwhile the Protestant Bible  |
        |  itself proves the marks, attributes and      |
        |  basic doctrine of the ancient one-faith-     |
        |  fold-shepherd Church of Christ -- as shown   |
        |  herein.                                      |
    |                                               |
        +-----------------------------------------------+


                 ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE
                  HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
         Which completely refute the "BIBLE ONLY" Theory
  (All Bible quotations are made from the King James Version)

                               ONE

DID OUR LORD WRITE ANY PART OF THE NEW TESTAMENT OR COMMAND HIS
APOSTLES TO DO SO?
     Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record
that He ordered His Apostles to write;  He did command them to
teach and preach.  Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and
on Earth (Matt. 28:18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John
14:26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world.
(Matt. 28:20).

Comment:  If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation,
Our Lord would have made thhat statement and also provided the
necessary means for His followers.

                               TWO

HOW MANY OF THE APOSTLES OR OTHERS ACTUALLY WROTE WHAT IS NOW IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT?
A FEW of the Apostles wrote PART of Our Lord's teachings, as they
themselves expressly stated; ie., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude,
Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke.  None of the others wrote any-
thing, so far as recorded.

Comment:  If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine
rule of Faith, the Apostles would have been derelict in their duty
when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

                              THREE

WAS IT TEACHING OR A BIBLE-READING CHURCH THAT CHRIST FOUNDED?
The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching
Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were
written.
         Rom. 10:17-  "So then faithh cometh by HEARING, and hearing
     by the word of God."
         Matt. 28:19- "Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing
     them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
     Ghost."
         Mark 16:20-  "And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere,
     the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs
     following.  Amen."
         Mark 16:15-  "And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
     and PREACH the Gospel to every creature."

Comment:  Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.

                              FOUR

WAS THERE ANY DRASTIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT OUR LORD COMMANDED THE
APOSTLES TO TEACH AND WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS?
Our Lord Commanded His Apostles to teach ALL THINGS whatsoever He had
commanded; (Matt 28:20); His Church must necessarily teach everything;
(John 14:26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the
Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:
     John 20:30-  "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
   of His disciples, which are not written in this book, etc."
     John 21:25-  "And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
   the which, if they should all be written every one, I suppose that even
   the world itself could contain the books that should be written. Amen"

Comment:  How would it have been possible for second century Christians
to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an
UNAVAILABLE and only PARTIAL ACCOUNT of Christ's teaching were
indispensable?

                              FIVE

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPRESSLY REFER TO CHRIST'S "UNWRITTEN WORD"?
The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our
Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
    John 20:30-  "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
  of His disciples, which are not written in this book, etc."
    John 21:25-  "And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
  the which, if they should all be written every one, I suppose that even
  the world itself could contain the books that should be written. Amen"

Comment:  Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to
supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which
we call Tradition.

                              SIX

WHAT BECAME OF THE UNWRITTEN TRUTHS WHICH OUR LORD AND THE APOSTLES
TAUGHT?
The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by
historical records called Tradition.  Even the Protestant Bible
teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of
mouth.
       2 Thes. 2:15-  "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to
   the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our
   epistle.
       2 Tim. 2:2-  "And the things that thou hast heard of me among
   many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be
   able to teach others also.

Comment:  Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information
must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching.  Religion
founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

                            SEVEN

BETWEEN WHAT YEARS WERE THE FIRST AND LAST BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
WRITTEN?
The first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten
years after Our Lord's Ascension.  St. John's fourth gospel and
Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 AD.

Comment:  Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-
only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New
Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet
been written.

                            EIGHT

WHEN WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT PLACED UNDER ONE COVER?
In 397 AD by the Council of Constantinople, from which it follows that
non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic
Church; no other source was available.

Comment:  Up to 397 AD, SOME of the Christians had access to PART of
the New Testament;  into this situation, how would the "Bible-only
privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

                            NINE

WHY SO MUCH DELAY IN COMPILING THE NEW TESTAMENT?
Prior to 397 AD, the various books of the New Testament were not under
one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations.
The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity,
prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated
and placed under one cover.  However, this important work was begun
after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 AD, allowing it to
be practiced in the Roman Empire.

Comment:  This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only"
theory, at least up to 400 AD.

                            TEN

WHAT OTHER PROBLEM CONFRONTED THOSE WHO WISHED TO DETERMINE THE
CONTENTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?
Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had
been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic
Church made a thorough examination of the whole question;  biblical
scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages
of the New Testament writings.

Comment:  According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the
above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early
Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination,
judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

                            ELEVEN

WHO FINALLY DECIDED WHICH BOOKS WERE INSPIRED AND THEREFORE BELONGED
TO THE NEW TESTAMENT?
Shhortly before 400 AD, a General Council of the Catholic Church, using
the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own institution,
finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and
which did not.
    EITHER THE CHURCH AT THIS GENERAL COUNCIL WAS INFALLIBLE,
                        OR IT WAS NOT.
If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now?  If the
Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not
worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of
authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of
this Council cannot now be rechecked;  this is obvious from reply to
next question.

Comment:  In view of historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-
Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that
they received the New Testament.

                             TWELVE

WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MODERN NON-CATHOLICS TO CHECK OVER THE WORK
DONE BY THE CHURCH PREVIOUS TO 400 AD?
The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which
had but temporary enduring qualities.  While the books judged to be
inspired by Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those
rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further
interest in them.

Comment:  What is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic
Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why
not now?

                            THIRTEEN

WOULD THE THEORY OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVE
BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE YEAR 400 A.D.?
No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in
existence.

Comment:  If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could
they even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted"
theory;  but before 400 A.D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.

                            FOURTEEN

WOULD THE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THEORY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE BETWEEN
400 A.D. AND 1440 A.D.
No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive;
moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the
ability to read was limited to a small minority.  The Church used
art, drama and other means to convey Bible messages.

Comment:  To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above
period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.

                             FIFTEEN

WHO COPIED AND CONSERVED THE BIBLE DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN 400 A.D.
AND 1440 A.D.?
The Catholic monks; in many cases these spent their entire lives to
give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before
printing was invented.

Comment:  In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having
tried to destroy the Bible; had she so desired to do this, she had
1500 years within which to do so.

                             SIXTEEN

WHO GAVE THE REFORMERS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE OVER FROM THE ONE FAITH,
ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD PROGRAM, TO THAT OF THE "BIBLE-ONLY THEORY"?
St. Paul seems to answer the above when he said:  "But though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed."  (Galations 1:8 - Protestant
version [KJV]).

Comment:  If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at
least 300 sects, how many sects would would three-thirds of Christianity
have produced in 1900 years?  (Answer is 5700).

                            SEVENTEEN

SINCE LUTHER, WHAT CONSEQUENCES HAVE FOLLOWED FROM THE USE OF THE
"BIBLE-ONLY" THEORY AND ITS PERSONAL INTERPRETATION?
Just what St. Paul foretold when he said:  "For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears."
(2 Tim. 4:3 Protestant edition).  According to the World Almanac for
1953 there are in the United States 20 different orginizations of
Methodists, 22 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 13
orginizations of Mennonites, 18 of Lutherans and hundreds of other
denominations.

Comment:  The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-
exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to
the acquisition of Divine truth.

                            EIGHTEEN

IN CHRIST'S SYSTEM, WHAT IMPORTANT PART HAS THE BIBLE?
The Bible is ONE precious source of religious truth; other sources
are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the
Holy Spirit.

Comment:  Elimination of any one of the three elements in the
equation of Christ's true Church would be fatal to its claims to be
such.

                            NINETEEN

NOW THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS COMPLETE AND AVAILABLE, WHAT INSOLVABLE
PROBLEM REMAINS?
The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent
multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of
private interpretation.  Hence it is indisputable that the Bible
must have an authorized interpreter.
      2 Pet. 1:20-  "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
   Scripture is of any private interpretation."
      2 Pet. 3:16-  "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of
   these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
   which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also
   the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
      Acts 8:30-  "And Phillip ran thither to him, and heard him read
   the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
   31-  And he said, how can I except some men should guide me.  And
   he desired Phillip that he would come up and sit with him."

Comment:  Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as
acceptable to God as truth, can the "Bible-only" theory be defended.

                             TWENTY

WHO IS THE OFFICIAL EXPOUNDER OF THE SCRIPTURES?
The Holy Spirit, acting through and within the Church whichh Christ
founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the
Church come the official interpretations of God's laws and God's word.
      Luke 10:16-  "He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that
   despiseth you desipiseth Me; and he that desipiseth Me desipiseth
   Him who sent Me."
      Matt. 16:18-  "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
   and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell
   shall not prevail against it."
      Mal. 2:7-  "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and
   they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of
   the Lord of hosts.

Comment:  Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals
read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would
guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth.  This is much more
than the Catholic Church calims even for the Pope himself.  Only after
extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he
rarely and solemnly make such a decision.

                           TWENTY-ONE

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC USE OF THE BIBLE?
Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they
must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule
and unity of faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one
Shepherd.

Comment:  If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading
their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith,
reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the
serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons - but
not otherwise.

                           TWENTY-TWO

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY NON-CATHOLIC CHURCHES?
Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there
is so much DIFFERENT interpretation of the Bible because there is so
much WRONG interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation
because the system of interpreting is radically wrong.  You cannot
have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing
every man every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit
his or her own pet theories.

Comment:  To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice,
is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the
sole source of religious faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.

                          TWENTY-THREE

WITHOUT DIVINE AID, COULD THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE MAINTAINED HER ONE
FAITH, ONE FOLD, AND ONE SHEPHERD?
Not anymore than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of
what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly
impossible.

Comment:  Catholics love, venerate, use the Bible; but they also know
that the Bible alone is not Christ's system but only a precious book,
a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to "preach
the Gospel to every living creature" and to keep on preaching it "to
the end of time."

                           TWENTY-FOUR

WERE THERE ANY PRINTED BIBLES BEFORE LUTHER?
When printing was invented about 1440, one of the first, if not the
earliest printed book was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed
by John Gutenberg.  It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of
the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press
through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence
prevailed, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534.  Of
these, many were in various European languages.  Hence Luther's
"discovery" of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one
of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature
abounds.

Comment:  Today parts of the Bible are read in the venacular from
every Catholic altar every Sunday.  The Church grants a spiritual
premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic
family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home.  Millions
of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.

                           TWENTY-FIVE

DURING THE MIDDLE AGES, DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MANIFEST HOSTILITY TO
THE BIBLE AS HER ADVERSARIES CLAIM?
Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made
by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned
by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence
opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and Tyndale.

Comment:  Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their
zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it.  There is no
human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.