Why You and Scripture Alone Isn’t Enough
Intro
In an age of rapid information and accessible translations, it is tempting to treat the Bible as an open book readily understood by anyone who reads its text in English at face value. Yet this assumption is far from the reality of the situation given scripture is no mere book. Scripture is not a collection of writings but a living part of the Church’s Tradition, it was received for a group of people in history, for revelation, and is deeply embedded in the life of faith, historical context, and theological meaning, not to mention written and compiled in context almost unfathomably removed from our own-especially in language. This creates a fundamental problem: quoting chapter and verse in isolation can never fully convey Scripture’s true meaning. Because Scripture was written for different times in ancient languages, modern translations inherently introduce layers of interpretation for their own languages and times, thus leveraging the distance the contemporary reader has with the originals, especially if the modern reader is outside the church it was directed towards. Thus, to fully grasp the Word of God, it must be read within the living Tradition and teaching authority of the Apostolic Church or one misses what is necessary to put it all together and have its meaning hang together in the senses it’s designed for. This issue is the focus of this piece.
Historical Background
The translation of the Bible into English has a complex history that has shaped how Scripture is read and understood today. Early translations, such as John Wycliffe’s 14th-century version, were met with resistance due to their association with theological dissent and political turmoil. The King James Version (1611), while often regarded as a literary masterpiece, was produced in a context of religious conflict and aimed at consolidating a particular doctrinal vision supportive of the English monarchy. Both cases are political, social, and religious contexts hardly relevant for most modern readers consumed and ordered by technology and empires far removed from the ones these people constructed their translations in. In other words, these translations, each created under specific historical and political conditions, are not neutral renditions of Scripture; they bear the marks of their contexts, influencing how readers understand and interpret the Word of God. They are in the way to its authenticity!
Moreover, the Catholic Church’s role in forming and defining the biblical canon is central to this history. From the Council of Rome (382 AD) under Pope Damasus I, which produced an early canonical list, to the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), where this list was ratified and affirmed, the Church actively discerned which books belonged to Scripture. This role was definitively formalized at the Council of Trent (1546), which, in response to the Protestant Reformation, canonized the 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books as the official Catholic canon. Thus, the Church’s authority in identifying authentic Scriptures is integral to its role as the guardian and interpreter of the Word of God.
The Role of the Catholic Church
For Catholics, Scripture cannot be understood apart from the authority of the Church. The Church is not merely a custodian of the text but the authentic receiver and interpreter of its meaning, first verbally from Jesus to the Apostles, than to the apostle’s to the churches they started. Vatican II’s Dei Verbum articulates this clearly: “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (Dei Verbum, 10)1. This statement affirms that the Church’s role is not optional but essential for understanding the true meaning of Scripture. The Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, serves as a safeguard against misinterpretation, ensuring that the faithful receive Scripture not as fragmented verses but as part of the unified and living Tradition.
The Church’s authority is reflected in its historical role in establishing the canon, and this authority is necessary to maintain doctrinal unity. Early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus and Tertullian argued against heretical readings of Scripture disconnected from apostolic Tradition. St. Irenaeus emphasized that true understanding is safeguarded by the succession of bishops who preserve apostolic Tradition. He grounded his argument in Paul’s words from 1 Corinthians 2:6: “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world” (Against Heresies, III.2)2. For Irenaeus, without the Church’s guidance, Scripture’s wisdom remains hidden and inaccessible. Likewise, Tertullian, in The Prescription Against Heretics, explained that the Church’s Tradition is essential for countering false teachings. He cited 1 Corinthians 11:19: “For there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest” (Chapter 4)3, to show that heresies serve to reveal who is aligned with true teaching.
And to reiterate all this, Dei Verbum states, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church” (Dei Verbum, 10)4. This teaching underscores the Church’s unique role: Scripture alone, apart from Tradition, becomes fragmented and loses its unity and meaning, which we’ll example with 1 Corinthian’s below.
Theological Foundations
Quoting chapter and verse from Scripture in isolation can never truly convey its meaning. Since Scripture was written for different times in ancient languages, modern English versions inherently introduce layers of interpretation, resulting in meaning always and necessarily being lost in translation. St. Irenaeus emphasized that true understanding is safeguarded by the succession of bishops who preserve apostolic Tradition. In Against Heresies, he argues that those who dismiss the Church’s Tradition distort the Scriptures because they lack the context provided by this living Tradition. He refers to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 2:6: “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world” (Against Heresies, III.2)5. For Irenaeus, without the Church’s guidance, Scripture’s wisdom remains hidden and inaccessible.
Thus, the ultimate false pope is every individual acting as their own authority on Scripture’s meaning. Each individual is not the solution to reading the Bible, for each is not the Church. Tertullian reinforces this point in The Prescription Against Heretics, explaining that the Church’s Tradition is essential for countering false teachings. He cites 1 Corinthians 11:19: “For there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest” (Chapter 4)5, to show that heresies serve to reveal who is aligned with true teaching.
The necessity of a philosophical framework becomes apparent when interpreting complex theological concepts. Philosophical notions such as divine simplicity or actus purus are crucial for properly understanding Pauline theology. These concepts were instrumental in early doctrinal debates, providing a metaphysical basis that ensured consistency in interpreting Scripture. For instance, the doctrine of divine simplicity asserts that God is not composed of parts, helping prevent interpretations that could lead to modalism or a divided Godhead. This philosophical underpinning is essential for maintaining the coherence of doctrines like the Trinity, ensuring that Scripture is interpreted within a robust and consistent theological framework.
WHAT THAN IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM!?
The Bible is never without Tradition, context, and proper language—and it isn’t necessarily in English. The solution is not the individual but baptism and participation in the Body of Christ, for it is through God’s means of salvation that one partakes in the divine nature. This view, affirmed by the Catechism, reflects that “Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 95; Dei Verbum, 10)6. We are called to ethical proximity with the other in the Church that Jesus actually started and which remains to this day unbroken from that start.
Case Study: 1 Corinthians 8:6
To illustrate the limitations of isolated scriptural interpretation, consider Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.” On the surface, this appears to be a simple statement about God and Jesus. However, without the context of the Church’s Tradition or a Trinitarian framework, this text could be misconstrued as presenting two separate deities, conflicting with the reputation of Christianity’s core monotheistic commitment.
Paul’s statement is more complex than a mere rephrasing of Jewish monotheism. The Shema, the foundational Jewish declaration of faith, states: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). For Paul, a Jew deeply immersed in the worship of the one God of Israel, to include Jesus within this declaration is a radical theological move. He deliberately reinterprets and reappropriates the Shema to include Jesus as sharing in the divine identity, applying the title Kyrios (Lord) to Him, which in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) is the standard translation for YHWH—the sacred name of God. However, notice that none of these senses and the importance of this context is felt if one reads it without the church, the tradition, and the original language and a little knowledge of the context… Do you feel the weight of this problem yet?
This is not merely about terminology. By identifying Jesus with the divine Kyrios, Paul makes an ontological claim about who Jesus is in relation to the Father. He redefines the confession of monotheism to include both the Father and the Son without falling into polytheism. This would have been shocking to contemporaries if taken out of context. Without a Trinitarian lens, such a statement could imply subordinationism, viewing Jesus as a lesser divine figure, or suggest dyotheism, worshipping two separate deities. Neither interpretation aligns with Paul’s intent or subsequent doctrinal development.
The Necessity of Tradition, Philosophy, and Context
To fully grasp what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 8:6, one must go beyond a purely literal reading in a language and interpretation history far removed from its original source and it’s present living context its still for. For example, Paul’s affirmation of “one God, the Father” cannot be understood in a strictly numerical sense, as this would imply a bounded, discrete deity, which God is not. Instead, Paul asserts God’s absolute uniqueness and ontological supremacy. Similarly, when he speaks of “one Lord, Jesus Christ,” he is not presenting Jesus as subordinate but as sharing fully in the divine identity of YHWH. By attributing Kyrios to Jesus, Paul includes Him in the divine essence, showing unity of essence and authority between the Father and the Son. Again, without the knowledge of the Hebrew bible, the language and translation common to Paul’s use, and his revelation and church he wrote to today (which is still around), one would lose all this in the English version written itself for a time no longer.
This truer interpretation is possible only when the passage is read within the larger framework of the Church’s Tradition and the metaphysical principles used to clarify doctrinal truths. A literal reading, isolated from this Tradition, might miss the full depth of Paul’s theological insight. Without the Church’s guidance, the passage might suggest two distinct divine figures rather than a unified divine reality. The Trinitarian framework, developed through the Church’s receiving of oral tradition, and theological reflection on such passages, allows for understanding how the Father and the Son can be distinct persons yet united in the same divine nature.
The philosophical notion of divine simplicity, for example, has historically been key to preserving the unity of God while acknowledging the distinct persons of the Trinity. It asserts that God is not composed of parts and that there is no division in His being. This concept prevents misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 as presenting two separate deities. Instead, it affirms that both the Father and the Son are fully divine and share the same undivided essence. When understood within this philosophical and theological context, the passage reveals Paul’s radical redefinition of monotheism to include Jesus within the divine identity.
Thus, briefly interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:6 through the lens of Tradition and that’s tradition’s first philosophy demonstrates why Scripture cannot be reduced to isolated verses. The text’s true meaning emerges only when placed in the context of the Church’s living Tradition, which preserves the unity of faith and ensures that key doctrines like the Trinity are properly understood and their sources of inspiration kept with their meanings.
Conclusion: The Limitations of Isolated Scriptural Interpretation
The case study of 1 Corinthians 8:6 confirms and deepens the argument of this essay: while Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it is not a comprehensive philosophical manual. Doctrines like the Trinity and divine simplicity are “hidden” within the text, requiring the interpretive framework provided by Tradition, sound philosophical reasoning, and a coherent metaphysical vision to be fully understood. Reading Scripture without these lenses is not only theologically risky but also distorts the very revelation it seeks to communicate.
Therefore, the full meaning of Scripture can be grasped only when approached through the Church’s interpretive authority, which safeguards the coherence and integrity of the faith. Ultimately, a robust doctrine of God—whether Trinitarian or related to divine simplicity—must always be a synthesis of Scripture, Tradition, and sound philosophy, ensuring that the faith handed down from the Apostles is preserved and articulated in all its fullness.
With that said, if you’re not going to be baptized into the Catholic or an apostolic church and be discipled and formed by the unbroken spirit and tradition of the church then it’s better to read the holy scripture than not. Please don’t give up. Keep going.
Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 28, writes:
“If this is difficult for us to grasp, it is because of a convention which so often presents itself to us as self-evidently authoritative, namely the convention that all texts are simply natural, historical entities, and that the Bible is to be read ‘like any other text’ because it is a text, and all texts are fundamentally the same kind of entity.”
Entities to be read and read well as one can. Amen.
Citations
1. Dei Verbum, Vatican II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 10:
“The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Source: [https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html)
2. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 2:
“But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”
Source: [https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm)
3. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 4:
“For there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest.”
Source: [https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm)
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 95:
“Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.”
Source: [https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P12.HTM](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P12.HTM)
5. Dei Verbum, Vatican II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 10:
“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.”
Source: [https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html)
6. Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Shema):
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
Source: [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6%3A4&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6%3A4&version=NIV)
7. 1 Corinthians 2:6 (Referenced by St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies):
“But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”
Source: [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A6&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A6&version=NIV)
8. 1 Corinthians 11:19 (Referenced by Tertullian in The Prescription Against Heretics):
“For there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest.”
Source: [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A19&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A19&version=NIV)
9. Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 28, Kindle edition.
