If the Bible is a Catholic document, why isn't some Catholic doctrine in it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homerun40968
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Where does it say in the Bible that all doctrines have to be found in the Bible?
 
Do you not mean exclusively Catholic, and not Protestant?

I think there are plenty of references to Catholic practices and doctrines which Protestants deny. And then there are the Catholic doctrines which overlap with Protestants (generally). So that’s why I think you should say ‘exclusively Catholic.’

But to answer the question, I think e61iuser answered well enough;
Where does it say in the Bible that all doctrines have to be found in the Bible?
Click to expand...
 
The Bible is not a ‘Catholic’ book, but it is accepted as authoritative because of the the authority of the Bishops in the early Church going all the back to Irenaeus’ assertion that the four Gospels were the authoritative Gospel.

One can argue whether the Church received Scripture as already accepted by the individual church’s extant during the day or one can argue that the Church determined that these books were Canon but not those. Given the history of the day and the dating given us by textual criticism I favor the former but I think the point is somewhat moot.

The reason is that there is little honest argument that that the Books were extant during the Patristic Period and by the late second century the Bishops were already defending the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse of John as the authoritative books. However, history tells us that the only reason these needed to be defended was because of the massive amount of fraudulent books which cropped up and claimed authority on par with that of Scripture such as The Gospels of Thomas and Judas. These books were unequivocally denounced as heretical and even those today who defend them do not bother to argue for Apostolic Authority.

The so-called “compiling” of Scripture was done some 150-175 years after the fact when the Books of the Canon had long been established and defended. So even if one argues that the Bible is not Catholic they still must concede that it’s authority and that of the Church were simultaneous in in their development in history.

Now, as to Doctrine. The Bible does not explicitly teach that infants should be baptized, but, along with the Catholic Church, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches all practice it to this day. The Bible also does not explicitly forbid abortion, but I don’t think anyone argues for it’s validity. What the Bible does teach is that we must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and that life is precious and children are precious to God.

In the same way, the Bible may not explicitly teach about Purgatory, but both the writer of Maccabees and Paul argued that there is a burning away of our deeds after we die. The Bible may not explicitly teach us to pray to Saints but it is replete with Angelic visitations as well as Visions of Christ both pre and post incarnate. Surely you don’t doubt those things. The Bible may not teach the Assumption of Mary but she is mentioned in all four Gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles and the reverence of Mary dates all the way back to the earliest days of the Church and if one is tempted to say, “Well sure that’s what the Catholics teach,” then I would remind you that John Calvin and Martin Luther both argued for the perpetual virginity of Mary, the presence of Christ on the Eucharist and Luther argued for the Prayer to the Saints and the veneration of Mary.

I realize, as a protestant myself, that there is great temptation to separate Catholic teachings and say, “Well I am not familiar with these so I will argue against them,” but a study of history will reveal that the Church did not concoct these Doctrines from the Ether but instead received long tradition which was not divorced even from protestant circles until some 100 years or more, if at all, after the Reformation itself.

So don’t be so fast to point the finger.
 
Cranch said:
Here’s some reading to get you started:

Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages
Click to expand...
I recommend that entire blog and it’s appropriate name, “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.” He’s heard it all, especially, “That doctrine is not in the Bible!” And when he shows them it is, it’s “Your are reading into it!” (or eisegesis if you are an egg-head)

It’s impossible to win such a stacked scenario, but I think a fair-minded person can sort through who has made the case.
 
For the glorification of Mary, the reference is an easy one. Jesus’ actual words in scripture are few in number and I feel certain that none were intended for only those present. So when my Savior spoke His dying wish, “Behold your mother.” I take Him literally without interpretation. In fact, I think the ones who DO interpret that without being literal are the Protestants who insist that all scripture should be taken as written. Except, I guess, for things that make them uncomfortable.
 
Homerun40968 said:
Examples:
  1. Purgatory
  2. Assumption of Mary
  3. Etc.
Click to expand...
The Bible was never intended to be a a systematic theology text or catechism. It is a a collection of writings written for different purposes. Teachings were supposed to be passed on orally. I’m at work now so I don’t have my notes, but there are a lot of reference in the NT epistles about being taught by word of mouth.

Gary
 
e61iuser said:
Where does it say in the Bible that all doctrines have to be found in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Of course, I fully agree with you. I don’t think that a teaching has to be in the Bible to be true, but I’m still curious why Purgatory is not in the Bible. I think it’s real, because of 2,000 years of Church history, but it is odd (not that it makes a difference) that it is not obviously stated in the Bible.
 
First of, the word Bible is not in the Bible. You won’t find the word Trinity there either.

The Assumption
Gn 5:24 (Hb 11:5) - Enoch taken to heaven without dying
2Kg 2:11 - Elijah assumed into heaven in fiery chariot
Mt 27:52 - many saints who had fallen asleep were raised
1Thess 4:17 - caught up to meet the Lord in the air
1Cor 15:52 - we shall be instantly changed at the last trumpet
Rom 6:23 - for the wages of sin is death
Rev 11:19-21 - ark in heaven = woman clothed in sun
Ps 132:8 - Arise, O Lord & go to thy resting place, thou & the ark of thy might
 
Purgatory
Mt 5:48 - be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect
Heb 12:14 - strive for that holiness without which cannot see God
Jam 3:2 - we all fall short in many respects
Rev 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven
Jam 1:14-15 - when sin reaches maturity gives birth to death
2Sam 12:13-14 - David, though forgiven, still punished for his sin
Mt 5:26 - you will not be released until paid last penny
Mt 12:32 - sin against Holy Spirit unforgiven in this age or next
Mt 12:36 - account for every idle word on judgment day
2Macc 12:44-46 - atoned for dead to free them from sin
1Cor 3:15 - suffer loss, but saved as through fire
1Pet 3:18-20; 4:6 - Jesus preached to spirits in prison
2Tim 1:16-18 - Paul prays for dead friend Onesiphorus
1Cor 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people baptizing for the dead
 
bogeydogg said:
The Bible is not a ‘Catholic’ book, but it is accepted as authoritative because of the the authority of the Bishops in the early Church going all the back to Irenaeus’ assertion that the four Gospels were the authoritative Gospel.

One can argue whether the Church received Scripture as already accepted by the individual church’s extant during the day or one can argue that the Church determined that these books were Canon but not those. Given the history of the day and the dating given us by textual criticism I favor the former but I think the point is somewhat moot.

The reason is that there is little honest argument that that the Books were extant during the Patristic Period and by the late second century the Bishops were already defending the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse of John as the authoritative books. However, history tells us that the only reason these needed to be defended was because of the massive amount of fraudulent books which cropped up and claimed authority on par with that of Scripture such as The Gospels of Thomas and Judas. These books were unequivocally denounced as heretical and even those today who defend them do not bother to argue for Apostolic Authority.

The so-called “compiling” of Scripture was done some 150-175 years after the fact when the Books of the Canon had long been established and defended. So even if one argues that the Bible is not Catholic they still must concede that it’s authority and that of the Church were simultaneous in in their development in history.

Now, as to Doctrine. The Bible does not explicitly teach that infants should be baptized, but, along with the Catholic Church, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches all practice it to this day. The Bible also does not explicitly forbid abortion, but I don’t think anyone argues for it’s validity. What the Bible does teach is that we must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and that life is precious and children are precious to God.

In the same way, the Bible may not explicitly teach about Purgatory, but both the writer of Maccabees and Paul argued that there is a burning away of our deeds after we die. The Bible may not explicitly teach us to pray to Saints but it is replete with Angelic visitations as well as Visions of Christ both pre and post incarnate. Surely you don’t doubt those things. The Bible may not teach the Assumption of Mary but she is mentioned in all four Gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles and the reverence of Mary dates all the way back to the earliest days of the Church and if one is tempted to say, “Well sure that’s what the Catholics teach,” then I would remind you that John Calvin and Martin Luther both argued for the perpetual virginity of Mary, the presence of Christ on the Eucharist and Luther argued for the Prayer to the Saints and the veneration of Mary.

I realize, as a protestant myself, that there is great temptation to separate Catholic teachings and say, “Well I am not familiar with these so I will argue against them,” but a study of history will reveal that the Church did not concoct these Doctrines from the Ether but instead received long tradition which was not divorced even from protestant circles until some 100 years or more, if at all, after the Reformation itself.

So don’t be so fast to point the finger.
Click to expand...
Very good. The term “Catholic” is virtually identical with episcopal, for as Irenaeus pointed out, we know what is true doctrine because this is what bishops and synods of bishops have said is true, as opposed to the testimony of someone like Marcion who is expressing only his personal opinion, however elequently.
 
Homerun40968 said:
Examples:
  1. Purgatory
  2. Assumption of Mary
  3. Etc.
Click to expand...
Not all doctrines are explicitly defined in the Bible. For example, one has to put together many scripture verses to understand the Trinity. Most Christians will not refuse the Trinity doctrine.

However, all Catholic doctrines are found in the Bible either implicitly or explicitly.
 
Homerun40968 - I commend your courage in venturing into a Catholic forum. I hope that the experience enriches your faith in Christ.
 
Homerun40968 said:
Of course, I fully agree with you. I don’t think that a teaching has to be in the Bible to be true, but I’m still curious why Purgatory is not in the Bible. I think it’s real, because of 2,000 years of Church history, but it is odd (not that it makes a difference) that it is not obviously stated in the Bible.
Click to expand...
[SIGN]PEOPLES![/SIGN]

I don’t think this buy is trying to pick a fight.
 
II Maccabees 12:43-46: "And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)

Maccabees is not in the Protestant Bible, for varieties of reasons most especially because Martin Luther hated it (and Ruth) and they were subsequently removed from Protestant Bibles.

“Acts 2:27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will you allow your Holy One to see decay.”

Implies, I think, that a soul in Hades can be saved from Hades.

Matthew 5:26 “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.”

Jesus is speaking metaphorically, likening a time in prison to a time in the afterlife when a soul in debt must pay back what is owed.
 
If you read the Catholic Catechism you will see the footnotes that refer to related Bible passages.
 
Drlit said:
Maccabees is not in the Protestant Bible, for varieties of reasons most especially because Martin Luther hated it (and Ruth) and they were subsequently removed from Protestant Bibles.
Click to expand...
Well technically, Luther did not hate the deutero-canonical books he just doubted their authenticity as being on par with Canon. Of course Luther was propounding a doctrine of Sola Scriptura so books like Maccabees which called into doubt his positions theologically were demoted in his way of thinking. Some others which you missed would be James, Hebrews, the last few chapters of Romans, II Peter, you know, those books no one really reads anyway. :rolleyes:

However, Luther did include the so-called ‘Apocrypha’ in his Bible (placing them at the back) a pattern also used by Tyndale, Calvin, and even the original King James. In fact these apparently non-canonical books were included in the Protestant Canon until the mid-nineteenth century when the English Bible Society omitted them seemingly forever.

In truth, the twentieth century was the first Christian Century which did not have the Deuteros readily available for study. Of course it has been my experience that most Protestants (of which I myself am numbered) have a great curiosity about the books and have readily sought them out to learn and study them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top