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

[Always_For_Him]

Since there are some catholic beliefs that are not found in the bible, this is proof that catholics have some false teachings.

How do you know this? Is this something your church teaches you? It is the Catholic Church that through Peter, his disciples and apostolic succession with apostolic authority given by Christ who determined what oral tradition was inspired teachings and put it into writing for all Christians. Jesus’ ONE truth was written into ONE Bible. This bible is the exact same bible that the Catholic Church uses today. This is the exact same bible that Martin Luther borrowed, omitted certain books of inspired scripture because they didn’t fit his interpretation or doctrine and changed for the Protestants to use. Protestants aren’t taught this because it would be obviously wrong for anyone to change the bible. The canon was closed, he would have had to add to it or take away from it to change the bible, which he did. If that was admitted, then it would have to be admitted that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded with Peter and the apostles and that the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit put the teachings into writing for ALL Christians and that the Catholic Church had authority.

The bible is the ultimate authority. It is the word of God.

Yes, the bible is the ultimate authority as taught by Jesus himself through his disciples, through apostolic succession of the Catholic Church until all inspired teachings were written. Who would know better than the Catholic Church that the Bible is the word of God?

The rest of your statement is just plain wrong in about every way. Since you don’t seem to be Catholic, how could you know with any confidence any of our teachings or what we believe. You know and believe what you have been taught from your church. If it is anything like what I experienced growing up, it was anti-Catholic in every way. You can’t just bad mouth and make stuff up about the Catholic Church because you want to make it seem that Protestant churches are right and therefore, look how wrong and rediculous the Catholic Church is. Each Protestant church has their own beliefs and believe that they are the correct interpreters of what the bible means. They don’t teach that it was the Catholic Church is who guided by the Holy Spirit put Jesus’ teachings into writing and gave you the Bible in teh first place because it would have to be admitted that the Catholic Church had authority. All Christians believed the same Truth told by the One bible and through Sacred Tradition until the 1500’s when man decided to change it. Who would know better, Jesus, the disciples he taught and gave authority to teach his Word at the time of the founding of the Church, or someone in the 1500’s who decided they knew better what it meant?

 

[po18guy]

The bible is the ultimate authority. It is the word of God. Therefore, everything in it is true.

Yes! Amen!

1. we will avoid tribulation is in there
2. soul sleep is in there
3. temporary hell is in there
4. symbolic baptism is in there
5. baptism by amniotic fluid is in there
6. just yell “Lord” and you cannot go to hell is in there
7. saved by speaking one word is in there
8. saved by speaking two words is in there
9. saved by speaking three words is in there
10. soul annihilation is in there
11. no baptism needed at all is in there
12. Jesus wants you to be rich is in there
13. there is no hell is in there
14. “you can be saved for your love gift of…” is in there
15. Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel is in there
16. “neither heaven nor hell, just a brand new earth” is in there
17. God wasn’t always a god is in there
18. Jesus was promoted to the position he now holds is in there
19. the gates of hell will not prevail is in there
20. the gates of hell did prevail is in there

And there are 10-20 of these for each of the thousands of denominations. What rule? What truth? What faith?

I had no idea so many were using the King George Orwell version…

 

[idiopathogen]

Where does it say in the Bible that all doctrines have to be found in the Bible?

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Look, Israel had a reformation too! ::

“And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.” – 2 Kings 22:11-13

 

[johnnydigit]

In his letter, James is not saying that you have to do good works to get to heaven. Instead, he was saying that if you do have true faith, then that will lead you to do good works. He explains this clearly in James 2:15-17. He says that faith by itself, if not accompanied by action, is dead. He means that if a person claims to have faith, but his actions don’t support his claim, then he is lying and he does not have the true faith. Someone who has true faith will do good works out of love for God and thankfulness for what He has done for us. True faith produces fruits of faith.

James 2:23 says that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. It was because of his faith that God called him righteous, not because of his works; although his works gave an outward sign that he did have faith in God and was willing to do everything that God wanted. But James makes it clear that what saved Abraham was his faith.

And just a quick note: Luther did not take James out of the bible. In fact, he said, "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God (LW 35:395).

what’s funny is that this whole argument is based on the notion that we teach in only works. we teach it is faith and works. works and faith. both, not one or the other. this is one of the most ignorant arguments from protestants who haven’t even researched their material.

for what its worth,
***JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
***by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church

basically,
Lutherans: "ok it’s both faith and works. we had actually been referring to slightly different interpretations of what justification actually is when we said “faith alone.”
Church: “duh! whatever makes you happy. we’ve held the same position for thousands of years, and will remain so forever.”

you see every doctrine is based on Scripture. the two cannot be separated, just as the Church, Tradition, and Scripture cannot be separated… just as Jesus cannot be separated from all three… it’s as solid as the Trinity.

 

[po18guy]

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

NOT! This is a misleading tactic! You want it to say “scripture is all”, but it does not say that. Does it say complete? No! Profitable. Yes. Complete? No.

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Same problem. Isaiah declares the “word” to be true, but the word had the authoritative interpretation of the priestly class. There was no sola scriptura!

The bible does not, anywhere, say it is sufficient. The bible claims, and I take it to be true, that it is incomplete. It says so in Luke 3:18, John 20:30 and John 21:25, as well as Acts 2:40. You are free to believe it is complete, but it is not.

If you want the whole Christ, and cannot stand the Catholic church, look into Eastern Orthodoxy. You will be much closer.

Christ’s peace.

 

[idiopathogen]

It is always good to keep tradition and Scripture separated so that we do not become pharisees.

The works/faith issue is simple. James is speaking of showing our faith to others by our works, but never to God. It is the goodness of God, not the goodness of you, that leads you to repentance. The religious flesh always boasts in the goodness of self, saints, etc, but that is never the right attitude when “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

As Jesus said to the Pharisees, “ye by your tradition have made the law of no effect.”

The apostle Paul in Philippians 3:4-7 gives a good description of himself as a Pharisee before he was converted, and as religiously perfect as he was, he was still the chief of sinners! “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” (1 Timothy 1:15). Because Pharisees are occupied primarily with goodness in themselves, or in others, but never the goodness of God, obedience to the Lord must therefore take a back seat to what they find other good people like themselves doing, especially those in their corrupt religious system (Matthew 6:5). Subjective analysis of individuals is always preferred by them above objective faith in God, who alone is good. (Matthew 19:17). The Pharisee needs scriptures such as “we are all as an unclean thing,” (Isaiah 64:6) “there is none righteous, no, not one…there is none that seeketh after God…There is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 5:10-12). They need to recognize, like Job who compared his own goodness to God’s goodness, that compared to the divine standard they are in fact BAD no matter how religious they are, and they need to repent and make God right. “That every mouth might be stopped and the whole word become guilty before God.” (Romans 3:19). Paul said, “I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” (Romans 7:18).

 

[idiopathogen]

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.

One verse:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Matthew 28:19.

“name”: Singular - one God.

 

[po18guy]

It is always good to keep tradition and Scripture separated so that we do not become pharisees.

Trouble brewing…

As Jesus said to the Pharisees, “ye by your tradition have made the law of no effect.”

True, but which Pharisaic tradition was Christ speaking of? Please identify.

“there is none righteous, no, not one…there is none that seeketh after God…There is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 5:10-12).

Which Psalm was Paul quoting from here? Don’t know? Well, here it is: Psalm 14

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.

All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

Will evildoers never learn—
those who devour my people as men eat bread
and who do not call on the LORD?

King David separated his people from the evil doers. A little difference when you use CONTEXT.

Are you perhaps a little confused? You appear to have have just declared The Apostle Paul’s traditions, which he learned from the Twelve, which they learned from Christ, to be corrupt! Please think this over. You stereotyped all tradition as being Pharisaic in nature. Big mistake. Believe what you will (and you do), but you will not front this on these forums without being educated. Remember, your church long ago stopped being Apostolic, abandoning Paul’s traditions, which he admonished us to keep!

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

The Catholic church keeps Paul’s traditions. And, it has the bible.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

One verse:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Matthew 28:19.

“name”: Singular - one God.

A doctrine from one sentence! And you condemn the church which bases its doctrines on many verses! Your problem is that you cannot believe, in your current state, that there was ever a time without a bible. Christ never used one. Christ never wrote one. Christ never said to write one. Christ sent Apostles forth, guided by the Holy Spirit, to teach all truth.

Why do you insist on using the only thing that was never authorized by Christ?

(insert sputtering here)

 

[idiopathogen]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

The Catholic church keeps Paul’s traditions. And, it has the bible.

Right, so your women are keeping silent in the church and wearing head coverings, because of the angels?

I have nothing against tradition, per say, but when it is used to annul the effect of Scripture, or held with equal weight to scripture, it becomes pernicious and dangerous, and spreads a net for the faithful, many who burned at the stake for questioning it.

I don’t see any context issue at all in the scriptures I have provided that God’s estimation of what we are does not put us in a place to work out of it. Grace insults the pride of man, but “God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” James?

 

[idiopathogen]

A doctrine from one sentence! And you condemn the church which bases its doctrines on many verses! Your problem is that you cannot believe, in your current state, that there was ever a time without a bible. Christ never used one. Christ never wrote one. Christ never said to write one. Christ sent Apostles forth, guided by the Holy Spirit, to teach all truth.

Why do you insist on using the only thing that was never authorized by Christ?

(insert sputtering here)

I don’t imagine Job had a Bible. His story is the oldest in the Cannon. I can imagine sitting around the fire, and listening to his friends condemn him. The first, based on personal experience, the second based on culture experience, and his third friend based on religious tradition. And then after listening to his elders get it all wrong, young Elihu stood up and spoke the word of the Lord, and exposed the root of Job’s problem. Job was a faithful man, and didn’t “deserve” a single thing that was happening. His problem was he knew he was righteous. “Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness is more than God’s?” Job 35:2 “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:5,6

Believe me, God is able to communicate with or without the Catholic Church. He can canonize the Bible with or without you. The issue here does the tradition have the effect of establishing or destroying the authority of the written word?

I don’t know what is worse. He who says that what God says has no real authority, or that what God says needs some authority other than its own before it must be bowed to. Either way, evasion of that authority is quite evident, even if you kiss the book to get your indulgences, effectively mocking it.

Psalm 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Jude 1:17
But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

 

[po18guy]

Right, so your women are keeping silent in the church and wearing head coverings, because of the angels?

Why didn’t Paul include this in his other letters? Wasn’t it just as important? Tell me, do you drive a car? Why? Paul didn’t. Our women are not in Thessalonica in the year 40.

I have nothing against tradition, per say, but when it is used to annul the effect of Scripture, or held with equal weight to scripture, it becomes pernicious and dangerous, and spreads a net for the faithful, many who burned at the stake for questioning it.

Uh, the Salem witch hunts were Protestant. They had only scripture.

I don’t see any context issue at all in the scriptures

You would not, because your faith tradition does not teach context. And yes, you most certainly do have faith traditions.

You privately interpret scripture, essentially making your own church. This has proved very popular since the rebellion. And yet, you have difficulty with others who prefer authoritative interpretation? Scripture, without authority, is meaningless. You should be Southern Baptist then. Or Pentecostal. Or Wesleyan. Or High Church Lutheran. Or Episcopalian. There are thousands of differing churches who use your exact bible. Why no unity? Hint: No authority.

2 Peter 1:19-20 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Do not get me wrong. There is Christ in your church. There is truth in your church. But, Christ is the center of the Catholic church. He taught using the perfect, Heavenly method of the oral tradition. He breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles so that they could continue. And their successors do continue. This you reject! We reject nothing of Christ. We test scripture by Him, that is why there even is a bible. Glad to have it, but it’s not everything. Only Christ is.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

IBelieve me, God is able to communicate with or without the Catholic Church. He can canonize the Bible with or without you. The issue here does the tradition have the effect of establishing or destroying the authority of the written word?

You actually desire that God avoid the Catholic church because of serious issues you have with the church. But, for 1,500 years, it was as breathing that He spoke through His church, just as Jews knew that He spoke through Moses. The reliance on “scripture alone”, with no authority to interpret, is an innovation that is self-defeating - in practice, if not in theory. Your problem is with authority. That is the Protestant rebellion plain and simple.

I don’t know what is worse. He who says that what God says has no real authority, or that what God says needs some authority other than its own before it must be bowed to. Either way, evasion of that authority is quite evident, even if you kiss the book to get your indulgences, effectively mocking it.

To assume the established order is wrong, when scriptural and logical arguments are made in support, as well as the early church taking that exact form, is to be a rebel without a cause. However, since you have been taught, possibly since childhood, that an authoritative church is wrong, it will require the Holy Spirit, not any argument of man, to enlighten you. That is precisely what has occurred to so many over the centuries, and is even occurring here. It is not about whose church is better, or who wins the argument. It is about serving the Kingdom and truth. It is in that regard that I converse. I believe that the church had a foundation, first of all. Christ founded it on something. We can proceed from here.

But, the question remains: Do you love Christ enough to follow Him wherever He leads? Even into the Catholic Church? If no, then our conversation is futile.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Lampo]

2 Tim. 3:17

This verse says that the scriptures are given so that the man of God may be complete, or, as it says in the King James Version (KJV), that the man of God may be perfect. And some argue that if the Scriptures make one perfect, then there is no need for anything else.

There are, however, a couple of problems with that interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack that holds his ammunition and such. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.

The other problem with this interpretation, is Scripture itself. In James 1:3-4 it says this: “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” So, we see here in James that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

So, what do we see here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way Sola Scriptura defenders interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.” Again, using the method of interpretation used in 2 Tim 3:16-17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia – patience alone.

 

[Cranch]

2 Tim. 3:17

This verse says that the scriptures are given so that the man of God may be complete, or, as it says in the King James Version (KJV), that the man of God may be perfect. And some argue that if the Scriptures make one perfect, then there is no need for anything else.

There are, however, a couple of problems with that interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack that holds his ammunition and such. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.

The other problem with this interpretation, is Scripture itself. In James 1:3-4 it says this: “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” So, we see here in James that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

So, what do we see here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way Sola Scriptura defenders interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.” Again, using the method of interpretation used in 2 Tim 3:16-17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia – patience alone.

I liked this a lot!

 

[ziapueblo]

Well technically, Luther did not hate the deutero-canonical books he just doubted their authenticity as being on par with Canon.

I’m sure that Luther did not “hate” all the Deuterocanonical Books, but he did hate some of them:

Luther, I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exits; they contain too much judaism and no little heathen vice (The Canon of Scripture).

The comment above, in my opinion, shows that Luther put forth his private judgement in excluding these two books from the canon of Scripture.

 

[johnnydigit]

idiopathogen, it seems you hold so firmly to the Truth of the Bible and the insignificance of tradition, yet your version of the Truth is one of an infinite number of interpretations among all the protestants. even the source of your truth is fragmented in the many different versions of protestant Bibles with no common protestant source, only the Catholic source. you despise tradition, yet each of your living days and your truths are steeped in tradition, which you will pass on to your children.

there is only one Truth, and the Church has been given the task of preserving it through the ages and to interpret it correctly to each changing generation and culture. this is in line with an essence of what God is, authoritative, true, and eternal. most of all, it just makes plain sense.

protestant people = chaotic. protestant teachings = chaotic.
Catholic people = chaotic. Catholic teachings = ordered.
God = ordered = eternal = Jesus.

 

[angie08]

wow, deep. i heard some of those on tv from those televangelists. they’re quirky. wow, all those guys thinking they’re so smart for 2000 years coming up with things that even a 12 year old with a Bible can disprove. who are they kidding?! we’re way to smawt for that!

anywho, do you believe in the Trinity? you know, that doctrine that makes you a Christian? well it’s not found in the Bible either. Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity. are they not Christians even though they have faith in Jesus? oh man oh man…

The Trinity is taught in the bible. Just because the word trinity isn’t used doesn’t mean the concept isn’t in the bible. In John 1:1, it says that the Word (Jesus) is God. And in Genesis, when God is talking before He created the whole world, He says “we” meaning there was more than one person. However, the Bible is also clear that there is only one God. So from these teachings in the bible, the church came up with a word to describe what was taught in the bible, that there is only one God, but three persons that are separate and distinct.

And no, mormons aren’t Christians because they don’t believe what is clearly taught in the bible about Christ and God.

 

[mo3]

The religious flesh always boasts in the goodness of self, saints, etc, but that is never the right attitude when “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

This is an example of taking a verse out of context; “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” This is not a literal truth in the sense you have used it. St Paul was speaking about personal sin in Romans 3 and he was speaking about certain groups.

Here are some examples of those who have not committed personal sinned:

1. Babies who died at 1 month, 1 week, 1 hour, etc
2. Un-born babies
3. Severely mentally disabled
4. Jesus Christ as he was truly human and truly divine

When one reads “all” in the Bible, it does not necessarily mean “all”. Context is paramount.

 

[angie08]

This is an example of taking a verse out of context; “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” This is not a literal truth in the sense you have used it. St Paul was speaking about personal sin in Romans 3 and he was speaking about certain groups.

Here are some examples of those who have not committed personal sinned:

1. Babies who died at 1 month, 1 week, 1 hour, etc
2. Un-born babies
3. Severely mentally disabled
4. Jesus Christ as he was truly human and truly divine

When one reads “all” in the Bible, it does not necessarily mean “all”. Context is paramount.

Romans 6:23 is talking about all humans. Jesus is the only one who has never sinned. Unborn babies and severely mentally disabled people still have sin in them. All humans are born with natural sin that is inherited from their parents. So even an unborn baby has sinned and would go to hell if Jesus hadn’t died for them. So the “all” in this verse is actually referring to all people.