It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Church_Militant]

Feed my sheep is the role of every pastor; in fact the primary role. Peter and the rest were the first oradained of God to preach the gospel. Is your religion built off of John 6 and Matthew 16? If so wouldn’t that be very"cult-like"? Why or why not?

Off topic. We’re looking for Biblical texts telling us that all we believe and practice must be found in its pages.

All you are showing me here is two things, you do not have a high view of scipture in light of your church and second you have a sad understanding of scripture, which is not a good thing for you because it speaks volumes to those that do know the Word of God and place it as the highest authority.

Biased polemic & off topic. Better served in a thread of its own if you want.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Your example didn’t clarify, but only expounded on what we’ve already both admitted: That any incorrect interpretation of the Bible results from the reader’s errors, not from errors within the Bible.

The Bible is not an instruction manual. It is a complex collection of numerous types of writing by a wide variety of authors who often employ idioms and operate under assumptions that are now alien to most readers. By not providing us with an infallible interpreter (as you assert without evidence), then we are ultimately set up for failure, as the scandalous and un-Biblical divisions within Christianity amply demonstrate.

– Mark L. Chance.

You are the one that said an infallible document with a fallible interpreter is “no more useful” than a fallible document with a fallible interpreter.

I submit to you that “real life” does not work that way. Real life has documents that one expects to be correct, but in all cases lack infallible interpreters. Some of these documents are relatively simple and some are relatively complex. Doesn’t matter. They all lack infallible interpreters.

But yet documents that are correct and known to be reliable are in all cases in “real life” much more useful than documents that are defective.

So given that “real life” works with reliable documents and fallible interpreters, I fail to see the truth in your premise.

 

[DerekD]

So, how can there be more than one Holy Spirit? If there is only one HS which we all agree on, how can the HS tell you one truth and me another. Are you saying the HS is who is to blame to divide us. Because in the RCC faith the HS is who guides us and unites us into the truth not separate us.(borrowed from Rinnie)

you can figure that out, someone claims the holy spirit and doesnt have the holy spirit…who that is the holy spirit knows and the person who has the holy spirit knows

Where is the list of “basics” recorded in Scripture?

Let me make sure I understand why you accept “the Bible as God’s authority word, and that it contains no error?” Is it because of the prophecies?

if you have to ask about the basics recorded in scripture, then you have already answered the first question…right?

try reading the entire post about why i believe the scripture is gods word; prophecy was one of several reasons…the primary reason i believe them is the primary reason you do not.

 

[Church_Militant]

All of you keep repeating the same fatal fatal flaw. You are putting the authority of your church above that of scripture;

Not so! The New Testament puts the Church above scripture, as has been shown already, while no one has yet given me a single passage of the Bible that tells us that everything that we believe and practice must be found in its pages.

People can argue all day that we Catholics don’t understand, but if you don’t have a scripture text that specifically says what you say is true, then even by a Sola Scriptura standard one would have to reject it as a false teaching.

 

[DerekD]

And you presume this because of prophecies in the Bible, correct?

No, I do presume the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, but for different reasons than you. I presume it based on the authority that assembled the Bible and declared which books are the inspired inerrant Word of God - the Catholic Church.

(Edited)

Agreed. Who are the elect?

those whom god chose and predestined before the foundation of the world

The Holy Spirit has guided me to believe that all Christian teachings *are not necessarily *in the Bible. The exact opposite of what you believe. How do we resolve this?

i would never confuse the holy spirit as teaching doctrine outside of divine authority, (Edited).

From the Church of the living God, the pillar and bullwark of truth - the Catholic Church.

the bible never mentions the catholic church as even existing much less the pillar and support of the church; this must come form the superior authority of the catholic church above the word of god…at least this is how you all make it seem.

 

[Lampo]

you can figure that out, someone claims the holy spirit and doesnt have the holy spirit…who that is the holy spirit knows and the person who has the holy spirit knows

I know the Holy Spirit is guiding me. Do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding you? Is the Holy Spirit telling us the exact same thing?

if you have to ask about the basics recorded in scripture, then you have already answered the first question…right?

So there is no list?

try reading the entire post about why i believe the scripture is gods word; prophecy was one of several reasons…the primary reason i believe them is the primary reason you do not.

Where did I say I don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God? I told you why I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I’ll tell you again: “I presume it based on the authority that assembled the Bible and declared which books are the inspired, inerrant Word of God - the Catholic Church.”

You don’t realize yet, but that is the exact same reason *you *believe the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[DerekD]

No, the Catholic Church does not put the Church’s authority over Scripture. Sacred Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium make up the entire Deposit of Faith. Think of it as a three-legged stool. If you remove one of those legs, your stool becomes wobbly.

The Bible came *after *the Church. The Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.

Faith in the Church that Jesus established.

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” [John 21:25].

There is no difference between “did” and “taught” because what the Savior “did” and “taught” were for our salvation. That means they are both part of divine revelation, but not all of these things were recorded in Scripture. Scripture accounts for only about 100 days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Moreover, Jesus never commanded any of the apostles to write anything down during His ministry, and only five of them chose to write at the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Jesus commanded all of them to hand on the gospel orally, which is Sacred Tradition.

I once undertook an experiment: I read from the entire New Testament at the rate of about 20 minutes per day. It took me about six weeks to complete. Jesus spent most of three years, nearly 24/7, with His Apostles. “[R]emember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you. . . .” [John 20:31]. He obviously said much more to them than 20 minutes per day for six weeks. “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” [John 21:25]. So most of what He taught never got written down, but has been passed down to us by word of mouth, as Tradition. Jesus said, “Observe ALL that I have commanded.” This certainly includes everything Jesus taught, which is both in Scripture and outside Scripture.

Yes, the Bible. Just not the Bible alone!

the christian 3 ledded stool as you put it is built on the godhead or trinity, not the backs of men

i agree he DID many more things than recorded in scripture for the scipture is very clear on that, but it does not say as you and others have imposed that he taught much more than what is recorded. the evidence weighs heavily that he did not because he often repeated what he already said because he had a different audience with the same message, the evidence shows the scipture as holding true that he DID, not taught more than what is recorded.

let’s assume for a moment that he taught a great deal more outside of what we know, the bible - where is this other teaching and how would one possibly know it was from christ, apostles or prophets? you wouldn’t so be safe and secure and stick to the bible

 

[Lampo]

All of you keep repeating the same fatal fatal flaw. You are putting the authority of your church above that of scripture;…

The authority of our Church is what gave you Scripture.

What is the pillar and bullwark of truth?
A. Scripture
B. the Church
C. the Pope
D. each individual

What has the promise of the Holy Spirit to be guided into all truth?
A. Scripture
B. the Church
C. the Pope
D. each individual

 

[AmateurPianist]

Which helps absolutely no one with anything, as all that does is facilitate about 90 gajillion different denominations each purporting themselves to be the correct Bible preachers.

Again, in real life what we have is reliable documents and fallible interpreters.

Now admittedly if I were Catholic, I too would be critical of Protestants and their 90 gajillion denominations.

But I have observed that even if Protestants are wrong with their 90 gajillion denominations, it does not follow that Catholics or anybody else is right.

And the issue ultimately is what did God design. Let us assume that God designed a perfectly reliable and infallible document to be interpreted by authoritative members of the Body of Christ (pastors, teachers, apostles, evangelists, prophets) but yet humans who retain the capability of being incorrect, even in interpreting this document. And let us also assume that us as the body of Christ mess this up by dividing up amongst ourselves.

It does not necessarily follow that what God designed is faulty or defective.

 

[DerekD]

Not so well done. I addressed each one of those scriptures and even a cursory glance at them shows that they do not say or even infer the kind of authority that you assert they do.

As I’ve said many times, we Catholics have no problem with what the Bible says in any given passage…what we disagree with is the modern misinterpretations of those passages by some people.

In the case of this post of yours, what we see here is a assertion of conclusion drawn from a fallacious premise not supported by the text of the scriptures quoted.

i would agree with your causal glance at scripture if i did not already know scripture and it is painfully obvious that all of you have a view of scripture that is less than admirable for christians. there are no modern or ancient interpretations, there is correct and incorrect and the differences lie with the holy spirit of truth and promise. you catholics are sending a mixed message, you have the holy spirit but the holy spirt lies with the “church” and is able to interpret whereas the scripture tells us something simialr to your views, that people have the holy spirit, but then you mix in this concept of church which appears to be defined in terms foreign to scripture…like i have seen some of you refer to a magisterium and deposit of faith lead by the holy spirit…that is not only confusing but simply incorrect…i don’t know any of you can know the truth with such a mixed bag of beliefs…i am really curious to know how catholics define what exactly the church is or is not…this is where my own confusion is originating, you seem to have a biblical and non-biblical principla working together…perhaps you could clarify for me the catholic position on exactly what the church is and is not…thanks

 

[Lampo]

(Edited)

Did God tell you personally which books should be included in Sacred Scripture?

i would never confuse the holy spirit as teaching doctrine outside of divine authority, (Edited).

But I *know *the Holy Spirit is guiding me. Do you *know *the Holy Spirit is guiding you? You and I have read the same Scriptures guided by the Holy Spirit, but have different interpretations. How do we resolve that?

the bible never mentions the catholic church as even existing

The Bible doesn’t mention the word Trinity either, but the Trinity existed then.

much less the pillar and support of the church; this must come form the superior authority of the catholic church above the word of god…at least this is how you all make it seem.

Just exactly what do you think 1 Tim. 3:15 means?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Did God tell you personally which books should be included in Sacred Scripture?

But I *know *the Holy Spirit is guiding me. Do you *know *the Holy Spirit is guiding you? You and I have read the same Scriptures guided by the Holy Spirit, but have different interpretations. How do we resolve that?

[SIGN]The Bible doesn’t mention the word Trinity either, but the Trinity existed then.[/SIGN]

Just exactly what do you think 1 Tim. 3:15 means?

Can’t wait to hear his answer to this one!

 

[Lampo]

let’s assume for a moment that he taught a great deal more outside of what we know, the bible - where is this other teaching and how would one possibly know it was from christ, apostles or prophets? you wouldn’t so be safe and secure and stick to the bible

Where did Christ teach what books should be included in the Bible? Where did Christ ever tell anyone to write down what He did or taught?

 

[DerekD]

Presumption does not work. It comes to a conclusion even before it has looked at the facts. Would anyone want to be the subject of any case where presumption was the basis for conclusion? Very risky.

Where does 1st Timothy 3:15 even infer such a belief as you assert? I’ll have to disagree with your interpretation and go with what the Word of God actually says right there. You express a gross fallacy because that may be your own opinion, but even if one accepts the authority ascribed to the Bible by Sola Scriptura, one would have to reject that.

As to your last question…you already answered that when you touched on 1st Timothy 3:15 above. What does that verse literally tell us is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

i presume we are all christians and as such we all believe in the authority of god’s word. if you deem that as “risky”, then i also presume you are not a chirstian as a result, but i actually think you misunderstood why i put the presumption there in the first place. if someone claims to be a christian but doesn’t believe the bible, then where can you start? see what i mean and why i am making the presumption?

it is pillar and support of the truth; it not even difficult to see god entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth. the role of the church is not to make up new revelation, that is what all the cults do, like he book of mormon or the watch tower society. so if your church claims to have additional divine revelation outside of scripture, then that church is in the same category and who is to say who is right and who is wrong because the only known divine authority has been overidden…just because one was established before another would have no influence on which divine authority is right and which is not, which is why we alwys will come back to the rock bed foundation of the church, which is the living word which is God.

 

[Lampo]

i am really curious to know how catholics define what exactly the church is or is not…this is where my own confusion is originating, you seem to have a biblical and non-biblical principla working together…perhaps you could clarify for me the catholic position on exactly what the church is and is not…thanks

Great question! Now we’re getting somewhere!

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
CCC

 

[rinnie]

Also why does the bible say?

The true rule of faith is scripture PLUS apostolic TRADITION as manifestedin the living teachng authority of the CC to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles to interpret Scritpure correctly.

It is in the bible you know!

 

[Lampo]

so if your church claims to have additional divine revelation outside of scripture,

Where is the list in the Bible of what books should be included in the Bible?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

i presume we are all christians and as such we all believe in the authority of god’s word. if you deem that as “risky”, then i also presume you are not a chirstian as a result, but i actually think you misunderstood why i put the presumption there in the first place. if someone claims to be a christian but doesn’t believe the bible, then where can you start? see what i mean and why i am making the presumption?

it is pillar and support of the truth; it not even difficult to see god entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth. the role of the church is not to make up new revelation, that is what all the cults do, like he book of mormon or the watch tower society. so if your church claims to have [SIGN]additional divine revelation outside of scripture[/SIGN], then that church is in the same category and who is to say who is right and who is wrong because the only known divine authority has been overidden…just because one was established before another would have no influence on which divine authority is right and which is not, which is why we alwys will come back to the rock bed foundation of the church, which is the living word which is God.

Where does it say in the bible that the bible is all we need for salvation. Actually where does it even say in the bible that we NEED the bible for theology?

WHere does it say in the bible that theBible is necessary to believe in Christ?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]you can figure that out, [/SIGN]someone claims the holy spirit and doesnt have the holy spirit…who that is the holy spirit knows and the person who has the holy spirit knows

if you have to ask about the basics recorded in scripture, then you have already answered the first question…right?

try reading the entire post about why i believe the scripture is gods word; prophecy was one of several reasons…the primary reason i believe them is the primary reason you do not.

That does not even make sense. Are you claiming you can read minds or what? While I agree that the HS knows the truth it still does not answer the question at all. You said YOU can figure that out? Again HOW?

 

[Lampo]

it is pillar and support of the truth; it not even difficult to see god entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth.

Please tell me precisely how this is done.

the role of the church is not to make up new revelation,

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church makes up new revelation?

so if your church claims to have additional divine revelation outside of scripture,

Do you consider the list of books that should be included in Scripture divine revelation?

…which is why we alwys will come back to the rock bed foundation of the church, which is the living word which is God.

How did Christians in the year 107AD “come back to the rock bed foundation of the church, which is the living word which is God?”