It's NOT in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe we can have our own opinion [hopefully a prayerful one] regarding whether something we do offends God or not so long as it does not explicitly say one way or the other in scripture. However, it’s important to note that our opinion doesn’t influence whether or not it actually does or does not offend God.
That’s the point. It is NOT a matter of opinion at all. It is revelation.
No. Contraception is either sinful for all or sinful for none. My feelings one way or the other will not change God’s opinion. However, since God chose not to be explicit on whether or not it is a sin, it is left to opinion on whether it actually is or is not.
You contradict yourself. You first say it is objectively either sinful or not sinful. Then you say it is a matter of opinion whether it is sinful or not. Which is it? Because a person’s soul could hang in the balance. If I am of the “opinion” that an action is not sinful simply because I don’t read about it specifically in scripture, am I not held accountable for that sin if it is objectively sinful? And could not that accountability mean the loss of salvation? Of course, you could also be a OSAS subscriber, which would further complicate matters.
 
Of course. I agree. Jesus said himself that if man looks at another woman with lust that he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Notice, however, that is merely an extension (by way of clarification) and not a replacement. In other words, it doesn’t mean that I can have physical contact outside of marriage so long as I don’t look at her lustfully, if such a thing is even possible.
Indeed, as Jesus Himself clarified. But this does provide a good example and means to discuss and explore the Catholic/Christian divide over a sola scriptura approach (or at least the general Catholic notion as to how it is applied). In this case, Jesus Himself provided the clarification. What if such did not exist in Scripture? Would we as Christians still hold as Jesus taught?
 
That’s the point. It is NOT a matter of opinion at all. It is revelation.

You contradict yourself. You first say it is objectively either sinful or not sinful. Then you say it is a matter of opinion whether it is sinful or not. Which is it? Because a person’s soul could hang in the balance. If I am of the “opinion” that an action is not sinful simply because I don’t read about it specifically in scripture, am I not held accountable for that sin if it is objectively sinful? And could not that accountability mean the loss of salvation? Of course, you could also be a OSAS subscriber, which would further complicate matters.
If you believe I’ve contradicted myself, it’s only because I haven’t be clear enough. My apologies.

From God’s perspective, it is either sinful or it is not. It is objective. From my perspective, who does not have the luxury of God explicitly stating His perspective, I am left only to speculate as to what His perspective is. Now contrast that with adultery. We know what God’s perspective is on that. We don’t need to speculate.

This probably belongs in a separate thread but… We are to be held without excuse for our sins. We can’t use the excuse “I didn’t know”, but that doesn’t mean that our salvation is necessarily affected. Now, I am not a believer in OSAS (again, long story for another thread), but I believe that our salvation is guaranteed for those who repent and desire it.
 
Indeed, as Jesus Himself clarified. But this does provide a good example and means to discuss and explore the Catholic/Christian divide over a sola scriptura approach (or at least the general Catholic notion as to how it is applied). In this case, Jesus Himself provided the clarification. What if such did not exist in Scripture? Would we as Christians still hold as Jesus taught?
Great question! Of course we can’t know for sure but only speculate. I would guess, as a generality, probably not. We are all a lot more like the Pharisees than any of us would ever like to admit. 😦
 
I agree that we all do need an interpretation for [a little/some/much/most] of scripture, but disagree that we need it for all. There is plenty that is black and white.
“A little/some/much/most”? Do you actually have a position on this? In fact, we need it for all. Because we read it all. And the act of understanding what is read is, by definition, interpretation.

And what of the portion that remains gray? How do you determine that it is not significant to accurately interpret? How do you know it does not have a crucial contextual purpose which then allows for the proper understanding of those things which you believe are black & white?

I think what you’re trying to say is that God made those things which are crucial for our salvation abundantly clear in scripture, sort of a pseudo “perspicuity of scripture” theory. I wonder why those who hold to this theory don’t believe in the Eucharist. For it is one of the most clear teachings in scripture. 🤷
 
If you believe I’ve contradicted myself, it’s only because I haven’t be clear enough. My apologies.

From God’s perspective, it is either sinful or it is not. It is objective. From my perspective, who does not have the luxury of God explicitly stating His perspective, I am left only to speculate as to what His perspective is. Now contrast that with adultery. We know what God’s perspective is on that. We don’t need to speculate.

This probably belongs in a separate thread but… We are to be held without excuse for our sins. We can’t use the excuse “I didn’t know”, but that doesn’t mean that our salvation is necessarily affected. Now, I am not a believer in OSAS (again, long story for another thread), but I believe that our salvation is guaranteed for those who repent and desire it.
Ah, but there’s the rub. Repent of what? If you do not know that contraception is a sin, and you concede that we are accountable for it regardless of knowledge, then you will not repent of this sin. Now, add in another sin which you speculate on, don’t find clearly in scripture, and continue to act on. Add another. And another. All of them unrepented of…why?..because you did not know, yet are accountable. So, if salvation is guaranteed for those who repent, and they don’t repent of these sins because scripture didn’t clearly point them out, what then? Is that how it’s supposed to work for Christians?

No.

In fact, as it turns out, you are not “left only to speculate as to what His perspective is”, especially not on salvific matters of faith and morals. It is part of the deposit of faith, revealed to, and through, His Church for all generations.
 
Great question! Of course we can’t know for sure but only speculate. I would guess, as a generality, probably not. We are all a lot more like the Pharisees than any of us would ever like to admit. 😦
Your honesty is well appreciated. If we all could only stick to that, we’d probably sooner find that despite differences, we share much more in common.
 
“A little/some/much/most”? Do you actually have a position on this? In fact, we need it for all. Because we read it all. And the act of understanding what is read is, by definition, interpretation.
Fair enough. That would be the textbook definition. I’m not sure how to define or articulate it another way but I will give it a shot. Some statements’ meaning are self-evident and do not require any extensive reasoning to come to a core understanding because they are explicit. “Do not commit adultery.” It’s pretty explicit that having sex with someone who is not your spouse is therefore frowned upon by God. I don’t have to do extensive reasoning and/or projecting to come to a conclusion. Contraception on the other hand, is not explicit. I have to speculate based upon what is in scripture.
And what of the portion that remains gray? How do you determine that it is not significant to accurately interpret? How do you know it does not have a crucial contextual purpose which then allows for the proper understanding of those things which you believe are black & white?
I don’t determine that it is not significant to interpret, it is simply not explicit to the question. In this case, the question is “Is contraception a sin?” but the question could easily be something else. “Is masturbation a sin?” If God explicitly listed every single sin and questionable action that could be sin, the Bible would be so large that it would be completely unreadable.
I think what you’re trying to say is that God made those things which are crucial for our salvation abundantly clear in scripture, sort of a pseudo “perspicuity of scripture” theory. I wonder why those who hold to this theory don’t believe in the Eucharist. For it is one of the most clear teachings in scripture. 🤷
I’m not saying that at all (nor am I disagreeing necessarily). I’m simply saying that God is explicit in lots of places in his word. In other places, not so much, and we are left to [prayerfully] speculate God’s opinion. 🤷
 
Hmmm,things NCs believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.
  1. Evangelistic appeals.
  2. VBS.
  3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
  4. Church picnics,
  5. Praise bands.
  6. Bible Colleges.
  7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crewcut)
I remember many years ago when I was a Baptist I got into a discussion with a fundamentalist preacher on the subject of inter-racial dating/marriage. He of course was dead set against it and provided a few scripture verses to ‘prove’ it. I pointed out the verses were taken out of context and showed him why. I continued to insist that he find anywhere in the Bible that spoke against inter-racial relationships. He became rather frustrated and said:
“Does everything have to be in Bible for it to be true”?
Eye opening statement.
 
Anyway, to keep the ship steady as Eric suggests:
Show me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible.
 
Ah, but there’s the rub. Repent of what? If you do not know that contraception is a sin, and you concede that we are accountable for it regardless of knowledge, then you will not repent of this sin. Now, add in another sin which you speculate on, don’t find clearly in scripture, and continue to act on. Add another. And another. All of them unrepented of…why?..because you did not know, yet are accountable. So, if salvation is guaranteed for those who repent, and they don’t repent of these sins because scripture didn’t clearly point them out, what then? Is that how it’s supposed to work for Christians?

No.
This is a major difference between Catholic and Protestant theology and I’m sure you’re aware. You will disagree and that’s fine. Repentance is not only an action but an attitude. For salvation, repentance means admitting that we are sinners and fall short of God’s righteous standard. Should we confess our individual sins and ask for His forgiveness? Absolutely! But it is not a matter of rattling off a database of sins committed and missing one means not making the cut. Do we strive for a life of obedience or are we trying to get away with as much sin as possible by looking for a theological ‘loophole’? The latter is not true repentance.
In fact, as it turns out, you are not “left only to speculate as to what His perspective is”, especially not on salvific matters of faith and morals. It is part of the deposit of faith, revealed to, and through, His Church for all generations.
OK, well, if you feel like your deposit of faith contains the full revelation of God without speculation of any kind then we will simply have to agree to disagree.
 
Luvtosew said:
The Church didn’t always have the 7 books in their bible, I read the history. What do those books add, purgatory and payment for prayers? I know the CC doesn’t like personal interpretation of scripture that is obvious. No reason really for a Catholic to have a Bible, the Church will teach you all you need to know.
Ok, now all you have to do is prove that the books were added! Easy enough 👍
Just point to when, the books were added 😉
 
Luvtosew said:
The Church didn’t always have the 7 books in their bible, I read the history. What do those books add, purgatory and payment for prayers? I know the CC doesn’t like personal interpretation of scripture that is obvious. No reason really for a Catholic to have a Bible, the Church will teach you all you need to know.
And the Church didn’t always have a one volume book called the Bible. Does anyone ever question such a fact?
 
Fair enough. That would be the textbook definition. I’m not sure how to define or articulate it another way but I will give it a shot. Some statements’ meaning are self-evident and do not require any extensive reasoning to come to a core understanding because they are explicit. “Do not commit adultery.” It’s pretty explicit that having sex with someone who is not your spouse is therefore frowned upon by God. I don’t have to do extensive reasoning and/or projecting to come to a conclusion. Contraception on the other hand, is not explicit. I have to speculate based upon what is in scripture.
I understand. But I still would ask, why are we left to speculate about what could separate us from God? Why would He allow two people who truly and prayerfully seek His will to find 2 opposing answers to the same question? This happens all the time in Bible-only theology.
I don’t determine that it is not significant to interpret, it is simply not explicit to the question. In this case, the question is “Is contraception a sin?” but the question could easily be something else. “Is masturbation a sin?” If God explicitly listed every single sin and questionable action that could be sin, the Bible would be so large that it would be completely unreadable.
Yes, a very good point indeed. But it begs the question. If sin is what separates us from God, and unrepented sin could eternally separate us from Him, then should it not be universally clear what is sin and what is not sin?
I’m not saying that at all (nor am I disagreeing necessarily). I’m simply saying that God is explicit in lots of places in his word. In other places, not so much, and we are left to [prayerfully] speculate God’s opinion. 🤷
Again, why would He not be explicit about salvific matters? That’s why I phrased the question as I did before. It seems to me that this particular rationale about scripture carries with it a presupposition that those things not “clearly” stated in scripture are not things which really matter, atleast not in terms of salvation.
This is a major difference between Catholic and Protestant theology and I’m sure you’re aware. You will disagree and that’s fine. Repentance is not only an action but an attitude. For salvation, repentance means admitting that we are sinners and fall short of God’s righteous standard. Should we confess our individual sins and ask for His forgiveness? Absolutely! But it is not a matter of rattling off a database of sins committed and missing one means not making the cut. Do we strive for a life of obedience or are we trying to get away with as much sin as possible by looking for a theological ‘loophole’? The latter is not true repentance.
This is Catholic theology as well. The Catholic faith is not a legalistic faith, it is an interior daily conversion faith. But it is also a divinely structured faith, with normative means of externally actualizing that which we are compelled internally (heart and will) to act upon. As we are called to repentance, we are reminded that it must be accompanied by true contrition, true desire to amend, a will to reconcile the relationship with Christ. Our ability to hear a call to repentance in the day-to-day shortcomings of our lives is made possible by a properly formed conscience, which is to say that we come to understand what is sin, and what is not, especially those sins that significantly offend and insult our Lord. If one does not have a well-formed conscience, then knowledge of sin is reduced. When knowledge of sin is reduced, so is the call to repentance. All I’m trying to say is that in Christianity, where (you would agree) lifelong repentance is not just pleasing to God, but also critical for our salvation, it is equally as important for there to exist no ambiguity regarding God’s laws.
OK, well, if you feel like your deposit of faith contains the full revelation of God without speculation of any kind then we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Ultimately yes, we may have to. Our continuing conversation may yield something beyond that perhaps.
 
Officially at the council of trent.
Not true! The RCC added nothing of the sort,but merely re-confirmed what other previous councils had already mentioned. The fact it was made official does not prove they were added. The doctrine of the Trinity was made official at Nicaea in 325 A.D.,does it prove the church added the belief and Trinitarian doctine 300 years later?

That is a huge misunderstanding by non-Catholics. If the church added them at Trent in 1545,then how is it even logical for someone like Luther to question those 7 books 20 years earlier,if they were added at Trent?
 
Well it was in the 400 or so they think they became inspired, but officially at the coucil of Trent. Dont forget Luther did have them in his first bible also. Luther had no intention of leaving the CC, they excommunicated him.

But really does any of this matter when they added the books. Why did they add them and find them inspired since the Jewish people didn’t find them inspried as they were in greek right.
 
Officially at the council of trent.
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D.

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I
A.D. 397: Council of Carthage III.


“It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But** the canonical Scriptures are: **Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.
(canon 47 A.D. 397).

It is to be noted that the book of Baruch was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the book of Jeremiah and as such was not listed separately by them.

The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the Canons as defined in previous councils…


**CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.) **

“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But** the Canonical Scriptures are as follows**: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel *** Tobit * Judith *** Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

**[This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the “passions of the Martyrs” on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.] **

The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible
**SESSION 11 4 February 1442: **

It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top