W
Wesley7
Guest
Why are there certain doctrines and teachings not found in the Bible?
- Status
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Welcome Wesley!
Catholic Teaching is derived from two sources, Holy Scripture (aka, “The Bible” including the Deterocannonical Books rejected by the Protestants) and Sacred Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles not written down in Scripture but later recorded in the writings of the apostles sucessors and the earliest liturgies. Scripture and Tradition (upper case “T” to distinguish from lower-case “t” traditions) are NEVER opposed to each other, but rather complement each other–in fact in can be very difficult to properly interpret Scripture without the understanding of Tradition. Some Catholic teachings are found more in one source than another, but many Catholic theologians would say ALL doctrines, like The Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity or assumption into Heaven are at least, in incipit form, found in Scripture as well as Tradition
Catholic Teaching is derived from two sources, Holy Scripture (aka, “The Bible” including the Deterocannonical Books rejected by the Protestants) and Sacred Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles not written down in Scripture but later recorded in the writings of the apostles sucessors and the earliest liturgies. Scripture and Tradition (upper case “T” to distinguish from lower-case “t” traditions) are NEVER opposed to each other, but rather complement each other–in fact in can be very difficult to properly interpret Scripture without the understanding of Tradition. Some Catholic teachings are found more in one source than another, but many Catholic theologians would say ALL doctrines, like The Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity or assumption into Heaven are at least, in incipit form, found in Scripture as well as Tradition
D
Della
Guest
Because the Bible isn’t a comprehensive book of theology. It’s a collection of writings written for various reasons by various authors at various times in world history. It was never intended to tell us everything about God and/or God’s relationship with man. It is the primary source for deriving doctrine, but it does not list doctrines nor tell us what we ought to believe in any systematic way.
For example: the Trinity is a doctrine held by all Christians (those who do not hold to it are not Christians no matter what they call themselves). But, this doctrine had to be declared by a council of the Catholic Church before it was accepted as truth. Also, the natures of Christ were declared as doctrine by a council of the Church. Why? Because there were many in the early Church who disputed what the nature(s) of Christ were. It isn’t clearly defined in the Bible, either. And yet, all Christians today believe Jesus was fully God and fully man. Not because of what the Bible alone has to say about it but because it was decided upon by the bishops of the Catholic Church.
Authority does not lie in documents but in living persons. This is why God sent the Word of God in the flesh–Jesus instead of just giving us the OT (which didn’t even have an agreed upon canon in Jesus’ day, btw). And Jesus gave his authority to decide matters of faith and morals to the Apostles and they to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church. The NT wasn’t written to teach us all about theology but to tell us about Christ, especially in the Gospels. The letters of Peter, John, and Paul were sent to correct problems and to explain doctrinal issues the earliest Catholics were having, but once again, they were never meant to be the end all and be all of doctrine and dogma.
For example: the Trinity is a doctrine held by all Christians (those who do not hold to it are not Christians no matter what they call themselves). But, this doctrine had to be declared by a council of the Catholic Church before it was accepted as truth. Also, the natures of Christ were declared as doctrine by a council of the Church. Why? Because there were many in the early Church who disputed what the nature(s) of Christ were. It isn’t clearly defined in the Bible, either. And yet, all Christians today believe Jesus was fully God and fully man. Not because of what the Bible alone has to say about it but because it was decided upon by the bishops of the Catholic Church.
Authority does not lie in documents but in living persons. This is why God sent the Word of God in the flesh–Jesus instead of just giving us the OT (which didn’t even have an agreed upon canon in Jesus’ day, btw). And Jesus gave his authority to decide matters of faith and morals to the Apostles and they to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church. The NT wasn’t written to teach us all about theology but to tell us about Christ, especially in the Gospels. The letters of Peter, John, and Paul were sent to correct problems and to explain doctrinal issues the earliest Catholics were having, but once again, they were never meant to be the end all and be all of doctrine and dogma.
R
ralphinal
Guest
One must look at how the early Church grew. Jesus told his followers to go and teach all men. The apostles went out and taught. At some point, once there were enough faithful in an area to sustain the Church, they would leave. This teaching was done orally. Letters were then used to correct or expound upon teaching. At no point in time did the early Church think that there was a “how-to” book.
So it went like this: oral teaching, written support. Based on that, there is no reason for everything to be in the book
So it went like this: oral teaching, written support. Based on that, there is no reason for everything to be in the book
S
savedsinner
Guest
The Catholic church teaches the material sufficiency of scripture, rather than the formal sufficiency of scripture which the Protestants hold to.
For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.
Every Catholic doctrine is found in scripture, either explicitly or explicity.
Non Catholics reject the Catholic interpretations of scripture which point to these doctrines, but that only shows that sola scriptura doesn’t work.
It is like the different Protestant denominational teachings of infant baptism. Some Protestants believe that the bible only teaches believers baptism, while other Protestants believe that the bible teaches infant baptism. Some Protestants believe that the bible teaches baptismal regeneration, while others believe the bible teaches baptism is only a symbolic ordinance.
The one group would say that the others beliefs are not found or taught in scripture. But both groups would hold to sola scriptura, the bible as their only authority in their beliefs, and both claim that the bible teaches these different beliefs that they hold to, even though they conflict.
For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.
Every Catholic doctrine is found in scripture, either explicitly or explicity.
Non Catholics reject the Catholic interpretations of scripture which point to these doctrines, but that only shows that sola scriptura doesn’t work.
It is like the different Protestant denominational teachings of infant baptism. Some Protestants believe that the bible only teaches believers baptism, while other Protestants believe that the bible teaches infant baptism. Some Protestants believe that the bible teaches baptismal regeneration, while others believe the bible teaches baptism is only a symbolic ordinance.
The one group would say that the others beliefs are not found or taught in scripture. But both groups would hold to sola scriptura, the bible as their only authority in their beliefs, and both claim that the bible teaches these different beliefs that they hold to, even though they conflict.
W
Wesley7
Guest
So . . . group A says X while group B says X then group C says X.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Please be more explicit–like, identify the groups and postions.
R
ricko
Guest
Might help to explain your algebra.
D
Della
Guest
Yes. Each one using the same Scripture verses against one another. God didn’t intend that kind of thing.
Jesus said he would establish his Church. He prayed that we all might be one. Paul wrote about the Church as one body with one baptism and one faith.
We can’t get that by just opening a Bible and interpreting it for ourselves. It was never meant to be used in that way, with each person making himself his own mini-Church to decide matters of faith and morals.
P
PerryJ
Guest
From a Catholic perspective we would say that some Protestant doctrine is not found in the Bible.
The Bible and Catholic Doctrine does not contradict each other. We defined the Bible and we defined it’s teachings via the Holy Spirit.
G
Gamera
Guest
An example of what you mean might help. Catholics find at least indirect reference to every Catholic doctrine within the Bible, so whatever particular doctrine you are thinking of, chances are that Catholics find it reflected somewhere in Scripture.
That said, Catholics don’t believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura. We believe God’s word consists of two things: (1) Scripture, and (2) the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles (often called Apostolic Tradition or Sacred Tradition). All of our doctrine is rooted in God’s word, in either Scripture or in Apostolic Tradition.
P
PerryJ
Guest
Good post.
Many Protestants also do not understand the Gospel’s have traditions built into them. Wether they believe it or not they follow sacred tradition as several passages in the four Gospel’s were added later and were based upon sacred tradition.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
because everything in the Bible is Divine Revelation, but not all that has been Divinely Revealed is in the Bible, as the Bible itself tells us (last verses of John’s gospel). God also has revealed himself throughout the history of his people in means that have been handed down through Sacred Tradition, and in fact, the various books of the Bible were transmitted orally and through teaching long before they were written down, and without that Sacred Tradition, we would not have them at all.
G
Gamera
Guest
Attribution of Mark’s Gospel to Mark is itself Sacred Tradition, since the text never identifies the author. I’m still waiting to hear someone who truly adheres to sola scriptura call it, “the Gospel Formerly Known as Mark’s.”
Another one is the order of the books. If I published a New Testament with the Acts of the Apostles first, then the Gospels, then Revelation, and finally the Epistles, I’d receive a lot of complaints. Yet the Bible itself never assigns the order in which the books should appear. In fact, the customary order isn’t even Tradition, it’s just small-t tradition, but I can’t foresee our friends who follow sola scriptura ever straying from it.
D
Della
Guest
A great little online book about this topic is: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.
P
prodigal-sun
Guest
At this point Wesley I think you need to give us on example of what doctrine you believe is not in the Bible. Give us a chance to explain the churches point of view on this matter.
Peace!
Peace!
- Status