What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?

[benedictus2]

There is no “fracturing within the body of Christ” Kathleen.
Eph.4
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Could you please explain what you mean by “living in the kingdom of Christ” and what you think the price is for doing so?

Actually Kathleen is correct. There is a fracturing of the Body of Christ. The greatest one happening at the deformation in the 1500s. Only someone blind to the fact will not see how greatly divided we are and more than that , how greatly divided Protestantism is.

However, Christ continually appeals to the Father for unity so someday that will happen and everyone will become Catholic.

 

[benedictus2]

Then you agree with sola scriptura or the principle that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in the bible.

Sola Scriptura as it is understood today is not so much that the Bible contains what is needed for salvation but rather that one can read the Bible and that is enough. Because there is after all the matter of interpretation.

If the Bible is all we need, then how come, using the same Bible we see this 33000 fractures just within Protestantism.

Jesus did not leave us a Bible. Jesus left us a Church. That should tell you something.

 

[benedictus2]

I get that Jesus taught verbally. I get that the apostles taught verbally. But what I also get is that what the apostles taught verbally was eventually written down and what they and other writer wrote was compiled into the bible.

Correct so far.

Now when asked if your church teaches that more than the salvation message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified is needed you replied “No, it doesn’t. But it does give us the full Deposit of Faith, which includes everything that has been handed down from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.”

And whoever you were replying to was correct in that statement. You must ask yourself, these verbal words that the Apostles wrote, how was it determined which should become part of the Bible? There were many books floating around that time and those that made the cut and made it into the canon was measured against tradition.

And another thing you must ask, is who has the authority to determine which books should become part of the Bible? Because without recognized authority, how do we even know that the books in the Bible are what ought to be there?

Now we both know that Sacred Scripture tells us of God’s plan of Salvation in Jesus Christ. But what I am struggling with is if we can find out all we need to know about our salvation in the bible, why do we need this as you call it “full Deposit of Faith”

Because the Bible did not come from a vacuum. The Bible came from apostolic tradition so therefore when we interpret the Bible, the interpretation must be measure against Apostolic Tradition and that we find in the Catholic Church’s deposit of Faith.

 

[fbl9]

snip…
If it was different from your personal interpretation, would you say it was wrong?

How do you even know Scriptures are infallible?

If i may expand on your question for Richard…

If there was a difference,when did “your” interpretation become the official correct interpretation? Were you taught this version of the text’s meaning or did you radomnly read these verses and bingo you knew they meant what you claim thier meaning to be.

 

[benedictus2]

If i may expand on your question for Richard…

If there was a difference,when did “your” interpretation become the official correct interpretation? Were you taught this version of the text’s meaning or did you radomnly read these verses and bingo you knew they meant what you claim thier meaning to be.
Very good point. Good question

 

[Cruxis117]

I get that Jesus taught verbally. I get that the apostles taught verbally. But what I also get is that what the apostles taught verbally was eventually written down and what they and other writer wrote was compiled into the bible. **Now when asked if your church teaches that more than the salvation message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified is needed **you replied “No, it doesn’t. But it does give us the full Deposit of Faith, which includes everything that has been handed down from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.”

My friend, this is what you said:

The bible is the story of God’s plan of salvation in Jesus Christ. This is what Jesus told us and His disciples to tell the world about.
Matt.28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Does your church teach that there is more that we need other than this?

Not the above bolded words in the first quotation. I have told you that no, it does not teach that we need more than this, that we are to do the things underlined in the quotation above. And everything that Jesus commanded them, that we have, is what is known as the Deposit of Faith.

Now we both know that Sacred Scripture tells us of God’s plan of Salvation in Jesus Christ. But what I am struggling with is if we can find out all we need to know about our salvation in the bible, why do we need this as you call it “full Deposit of Faith”

Yes, we do both know. But that’s the problem, it does not tell us “all about our Salvation”. If it did, as I have stated, we wouldn’t have so many Schisms in the Christian faith, all using the same book. We need the full Deposit of Faith, because it is the teachings that have been handed down through Sacred Tradition, through the bishops throughout the ages, and Sacred Scripture, which was collected and protected by the Church. The entire canon itself of the Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition. That is why we need the full Deposit of Faith.

The words of Jesus, the words of the gospel writers, the words of Paul, Peter, and James are all sermons which is PREACHING

Rightfully so. But I have never seen a bible talk. Nor stand up and give us instructions. However, I have seen men who have lived, walked, and talked on the earth, preach. That is the difference. Think of it like this. Do we call a gun a murderer? No, we call it a weapon, or a tool (although that’s rarely seen). Likewise, do we call the bible a preacher? Or do we consider the men who wrote and walked and talked preachers?

How does the CC teach by showing us?

Well, have you not been to Mass? Nor to any public speakings of the Popes? They walk around, preaching the truth that has been handed down to them from the Apostles onward, to the current Bishops that lead and guide the Church today. Similar scenes can be read about in Acts of the Apostles.

You mean teach us of God’s plan of Salvation? You already said that you agree that the bible does that. Are you now saying you don’t think it does?

I said that I agree that the Sacred Scriptures teaches us the story of God’s plan of Salvation. However, I never said only the Sacred Scriptures. Notice how in the verse that you provided which I answered to in the first place, it speaks of Jesus sending his Apostles out to teach and preach the Gospel, baptizing and teaching all that he commanded them. Notice how that verse doesn’t say “Go, and hand out Bibles to everyone everywhere, which is my word and full doctrinal teaching.”

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

You are behaving as a Lone Ranger of the bible…

Your church has its National Commission. Now using your own attitude about the Early Church Fathers…do you follow your council of the SDA? Who appointed them and on what criteria??? Why should we follow your guys and not ours???

If you know history, there were many people who developed many different ideas about Christ but did not reflect on how the Apostles explained Christ to us.

If you don’t want to know apostolic teaching, then you are studying Scripture as if you were part of a phone tree. I use the old phone tree game from my era of the 1950’s…you have about 6 girls. They sit in a row. The first girl makes up a short story and whispers it to the next girl. Then she hears it and then passes it on to the next girl. Finally when you come to the 6th girl, she stands up and it is a different story.

I watched Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rodgers, the Lone Ranger, Zorro, Gunsmoke, and the Bonanza Brothers…I wanted to be a cowgirl and ride away on my horse… Now all these shows had one thing in common…to fight evil and do good. Six shows. These guys shared the same moral values. They followed the law. We enjoyed seeing these programs with the same intent.

Christ’s Church has law and order, a common Creed to truly to uphold Who Christ is. If you refuse to study the errors about Christ and why in early Church history, then you will go on asking the same questions over and over.

It is like your church can have its churchmen, its administrators, and it all makes sense. But our Church can’t.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Probably we are unable to adequately interpret isolated verse without understanding the verse in the context of the Bible and without us knowing what the context of the Bible is.

Rom.3
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

You mean you can’t tell me what you think this v. says because you don’t have the context. I gave you the chapter and v. It doesn’t take a bible scholar to figure this one out Reuben. It means exactly what it says. That we are justified by the grace of God or the unmerited gift of salvation in His son by faith in His spilt blood as a substitute for us and He declares His righteousness on our behalf. It’s really sad that you don’t get that message. That you bind yourself up with all these self imposed rules.

I am not sure whether you know what the context of the Bible is and if you do and you will tell me, I am not sure that I will agree with you though. Can you then explicitly and guarantee that what you thought the context of the Bible is right and if that’s so, from where and how you get that conclusion?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[benedictus2]

Richard,

You are behaving as a Lone Ranger of the bible…

Your church has its National Commission. Now using your own attitude about the Early Church Fathers…do you follow your council of the SDA? Who appointed them and on what criteria??? Why should we follow your guys and not ours???

Excellent point.

 

[mexilad]

What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?

I would think not much. They were flawed, we are flawed. They try to live up to the faith, so do we. They prayed for grace, so do we.

 

[Faith5]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner

I don’t know of one non-Catholic denomination that says “salvation is accomplished
by faith.” Salvation was accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross period. We accept that salvation in faith and good works are a product of that acceptance.

---

We are justified by good works and not by faith alone.

Christians as a given believe Christ died and rose from the dead. We believe.
Now the process continues. Actually redemption was accomplished when Jesus died and rose. All of humanity was redeemed when our Savior died and rose from the dead.

.Salvation is applied to individuals. Catholics believe we as individuals can turn our backs on our justification . We make a choice to obey. Faith, hope and charity are essential during our life- long struggle. Our Sacraments provide the grace as we struggle to live a holy life.
But good works are in no way a sure thing after our individual justification.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

My friend, this is what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner

I get that Jesus taught verbally. I get that the apostles taught verbally. But what I also get is that what the apostles taught verbally was eventually written down and what they and other writer wrote was compiled into the bible. Now when asked if your church teaches that more than the salvation message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified is needed you replied "No, it doesn’t. But it does give us the full Deposit of Faith, which includes everything that has been handed down from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture."

My friend, this is what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
The bible is the story of God’s plan of salvation in Jesus Christ. This is what Jesus told us and His disciples to tell the world about.
Matt.28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Does your church teach that there is more that we need other than this?

Not the above bolded words in the first quotation. I have told you that no, it does not teach that we need more than this, that we are to do the things underlined in the quotation above. And everything that Jesus commanded them, that we have, is what is known as the Deposit of Faith.

Please tell me how God’s plan of salvation in Jesus Christ differs from “the salvation message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified”

Yes, we do both know. But that’s the problem, it does not tell us “all about our Salvation”. If it did, as I have stated, we wouldn’t have so many Schisms in the Christian faith, all using the same book. We need the full Deposit of Faith, because it is the teachings that have been handed down through Sacred Tradition, through the bishops throughout the ages, and Sacred Scripture, which was collected and protected by the Church. The entire canon itself of the Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition. That is why we need the full Deposit of Faith.

What’s the secret if "it does not tell us “all about our Salvation” what’s the rest of the story?

Rightfully so. But I have never seen a bible talk.

You can read can’t you?

Nor stand up and give us instructions.

Stand up no, but give instruction? Your kidding, Right?

Likewise, do we call the bible a preacher? Or do we consider the men who wrote and walked and talked preachers?

We don’t call the bible a preacher but it contains some of the best sermons that have ever been written and the most of the men that wrote the bible were the best preachers ever known.

Well, have you not been to Mass? Nor to any public speakings of the Popes? They walk around, preaching the truth that has been handed down to them from the Apostles onward, to the current Bishops that lead and guide the Church today. Similar scenes can be read about in Acts of the Apostles.

Again are you saying that these people are preaching thigs not contained in the bible? And are these things needed for our salvation?

I said that I agree that the Sacred Scriptures teaches us the story of God’s plan of Salvation. However, I never said only the Sacred Scriptures.

But you did agree that the bible does teach us of God’s plan of salvation in Jesus. So if it is taught someplace else besides the inspired word of God, it would be redundant and without the validity of inspiration.

Notice how in the verse that you provided which I answered to in the first place, it speaks of Jesus sending his Apostles out to teach and preach the Gospel, baptizing and teaching all that he commanded them. Notice how that verse doesn’t say “Go, and hand out Bibles to everyone everywhere, which is my word and full doctrinal teaching.”

No it does say to go and preach. But the things that Jesus told them to go and preach eventually were written down and that is what we call the bible.

 

[bluelake]

CONTINUATION OF POST 45 - SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE

Catholics believe that we are not totally depraved but that sanctifying grace has been snuffed out of us. An apologist compared this to a car without petrol as against the totally unrecognizable wreck that the reformers portrayed. Both cars are not going anywhere but they are in different states of immobility.

The second difference is in the concept of heaven. Catholics call this beatific vision. But beatific vision is not merely just beholding God face to face. It presupposes that we have the ability to behold God face to face. Since only the holy can behold God, then it presupposes that we been made holy. Since nothing unclean will enter heaven, ( and covered up sins are still sins), then what needs to be done is for sins to be completely removed. Like can only behold like and to see God we must be made Holy as He is.

As Fr Robert Barron put it, our goal in life is to become saints.
*
If our end is not merely a place called heaven but more a state of being divine, then the “how “ of salvation must be a process of becoming divine, of becoming holy as the Father is. It is the process of transformation into the image of Christ, the Father’s Son.* Therefore the how is not just a matter of us getting into heaven but of getting heaven into us (as Beckwith and Kreeft put it) .

This process of transformation into Christ’s image is the Catholic doctrine of deification or as the Orthodox put it – Theosis.

Therefore a mere declaration that we are righteous is not enough. We have to become righteous.

And this is where grace, faith and work come together. God first offers the grace and we respond to this grace. But here is where work comes in. We have to respond to this grace, and the response is love. Only love can answer Love. And love is WORK.

If we remain faithful and always respond with a yes, then we increasingly image Christ.

But even when we say no to God and thus sin, His grace is never far away for as St Paul says, where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.

When we have been completely transformed into this image of Christ, then we can say we have reached heaven, we’ve become saints, we have finally become that, which we have been created for.

That is why the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is so important. Very few complete this process of divinization here on earth. The majority of us will die with some stain of sin left and whatever bit of leftover self-love must be purged away even after death to complete our transformation into the image of Christ who is totally sinless, totally holy.

Christ gave us the process by which this is done – faith to be sure; but indeed also work - for whatever is done to the least of His brethren is done to Him. A growth in humility is also important and this is classified more as work than as faith. Jesus said: learn of me for I am meek and humble of heart.

It must also be stressed that works is transformative. When we do good works, it changes us. The same when we do bad woks and thus sin. It changes us too.

Our choices make us and our choices are reflected in our works. Obedience (a positive choice for God) is works. Obedience is transformative and works in general is transformative. So too disobedence which transforms us negatively or more precisely disfigures us, corrupts us.

So where does the Church figure in all this?

The Church and her sacraments are the means by which God effects this transformation, for all the sacraments (most particularly the Eucharist) are the avenues of grace – that Divine Life of God in us. By these sacraments, Christ increases our faith, hope and our love (which is work) till in the end there is nothing but love.

At St Paul said in the oft quoted verse: Faith, Hope and Love, these three remain but the greatest of this is Love.

** And why?**

Because in heaven we will no longer need faith – that which we use to perceive only through faith we will then see clearly.

In heaven there is no need for hope – for that which we hoped for we have already attained.

But love? This indeed remain – for God is Love.

have you gotten this from the Bible?

 

[bluelake]

[What do you mean working with an incoplet text.

‘‘Bible Christians’’ are not a single denomination, so private interpretation that usually falls in line with typical Protestant theology is the norm.

[/quote]

The Holy Spirit guides us when we read the word. We also have pastors
to teach us.
Just as you have the Magisterium,.
What do you call " typical Protestant theolgy"?

The first thng I do when I have doubts on anyone’s teaching is to check the word of God.
I also have about 5 or 6 Bibles. NIV, Application Bible, Catholic Bible. King James. these are mostly study Bibles.
To mention a few… How about you? Do you have doubts on anything? do you check the Word Of God? Not the Catechism, the holy Bible.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[benedictus2]

have you gotten this from the Bible?

Don’t you know enough of the Bible to know that it is so?

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Bible is clear that we are not to add anything to it, and this means “Bible alone” for the Christian.

The Catholic Church has the same NT that your church does. The OT differs only because you took out seven books and parts of two others (we’ll get to that in a moment). No one is adding to Scripture itself, Catholic or Protestant.

Everyone has “added” their own church teachings to the Bible, but these don’t count as “additions” because they do not contradict Scripture. The Catholic Church calls this Sacred Tradition. I don’t know what Adventists or Bible Christians call it but they certainly have it because they have church buildings, which are nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

So this whole “we believe in the Bible alone and nothing else” horse is dead and rotting.

Protestants teach, on the other hand, that Catholics have added the Apocrypha, while enduring Catholic counter-claims that we “removed” the Apocrypha from the Bible.

Well, go look at the oldest surviving Bible; it’s full of Maccabees. And the Dead Sea scrolls have Tobit and Sirach among others.

“Bible Christians” are just that. They base their teachings on the Bible alone.

But they have church buildings and Sunday worship (except you, of course, you’re an Adventist) and so on.

 

[Cat_Herder]

How about you? Do you have doubts on anything? do you check the Word Of God? Not the Catechism, the holy Bible.

God bless,
bluelake

I check the Catechism, and look at the footnotes, which are mostly cites to the Holy Bible.

If your pastor is allowed to have a sermon without “adding to the Bible” then we are allowed to have a catechism.

 

[Cat_Herder]

have you gotten this from the Bible?

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:1-10[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[benedictus2]

The Holy Spirit guides us when we read the word.

How do you know that for a fact?

Could the Spirit be the Spirit of confusion considering that every Christian claims to read the Bible and yet they seem to be guided into different interpretations.

We also have pastors to teach us.

But how do you know that your pastor is teaching you the truth?
One convert from Evangelicalism said that she was really angry for having been lied to by her pastors. I don’t think she meant that they deliberately lied to her but that they just did not know the truth so ended up teaching her lies.

Just as you have the Magisterium,.

Your pastors do not have the guarantee of of the Holy Spirit.

The first thng I do when I have doubts on anyone’s teaching is to check the word of God.

But how can that ultimately help when the thing that you are trying to decipher is precisely the word of God?

That would be like trying to figure out if what your father is saying is true by asking your father.

I also have about 5 or 6 Bibles. NIV, Application Bible, Catholic Bible. King James.

The life Application Bible is corrupt Bible. It puts exegesis in place of the original text.

To mention a few… How about you? Do you have doubts on anything? do you check the Word Of God? Not the Catechism, the holy Bible.

The Catechism a brilliant reference for verifying whether we are interpreting the word of God correctly.

I suggest you try it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Rom.3
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

You mean you can’t tell me what you think this v. says because you don’t have the context. I gave you the chapter and v. It doesn’t take a bible scholar to figure this one out Reuben. It means exactly what it says. That we are justified by the grace of God or the unmerited gift of salvation in His son by faith in His spilt blood

Either it’s “unmerited” or it is merited “by faith.” If grace was truly unmerited then humans would not have to do anything, like having faith, in order to be saved. Hence the Protestant maxim “salvation by grace alone through faith alone” is an oxymoron, kind of like “being red alone by blue alone.”

as a substitute for us and He declares His righteousness on our behalf. It’s really sad that you don’t get that message. That you bind yourself up with all these self imposed rules.

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength; and love your neighbor as yourself” is not a self-imposed rule. The rule that says you have to say the Sinner’s Prayer, however, is.