What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?

[KathleenGee]

And our worship is defined by Christ, not men.

Our worship is Scripture fulfilled in the Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist, the symbols in the churches catechize more of Scripture through other forms besides the written word…pictorial, sculpture, icon, baptismal font, altar, the sanctuary light communicating that the Divine and physical presence of God is with us…and so on…

 

[JRKH]

I’m wondering at this point if the OP has abandoned this thread. He has been active on others but has not commented on anything presented here thus far.

BD - Are you out there and listening?? or have you moved on…

Peace
James

 

[Carlan]

I’m wondering at this point if the OP has abandoned this thread. He has been active on others but has not commented on anything presented here thus far.

BD - Are you out there and listening?? or have you moved on…

Peace
James

I know, it would be nice to know if he has been enlightened in anywayCarlan

 

[Big_Dummy]

Thanks all.

works thing???

 

[JRKH]

Thanks all.

works thing???

What about it - (works thing)???

Peace
James

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Thanks all.

works thing???

Not sure about anyone else but my work schedule changes a lot. I am supposed to work 4 ten hour days but lately I’ve been working more like 3 on 4 off, 5 on 2 off so on and so forth.

God bless

 

[cooterhein]

Thanks all.

works thing???

Are you asking for a comparison of Bible Christian soteriology to Catholic soteriology, with a focus on the role of works? That’s what I would guess, but it’s kind of a big topic to run with when the only thing prompting it is “works thing.”

 

[benidict]

I would not completely agree with that.

While it is true that we believe the Bible and that our faith is grounded on Scripture (what else can we be since we gave the world the Bible), at the same time we do not limit ourselves to the Bible for we do have Holy Tradition.

Bible Christians by common understanding refer only to those who know of no other authority than the Bible, something that the Bible does not even claim for itself…

hello dear sister benedictus. i will go further than sister Kathleen. lol! we are the true latter day saints, we are the true pentacostals, we are the true baptist…etc. etc. not to mention, in agreement with Kathleen, we read throught the entire bible, every 3 year cycle. if you attend daily mass or read the daily readings… peace and blessings to you and yours. and thank God for Holy Tradition.

 

[cooterhein]

If “Thus we see despite clear unambiguous statements in the bible saying otherwise “bible” christians conveniently decide to ignore scripture which doesn;t agree with them.” is not really how it works, thenplease tells us how it does work.

If “That and they only have mere opinion, ignoring these biblical statements on sacred tradition for example.” then please explain how it is and how it really happens.

Let me put it this way. If you want to know how biblical interpretation works for Bible Christians and you want to know what kinds of things they do with tradition…

(“You” in the universal sense; not you specifically).

Then. If “you” actually want to know what it is that they’re doing and the things they’re really thinking, you should rely on what they tell you. You’ll notice I didn’t say “ask about it”- I said “rely” on it.

You’ve had some level of meaningful communication with Bible Christians, and you have never heard these kinds of things from them. Quite the opposite, I’d say. The only way you could possibly conclude that these things are at all accurate is if you assume that Bible Christians do the opposite of what they say they do and think things that are very different from what they say they think.

Consequently, I’m going to have to ask you to explicitly reject those kinds of assumptions as a bit of a prerequisite. If you’re making those kinds of assumptions, there’s a decent chance that you’ll ignore things at will and affirm what you want to affirm, even if it’s the polar opposite of what I tell you. As an example, if I tell you X is not how it works and Y is not what happens, it’s possible for you to think “X** is** how it works and Y** is** what happens.” Please tell me I can rule out that possibility.

 

[JRKH]

Let me put it this way. If you want to know how biblical interpretation works for Bible Christians and you want to know what kinds of things they do with tradition…

(“You” in the universal sense; not you specifically).

Then. If “you” actually want to know what it is that they’re doing and the things they’re really thinking, you should rely on what they tell you. You’ll notice I didn’t say “ask about it”- I said “rely” on it.

You’ve had some level of meaningful communication with Bible Christians, and you have never heard these kinds of things from them. Quite the opposite, I’d say. The only way you could possibly conclude that these things are at all accurate is if you assume that Bible Christians do the opposite of what they say they do and think things that are very different from what they say they think.

Consequently, I’m going to have to ask you to explicitly reject those kinds of assumptions as a bit of a prerequisite. If you’re making those kinds of assumptions, there’s a decent chance that you’ll ignore things at will and affirm what you want to affirm, even if it’s the polar opposite of what I tell you. As an example, if I tell you X is not how it works and Y is not what happens, it’s possible for you to think “X** is** how it works and Y** is** what happens.” Please tell me I can rule out that possibility.

I agree with much of the thrust of what you say above. It irks Catholics when people come here and try to tell us what we believe and refuse to listen when they are corrected, so we should offer the same courtesy and charity to others.

That said, I must agree with benedictus2 at least to some extent. I have repeatedly been involved in conversations with protestants where they will choose to either ignore or reinterpret things that blatantly contradict them.
I have also heard converts to Catholicism say that there were things in Scripture that they either “never saw” or “ignored because they couldn’t reconcile it”.

Peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

It irks me as well as those who deny history and say no true teacher of Christianity existed after the apostles…I use ‘teacher’ in a broad general sense here.

I wonder what America would be like if we were more homogenous like Italy which has few protestants. So I look at Italy and see the same problems more or less…same indifference to faith.

What is the big problem then…Sola Scriptura or indifference and loss to faith? it is tiring for me to keep repeating the same tenants over and over …passive-aggressive prosletyzing.

Just the original post here was passive aggressive…

 

[onenow1]

doctrine wise, work from majors to minor doctrine, thanks

The Bible clearly says it is useful for teaching, Doesn’tUseful means just that ? so it can’t mean all encompassing or Bible only.2Timothy 3:16.

If thats not enough look below.

St. Augustine, Martin Luther’s guide ought to have the last word about scripture. He said, “But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel.”

God Bless

 

[benedictus2]

St. Augustine, Martin Luther’s guide ought to have the last word about scripture. He said, “But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel.”

Did St Augustine just do a slum dunk or what .

 

[Protestant101]

1 corinthians 11:2 ,Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

---

and lets not mention that nowhere in the bible does it say that only through the bible alone can all teaching and truth be found

It’s not true that the Bible does not say "the Bible alone. Catholics have almost gloated over this apologetics approach, thinking it to be quite secure, and succesfully tripping up many Protestants.

Trying to prove that the Bible doesn’t say a certain, exact wording, does not prove that that something is not in scripture. It could still be in scripture; in slightly different words, yet still meaning the same thing. The Bible is clear that we are not to add anything to it, and this means “Bible alone” for the Christian.

**Pro 30:6 ** Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Now I know that Roman Catholic teachings do say that “Tradition” supposedly establishes scripture; yet the Bible warns about “tradition” of the very wrong kind.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

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.

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

 

[fbl9]

It’s not true that the Bible does not say "the Bible alone. Catholics have almost gloated over this apologetics approach, thinking it to be quite secure, and succesfully tripping up many Protestants.

Trying to prove that the Bible doesn’t say a certain, exact wording, does not prove that that something is not in scripture. It could still be in scripture; in slightly different words, yet still meaning the same thing. The Bible is clear that we are not to add anything to it, and this means “Bible alone” for the Christian.

**Pro 30:6 ** Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Now I know that Roman Catholic teachings do say that “Tradition” supposedly establishes scripture; yet the Bible warns about “tradition” of the very wrong kind.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

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.

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

Does not intrepreting the bible add to the words written?
The book of the Apocolypse is not the bible.
You would not be able to show that any of the Church’s Tradition makes void the word of God.
Sorry the Church did not add the apocrypha to the bible, we removed all apocrypha from being called scripture.

 

[Protestant101]

Does not intrepreting the bible add to the words written?

Yes, of course this would happen sometimes; but Jesus does want us to study the Bible, according to the Bible’s own stated principles. When a person or a Church does that, it is not “adding” to the Word at all.

 

[ignatius777]

Yes, of course this would happen sometimes; but Jesus does want us to study the Bible, according to the Bible’s own stated principles. When a person or a Church does that, it is not “adding” to the Word at all.

You mean like Luther adding ALONE to faith being necessary for salvation, correct?

 

[KathleenGee]

St Peter exhorted in his second epistle that there was to be no personal interpretation of Sacred Scriptures.

The more I have been on CAF, the more I can see how serious it is to a person to be antagonistic and divisive to the common faith. It is even more serious to deny the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.

The only solution is to pray for common unity of faith. The infinite number of divisions and antagonism within American Christianity is truly a plague. All the arguing and the fruitless debates here are not good.

It is better to pray and do penance.

 

[ignatius777]

St Peter exhorted in his second epistle that there was to be no personal interpretation of Sacred Scriptures.

The more I have been on CAF, the more I can see how serious it is to a person to be antagonistic and divisive to the common faith. It is even more serious to deny the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.

The only solution is to pray for common unity of faith. The infinite number of divisions and antagonism within American Christianity is truly a plague. All the arguing and the fruitless debates here are not good.

It is better to pray and do penance.

I certainly understand the point you are making. I also know I succumb to the anger and frustration I sometimes feel dealing with these issues. Having said that it is not a question about whether or not Luther added to scripture, its a fact that he did and when a person tells me they adhere only to scripture for their beliefs and believe in the way Luther did then their adherence to a scripture which they can change is not so impressive to me.

Thank you though for the reminder to pray for christian unity and to do my own penance

 

[benedictus2]

It’s not true that the Bible does not say "the Bible alone. Catholics have almost gloated over this apologetics approach, thinking it to be quite secure, and succesfully tripping up many Protestants.

Trying to prove that the Bible doesn’t say a certain, exact wording, does not prove that that something is not in scripture. It could still be in scripture; in slightly different words, yet still meaning the same thing. The Bible is clear that we are not to add anything to it, and this means “Bible alone” for the Christian.

Yes it is true that the Bible does not say “the Bible alone” in whatever shape or form.

And neither is it in Scripture in slightly different words.

So let me address the verses you cited:

**Pro 30:6 **

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The question here is what constitutes “his words”? Who determines what “his words” are. Could we say that the Catholic Church added to “his words” by declaring canonical books of the New Testament?

So here the question boils down to authority. Who has the auhority to determine what is and is not God’s word. Until you sort that one out you cannot say whether you are adding to His word or not.

Rev 22:18

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
First question – add unto what things? Add unto the prophecies of Rev? But that is not quite the same as adding to the word of God is it? If you read it in that way, then we must eschew all other books of the Bible because the verse speaks specifically of the book of Revelation and not of the Bible since the Bible was not even compiled yet when the Revelation was written.

Therefore all other books of the Bible are additions if you interpret that verse in the way you are doing.

Deu 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Again, if you are to take that literally, the Bible should finish at Deuteronomy. It should be limited to the Torah or books that were written prior to Deuteronomy

Now I know that Roman Catholic teachings do say that “Tradition” supposedly establishes scripture; yet the Bible warns about “tradition” of the very wrong kind.

Mat 15:3

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
But what tradition was Matthew talking about in this verse? Was it not the tradition of the elders e.g. washing their hands, etc. But are not these traditions prescribed exactly in the Torah, of which the book of Deuteronomy which you cited above is one?

So now, your last proof text negates the second to the last proof text.

Where does that leave you then?

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.

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

Bible Christians are therefore most definitely not “just that”. With their belief comes a doctrine, a doctrine that is not found even in the Bible.

Furthermore, Bible Christians give tacit approval to the infallibility of the Catholic Church by accepting the Bible.

And yes, the protestants removed the books of Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. History proves that.