What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

[BouleTheou]

Mark -

Ok.

How many little ones do you have? I have four - 5, 2.5, 3, & 8 months - yikes…

BouleTheou

 

[OfTheCross]

BouleTheou:

papist1 -

[sigh]. No, the ancients who collected what books God had inspired dd not confer any status or authority upon them which they did not already possess. Also, none of the Christian people who lived during the age of Hippo and Carthage believed what you believe dogmatically today about the Papacy, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, and all the Marian dogmas - and your own best scholars, like Ludwig Ott, admit it.

Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church, collected and copied the Bible under the direction of the providential hand of God.

BouleTheou

What group of Chistians collected and copied the Bilble under the providential hand of God (who were they, when did they compile the complete Bible, etc)? And why did the vast majority of their Bibles contain 73 books, not 66 books? And most importantly, why should I have confidence that this group of men got it right?

Could you please refer me to the specific Ludwig Ott quote?

Peter John

 

[sabrinaofmn]

The Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture, and that’s a pretty essential doctrine.

 

[OfTheCross]

BouleTheou:

Mark 1270 -

That’s a fair question.

Specifically: its subversion of Scripture’s authority for its own, papal infallibility, indulgences, the Marian dogmas which have led to gross forms of idolatry, the veneration of saints and images, purgatory - a frontal assault on the all-sufficiency of the cross-work of Christ to pay for all our sins.

But more than anything: It’s defective doctrine of justification which cuts people off from the kingdom of God.

BouleTheou

None of the Catholic doctrines assult the sufficiency of the Cross.
Without the atoning sacrifice of Christ and unmerited grace we are all headed to Hell. It does not follow then that obedience/works are unnecessary and deny the sufficiency of the Cross when it is the Cross and umerited grace that allow us to be obedient and perform good works (living Faith) that are pleasing to God in the first place.

Peter John.

 

[OfTheCross]

BouleTheou:

Mark -

Ok.

How many little ones do you have? I have four - 5, 2.5, 3, & 8 months - yikes…

BouleTheou

I’m not Mark but I’ll answer too.
I just had my first (2 mo. ago). I’m one of seven kids and besides my Faith and love for the Holy Trinity, I revere large families and those who remain that have faith to allow God to bless them with His little ones to care for. God bless your family, may they grow in number and in their love for Jesus Christ.

Peter John

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello BouleTheou,

You started this thread with this question:

BouleTheou:

What am I missing by believing that all special revelation from God about the Christian faith is in the Bible?

I have responded:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=239040&postcount=44

Greg

 

[mercygate]

To ask what essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture sets up a false antithesis between “Christianity” and Scripture. Boule rejects the concept of indefectibility, rejects the the historic Catholic Church as Christ-mandated, scripturally based, and protected by the living presence of the Holy Spirit, and he rejects the idea that she is charged to develop doctrine as the need arises during her life in the world. But those are the hinges here. Boule’s rejection is the rejection of Apostolic authority acting through the Holy Spirit in the Church as she guards and interprets Scripture. A few red herrings have entered these discussions by those who wish to impose the Church *above *Scripture, when the Church herself does no such thing. To be the entrusted interpreter of Scripture implies being “guided in all truth.”

Catechism

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

**112 **1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover. The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

[113](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/113.htm’) 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81). [114](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/114.htm’) 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Note 80 is Aquinas. 81 is Origen.

For Catholics, Scripture is not outside doctrine; Scripture is the soul of theology.

Catechism:

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133. The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112 (elipsis original to the text)

Note 111 refers to the *Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: “Dei Verbum”; *note 112 cites St. Jerome’s Commentary on the Book of Isaiah.

 

[OfTheCross]

My last few posts were off topic. Two questions that haven’t been answered:

1. Where does Sacred Scripture state that all Chistian doctrines were inscripturated and are only to be found in the pages of Scripture?
2. How does one determine what doctrines are essential and which are non-essential when the Bible makes no such distinctions?

Peter John

 

[hlgomez]

Here are some that you can’t find (explicitly) in Scriptures:

1. The word “Holy Bible.”
2. We believe in the Trinity, but the word itself is not found in Scriptures.
3. The two wills of Jesus, Human and Divine.
4. The Oneness of the Substance of the Trinity–Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three Persons=One God=Trinity in Unity.
5. The One Person of Jesus. Human and Divine is homosious, as oppose to Nestorian heresy.
6. The Godhead of the Holy Spirit as equal to the Father and the Son.
7. Immaculate Conception. Mother Mary being the perfect human bearer of the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
8. First Person of the Trinity-the Father.
9. Second Person of the Trinity-the Son.
10. Third Person of the Trinity-the Holy Spirit.

There’s a lot more. Just too many to list.

Pio

 

[mercygate]

To ask what essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture sets up a false antithesis between “Christianity” and Scripture.

Boule rejects the concept of indefectibility, rejects the the historic Catholic Church as scripturally warranted, Christ-mandated and protected by the living presence of the Holy Spirit, and he rejects the idea that she is charged to develop doctrine as the need arises during her life in the world. But those are the hinges here: not what essential elements of the faith are to be found outside Scripture. Boule’s rejection is the rejection of Apostolic authority acting through the Holy Spirit in the Church as she guards and interprets Scripture. If Boule is a Protestant seminarian, he should reject these things.

The occasional red herring has arisen in these discussions when some have given the impression that the Church is above Scripture. But she is not. To be entrusted with interpretation requires being led “into all truth” in the service of revelation.

I apologize for the lengthy quotations from the Catechism; they were too beautiful to omit.

Catechism

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

For Catholics, Scripture is not outside doctrine; Scripture is the soul of theology.

See the Catechism:

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133. The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112 (elipsis original to the text)

Note 111 refers to the *Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: “Dei Verbum”; *note 112 cites St. Jerome’s Commentary on the Book of Isaiah.

 

[motorman]

BouleTheou:

Strider -

So we don’t recommit the mistakes of the past. So we honor Christ in our preaching and teaching ministries by being precise and accurate even in the details. So the gospel in all of its free, saving power will go forth unhindered. Every Protestant seminary student I have ever known was saved long before he began his seminary work.

BouleTheou

Then why is it that there are so many versions and interpretations of the bible. If you are taught all the same. It seems to me that while trying to not make mistakes of the past you made the ones of the future and now here we are with over 33000 demoniations and interpretations of the holy scriptures. Not to mention the bible being shredded apart to leave out what one wishes and to add what one wishes. My guess is that is a bigger mistake than many of our pasts.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

So we don’t recommit the mistakes of the past. So we honor Christ in our preaching and teaching ministries by being precise and accurate even in the details. So the gospel in all of its free, saving power will go forth unhindered. Every Protestant seminary student I have ever known was saved long before he began his seminary work.

Ok, let’s take a look at a potential mistake. This site documents various Reformation creeds, shasta.com/sphaws/creeds.html, where Protestants literally put the pope as antichrist right in their confessions of faith. To be fair, some have retracted them, but some have not. The question of course is, were they right to retract or not? How do you know?

Scott

 

[PaulDupre]

BouleTheou:

papist1 -

Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church, collected and copied the Bible under the direction of the providential hand of God.

BouleTheou

You mean the bishops at the councils of Carthage and Hippo who definitively declared the NT canon were not really Catholics? You mean all those monks in all those monasteries who made those beautifully illuminated manuscripts of the bible for 1500+ years were not really Catholics? They would be shocked to hear such a thing. No reputable scholar would claim that the bible was not collected, preserved and handed down by the Catholic Church. Even Protestant scholars recognize this.

 

[JPrejean]

Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church, collected and copied the Bible under the direction of the providential hand of God.

All well and good, but you defined the following standards for Christianity:

the Marian dogmas which have led to gross forms of idolatry, the veneration of saints and images, purgatory - a frontal assault on the all-sufficiency of the cross-work of Christ to pay for all our sins.

But more than anything: It’s defective doctrine of justification which cuts people off from the kingdom of God.

But based on all the evidence we have, every Christian in the entire world before the Reformation held these beliefs. Therefore, by your own definition, there were literally no Christians to be guided by providence anywhere on the face of the globe, and in fact, all of the evidence we have suggests that people who held those beliefs were the ones preserving Scripture. The obvious conclusion is that no rational person can accept your argument here.

 

[PhilVaz]

Ahimsa << I’m amazed that you see this. Glad to see it, Phil. You have been completely honest here. And for that, protestants 'round the world thank you. >>

Well, your welcome dude. I was just trying to list what can be demonstrated from the documentation we have in the immediate post-apostolic era (early 2nd century). You aren’t going to get the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of our Lady there explicitly, nor will you get papal infallibility there explicitly.

What you will get explicitly are the things I listed: infant baptism, Mary as New Eve, prayers for the dead, primacy of Rome, and apostolic succession including the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor. Those show up quite early, and in my opinion justify the later development of Catholic theology (from a purely “rational study of the data” standpoint). Of course this doesn’t take into account the element of faith, that Christ will preserve His Church to the end. There can be no apostasy on Christian teaching.

I’ll also point out as others have, you won’t get the full expression of the Holy Trinity in the 2nd century, nor the canon of the New Testament. Those are also developments in the same Catholic Church, by the same Catholic Bishops.

The problem with these threads is that the one or two Protestants who ask good questions get so many good answers, its hard for everyone to keep up responding, it gets confusing to follow. Takes a lot of stamina and concentration.

Phil P

 

[William_Putnam]

JimG:

Yes, that’s true. Catholics do believe in the material sufficiency of scripture.
But the canon of scripture is certainly not contained anywhere in scripture.

And also: If Scripture were formally sufficient, no preaching should be necessary. All that should be required is to pass out bibles, with no further instruction. Everyone reading those bibles then should come to the correct doctrine and faith.

But that doesn’t happen does it? People reading those bibles will reach widely varying conclusions! How could that be? It is because the bible itself doesn’t “teach” anything. It doesn’t tap your shoulder and say, “wait a minute, you misunderstood. That’s not what I meant.”

That’s why Jesus left us a Church.

I like your reply, which reminded me of a little “tongue in cheek” essay I did some years ago:

bellsouthpwp.net/w/p/wputnam3/Sola%20Scriptura.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine’s famous Sermon.

 

[mercygate]

JPrejean:

But based on all the evidence we have, every Christian in the entire world before the Reformation held these beliefs. Therefore, by your own definition, there were literally no Christians to be guided by providence anywhere on the face of the globe, and in fact, all of the evidence we have suggests that people who held those beliefs were the ones preserving Scripture. The obvious conclusion is that no rational person can accept your argument here.

And **all **of the Reformers – Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer – believed all of the Marian doctrines until their dying day. Here’s an article on Luther’s devotion to Mary by a Lutheran: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM

 

[Mystagogy]

So did we resolve where, besides Catholic tradition, we get “which books comprise the New Testament”? Or was that just passed over?

 

[RMP]

Okay, I answered your question directly. Please return the favor. If Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, and if anyone, on his own, can ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and arrive at the correct interpretation of Scripture, why do Protestant pastors have to attend seminaries to learn the “proper” interpretation of Scripture?
So we don’t recommit the mistakes of the past. So we honor Christ in our preaching and teaching ministries by being precise and accurate even in the details. So the gospel in all of its free, saving power will go forth unhindered. Every Protestant seminary student I have ever known was saved long before he began his seminary work.

So now protestants have tradition too?
If so, It has been a dismal DISASTER! (just my opinion)
precise, detailed, unhindered! What planet do you live on? You seem too well educated to really believe that!

And you criticize the Catholic church for contradictions?

AND when did protestants start teaching about tradition anyways?

RMP-a very concerned, surprised Catholic

 

[JimG]

RMP:

So now protestants have tradition too?

In my opinion, yes! Everyone who preaches, teaches, or evangelizes, preaches from his own tradition. If they are not simply reading from the Bible, every word they speak is spoken from their own tradition.