What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BouleTheou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BouleTheou:
It is not beyond possibility. The problem is, no one can show us anything that is essential to the Christian faith that was transmitted outside of Scripture in an oral form.
Click to expand...
Thanks for such a polite response to my reply. 🙂

Interesting statement. It is known that the NT did not exist immediately after Pentecost. So the information was for some period of time orally handed down. Let’s suppose (hypothetically) something that has been handed down to today. As soon as it is written, it is no longer oral and therefore new to you. It is immediately discounted.

By these rules, nothing could satisfy your criteria, but does not prove dogma are false.

You accept the inspiration of scripture by faith and logic. You (or I) could not PROVE that God inspired the scriptures from universally accepted axioms, but you (and I) believe.

You want incontrovertable proof of dogma. I don’t think that kind of proof exists. but again it doesn’t disprove it.
40.png
BouleTheou:
Sure - do you know of Christian knowledge NOT contained in the Bible? If so, please share it with us. I’ve been asking Catholic apologists to show it to me for upwards of 2 and a half years and so far - zip.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Many people have told you of Christian knowledge that is not contained in the Bible. But you reject them. You have limited your pool of knowledge to *sola scriptura. *(I may be wrong but I thought I read earlier that you’d accept early Church fathers as evidence as well? If so, congratulations on you recognizing some of the world of Tradition.)

Unfortunately, since you set the conditions, I don’t believe anyone will be able to convince you.

Also, I’d like to add that scripture contains sufficient information pertaining to salvation, but we KNOW that there are many things NOT pertaining to salvation that have actually happened and are not contained in the Bible. One of these things is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The topic of this thread contains the word “essential”. Essential to what? Perhaps this would help in narrowing the topics dicsussed here.

God bless you.
 
Many people have told you of Christian knowledge that is not contained in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Every single Roman Catholic person who has ever tried to answer this has done so in not only different but in utterly contradictory ways. If Rome really does know of extra-Biblical revelation, she would most definitely have informed her people and they would answer in at least similar ways.

BouleTheou
 
BouleTheou said:
Every single Roman Catholic person who has ever tried to answer this has done so in not only different but in utterly contradictory ways. If Rome really does know of extra-Biblical revelation, she would most definitely have informed her people and they would answer in at least similar ways.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...

Boule.

Since the Catholic Church teaches that Revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle, your question regarding “special revelation” is off center,as has been shown. Non solam sed etiam. The Church’s charism, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the interpretation of Revelation.

Boule: “every single Catholic you have asked?” On this very thread you have received many consistent replies: replies which reflect the teaching of the *Catechism, *which you claim to have read: replies which ring with far better credit than that of your “traditionalist Catholics who talk about 'magic medals.”

Since I once held views similar to yours, and it took me a long time to be persuaded that the Church is Who she claims to be, I can sympathize with your views. I do not understand, however, your persistence in posing a challenge which has an answer, and has been answered.
 
Again, according to protestants, the most essential part of Christianity seems to be scripture, yet the canon of scripture is not listed in ANY letter of scripture. Without the Catholic Church and the Sacred Tradition, you would not have that Bible.
Thank God for the Catholic Church :) :thumbsup:
 
Here’s a question a protestant can never answer…where in the bible does it teach sola scriptura?

I can show you where it says to hold fast to the traditions we have tought you whether by word of mouth or in writing, but it never says that scripture alone is the sole rule(especially when interpreted by each and every person however they see fit.)

And please dont quote verses where it says the bible is authoritative and should be followed, because that is not what sola scriptura says.
 
40.png
rheins2000:
Here’s a question a protestant can never answer…where in the bible does it teach sola scriptura?

I can show you where it says to hold fast to the traditions we have tought you whether by word of mouth or in writing, but it never says that scripture alone is the sole rule(especially when interpreted by each and every person however they see fit.)

And please dont quote verses where it says the bible is authoritative and should be followed, because that is not what sola scriptura says.
Click to expand...
Sola Scripturists believe with all their hearts that sola Scriptura is very clearly in the bible. We just disagree on just what the passages they use to support it mean.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Sola Scripturists believe with all their hearts that sola Scriptura is very clearly in the bible. We just disagree on just what the passages they use to support it mean.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
But, it never ever says that the bible is the ONLY rule of faith…what passages are they?
 
The teaching that the Holy Spirit effects the sacraments is not found anywhere is scripture. In other words the Catechism teaches that the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is a Sacred Tradition handed down, and is found in the writings of the Fathers, but it is found no where in scripture. This could certainly be seen as an essential teaching, for if the Holy Spirit didn’t do His job, then we would only be receiving bread and wine at communion, and the other sacraments would also be worthless. I can’t find where the bible clearly states that the Holy Spirit is God. It seems to imply it in various places, but it never states it explicitly. Since it is only implicitly stated, then we cannot be sure from the bible, for there could be other meanings. The passage about lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts then saying it was lying to God could be because the Holy Spirit was a messanger of God. The bible never defines love clearly, never tells us clearly how we are to love God, never defines faith clearly, never defines hope, never clearly says there are three persons in one God, which is why many Protestant denominations hold to a Sabellianism type heresy. The bible never defines exactly what a Spirit is, never defines what a soul is, never defines exactly what good is, etc. . The bible never clearly states that when we receive the consecrated host in communion we are receiving the entire person of Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity, yet the Fathers knew it. The bible seems to state that we are only receiving His flesh. The bible never clearly states that Jesus has the physical reality of His bodily presence only in the Eucharist and that He is present elsewhere on this earth today, for example, where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, only in His divinity but not in His humanity. The bible never says how we are to make a good confession and what sins one must confess in confession. Yet the early Christians seemed to know, for that teaching was handed down. The bible never says what the sacrament of Confirmation does or how to administer it, yet the early Christians certainly received it. The bible no where states that when we receive communion, if we pray we receive the grace to overcome mortal sins. Nor does the bible say the greatest source of grace is the Eucharist. I can’t find where the Bible says God created us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in the next world. The bible is not clear if Christians can validly divorce. The bible is not explicitly clear on salvation. Some parts seem to say obedience is necessary, others parts seem to deny that idea. This is why Protestants cannot agree. The bible is not clear when the beginning of salvation begins. Is it when we first believe, or when we are baptized? Protestants, who study the bible day and night can’t agree. The bible is not explicit. The bible does not clearly define what salvation is. The bible does not clearly define what is meant by being “saved”. I could go on and on. There are many other basic teachings that I cannot find in the bible that are explicit in even basic catechisms and the early Church fathers seemed to know them all. Obviously, they learned the Gospel by Tradition, not by scripture, and the teachings they learned were those contained in the explanations of the creed, the sacraments, the commandments and prayer. Scripture was distinct (as the catechism teaches) and added later on as salvation history. Great for nourshing the faith, useless for using it as a norm for teaching the faith. That is why Catholics are so dumb when it comes to Church teachings. Because the false idea spread by the seminaries is that the homily is ONLY a commentary on scripture. And no one can learn the Gospel by only hearing a commentary on scripture. The Church teaches the Catechism is a sure norm for teachings the faith, not scripture.
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
mercygate -

It saddens me more than anything to see the ignorance of Scripture so often displayed by Catholics

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Boule,

I think what saddens us is that it is only your interpretation of scripture that you find valid, that you continually misstate the Catholic position and I would say fail to read scripture in its totality–you take verses out of context and without viewing them in light of other passages in the Bible and often times without taking into consideration even the verse before or after the verse quoted.

I believe the Catholic interpretation of the scripture is much more harmonious than the interpretation you keep promoting.

As an example I would cite another thread you started re: a Catholic challenge–you started by listing several verses and making a claim as to what they meant re: why and what Christ expected them to know–an interpretation that I found made little sense–and is really based on what you want it to mean–you were offered a much more realistic and reasonable interpretation in response to your question–but you to this day you have yet to address that answer to your question–and explain why your answer is more reasonable and to be preferred. That seems to be the way you operate.

I could be way off base but you do not appear to be interested in a real discussion–you simply wish to cast dispersions because you believe you hold the truth.

Good luck in your walk with God and may you one day find the fullness of the truth.

Mark
 
Re: What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

I would say that most of the th ings h at we use in everyday worship are not explicitly found in the bible.eg, the devotions such as devotion to the secred Hear of Jesus, devotion to the Immaculate heart of Mary the devotion to the novena of** Devine Mercy,** The first six Saturdays of the month novena, and the litany of the Blessed Virgins Titles.T
There is nothing about making pilgrimages to holy shrines.In any case there is nothing in the bible itsef to explain most of the main features of xhristianinty at and what there is very fragmented. When Our Lord says: “Do this in memory of Me” it is far from clear what “this” is.In fact “this” is so specific that most churches do not do it validly because they rely on arbitrary interpretation of the scriptures.
 
spurgeon said:
Re: What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

I would say that most of the th ings h at we use in everyday worship are not explicitly found in the bible.eg, the devotions such as devotion to the secred Hear of Jesus, devotion to the Immaculate heart of Mary the devotion to the novena of** Devine Mercy,** The first six Saturdays of the month novena, and the litany of the Blessed Virgins Titles.T
There is nothing about making pilgrimages to holy shrines.In any case there is nothing in the bible itsef to explain most of the main features of xhristianinty at and what there is very fragmented. When Our Lord says: “Do this in memory of Me” it is far from clear what “this” is.In fact “this” is so specific that most churches do not do it validly because they rely on arbitrary interpretation of the scriptures.
Click to expand...

Spurgeon, Darlin’ – most of this is pretty far from “essential.” This thread is confusing enough as it is without throwing in a fistful of off-topic considerations.
 
markinoregon -
you continually misstate the Catholic position and I would say fail to read scripture in its totality–you take verses out of context and without viewing them in light of other passages in the Bible and often times without taking into consideration even the verse before or after the verse quoted.
Click to expand...
I take these charges very seriously. I challenge you to document from my posts these accusations:
  1. That is continually misstate the Catholic position
  2. That I cite Bible verses out of context without viewing them in light of other passages.
  3. That I cite Bible verses without considering the verse before and/or after.
I want examples. If I have done any of these things, I will retract them and humbly ask everyone’s forgiveness.

Also, I too hope that someday serious, in-depth Bible study will be a part of your life.

Sincerely,

BouleTheou
 
markinoregon -

I take these charges very seriously. I challenge you to document from my posts these accusations:
  1. That I continually misstate the Catholic position
  2. That I cite Bible verses out of context without viewing them in light of other passages.
  3. That I cite Bible verses without considering the verse before and/or after.
I want examples. If I have done any of these things, I will retract them and humbly ask everyone’s forgiveness.

Also, I too hope that someday serious, in-depth Bible study will be a part of your life.

Sincerely,

BouleTheou
 
markinoregon -

I take these charges very seriously. I challenge you to document from my posts these accusations:
  1. That I continually misstate the Catholic position
  2. That I cite Bible verses out of context without viewing them in light of other passages.
  3. That I cite Bible verses without considering the verse before and/or after.
I want examples. If I have done any of these things, I will retract them and humbly ask everyone’s forgiveness.

Also, I too hope that someday serious, in-depth Bible study will be a part of your life.

Sincerely,

BouleTheou
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
mercygate -

It saddens me more than anything to see the ignorance of Scripture so often displayed by Catholics because of the false system of authority they have given themselves to and have bought hook, line, and sinker.
No. It is so patently and obviously wrong that such a struggle has never occured to me.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Boule,
Catholics are not ignorant of the scriptures. You make so many blanket statements regarding Catholics and there beliefs that are just wrong.

I would say that what we find not only sad, but tragic is that in spite of all the great scripture knowledge (or rather memorization of scripture) of so many of our protestant brothers–yet they are so woefully ignorant of how to interpret what they read.

Your question in this thread starts with the assumption, as if it were a given, that all we need is scripture–that it is the only necessary source for teaching about Christ and Christian living–but you have failed to aswer the basis question:
Why do you and on what authority do you hold that all you need is scripture?
Additionally, how do you know what scripture is and by what authority?

How do you know Luther got it right and why would you think so?
After all didn’t Luther want to throw out a few NT books as well? And in order to make the books he kept–the inspired word of God–fit his theology, he–in his pride–thought he could add his own word to the word of God in order to make scripture say what he–Luther–claimed it said. Instead of trying to reconcile his theology to what the scripture really said–he revised the scripture to fit his theology. Talk about something so patently and obviously wrong.

It is the canon of this man that you follow. A man who said: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

Again I ask where did you get your scripture, your canon and how do you know with any assurance which books contain the divine truth?

Further if we were able to know the inspired word of God on our own–as you have held on other occassions–why was there so much debate over which books were inspired as the bishops discerned which ones really were?

Indeed the position you hold is unscriptural, it is illogical and it is unhistorical. It is not enough to simply “know” the scripture. One must properly understand the scripture as well as know it.

Peace be with you,
Mark
 
Boule,

You keep telling us that all we need is scripture–yet you fail to provide the Biblical cites that you base your belief on–could you please do that?

You seem to assert that the Bible is your sole source of religious truth and you deny that Christ established a church to guide us and to protect us and to interpret this truth.

Again, other than you say so, why should we take the Bible as the sole rule of faith?

You claim we are ignorant of scripture and imply that this is why we do not think in the “enlightened” way that you do, but rather it is your blatant disregard for or tortured interpretation of those scriptural passages that don’t fit your theology–that draws you away from the fullness of the truth revealed in the scripture. It may be pride that keeps you from having ears to hear so that you can embrace the full truth.

You claim to be able to interpret and understand scripture without the assistance of a teaching authority–but that is unscriptural.

"…and he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I unless someone guides me?” And he invited Phillip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this…and the Eunich said to Phillip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this…Then Phillip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.” Acts 8:30-35 (abbridged)

“So as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do other scriptures.” 2 Peter 3:15-16

Scripture itself tell us that scripture is hard to understand and that we need someone to guide us. Notice the Eunich was not guided to his understanding by the Holy Spirit personally enlightening him, but rather through one of the seven deacons appointed in Acts 6:15.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
mercygate -

Who do you believe? Rome. Who do I believe? Scripture.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Boule,

Really? It doesn’t appear scripture is your “ultimate authority”.

Scripture says: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

Yet you do not seem to accept this rather clear teaching from scripture. So scripture is not really your ultimate authority nor do you necessarily appear to believe it.

Apparently you are your own ultimate authority–for in the end it is your and only your interpretation of any given scripture that you accept.

The peace of Christ be with you,
Mark
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
mercygate -

Paul said in Romans 11:6 that if salvation is “by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.” In contrast to that, Rome says salvation is by grace plus works. I.e. grace which then enables us to do works which merit de congruo eternal life.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Boule,

Two problems here:
  1. you missrepresent Catholic teaching again–as works do not merit eternal life for us and the Church does not teach that they do (at least not in the sense that you imply). I would direct you to post 90 and the cites there.
  2. I believe you are misinterpeting “works” as St. Paul is using the term. See also Galatians 2:16 “yet who know that a man in not justified by works of law but through faith in Jesus Christ”
You apparently fail to take into account Pauls audiance and the problem he is addressing in both Romans and Galations. Jews boasted about their righteousness to Gentiles; they thought that they were keeping the law, where as in fact all they were doing was performing certain external actions and rites and their hearts were devoid of charity and mercy. They considered God, whom they cast in the role of a mere judge, as duty bound to recognize and reward the good deeds they did by their own efforts: they not God, were their own liberators. Some of the Christian converts from Judaism had not shed there inherited beliefs–they thought the Mosaic Law was what saved them, and they tried to impose this idea on other Christians of Gentile background and have them, too, conform to the Law. Paul could see how wrong they were:what they were in effect saying was that man is made good and righteous by his own effort, thereby emptying Gods work of redemption of any real value; they had not understood the basics of the Christian faith.

St. Paul–or rather God through St. Paul–entered into the fray against the “Judaisers” and won thereby liberating the early Christians (and us later Christians) from this error. We are not saved by our own efforts but only grace merited by Christ can bring us to salvation.

Continued
 
Ours does though - those who practice Sola Scriptura are far more united than those practicing the various forms of Sola Ecclesia.
Click to expand...
Now thats funny Patrick, man sometimes you kill me…keep em coming.😉
 
But more than anything: It’s defective doctrine of justification which cuts people off from the kingdom of God
Click to expand...
Statements like this are huge accusations that are logically false . You say faith alon… well I have faith and i works too. Id call that overkill more than lack of sufficiency. I am covered either way, by your profession of faith.

Furtheremore, Faith alone is a spiritual, practical impossibility. tell me HOW can you have FAITH alone? Maybe for a second, maybe for a minute. It is the most uses doctrine man has ever concieved!!! As soon as I beleive I am bombarded with lifes challenges, to live. Any act after that moment will be good or bad depending on my reacting. WORKS happen immediately!. OUR lord expects more than our faith, he expects our love. love is not a feeling, it is an ACT of will. Just like GODs love is an act of will. IT IS HIS ENTIRE WILL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top