Why do MOST Catholics not know bible well?

[Church_Militant]

This thread is a crock. I know the Bible better than about 98% of the n-Cs that I encounter and as well as the other 2%.

It’s garbage to assert that Catholics do not know the Bible.

What we generally are not very good at is quoting chapter and verse of the Bible like the n-Cs who do that with “the way of salvation” of whatever “witnessing tool” they are into.

As for CG99’s pet passage in Luke, I’ve seen as many if not more n-Cs who fill that bill than Catholics. It has no application to faithful Catholics.

The idea that Catholics do not know the Bible is bunk. They may not know the references, but a faithful Catholic can tell what the Bible says on a given topic better (in most cases) than a comparable n-C. I know because I’ve done it dozens of times myself an then had Catholics say to me, “I knew that dude was full of baloney, but I didn’t know where to tell him to look like you did.”

Do all of us know the Bible as well as we might? No…but that’s true of most people who name Christ as their Lord. And it always will be…until we reach heaven.

 

[cleargospel99]

NPS,

God Bless you. Its not just about reading the Bible, its about writing God’s Words on your heart and passing that on to your children.

Would you not agree that failure to do so would constitute a spiritual form of child abuse that would have eternal consequences?

How do you write God’s Word upon your heart? How do you pass that on to your children?

Have you ever read Psalm 119? What do you think about it?
(It’s not infallibly interpreted by Rome, so you are at liberty to have your own opinion on it, within reason of course.)

Yes it is relevent to the discussion, because it brings home the importance of knowing and loving the Word of God.

God Bless you,
cg99

 

[lak611]

Have you ever read Psalm 119?

Psa 119:11 Thy words have I hidden in my heart, that I may not sin against thee. (Douay-Rheims)

Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (KJV)

 

[cleargospel99]

As for CG99’s pet passage in Luke, I’ve seen as many if not more n-Cs who fill that bill than Catholics. It has no application to faithful Catholics.

.

Church Militant, my brother, where is the love?

Luke 16:19-31 applies to all of us Christians, each and everyone. God has spoken and given us His Word for all time.

How firm a foundation ye saints of the Lord is laid for your faith in His excellent Word.

What more can He say than to you He has said. To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled.

God Bless you always.
cg99

 

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by **cleargospel99 **
You are caricaturing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura if you are equating it with private interpretation. Indeed Sola Scriptua does not obviate the essential role of the church. It only binds the church to the authority of God’s Word.

As interpreted by whom?

Fidelis,

Here is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

So Scripture interprets Scripture. Your answer begs the question. When it comes right down to it, after all is said and done: whose interpretation?

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant, my brother, where is the love?

Plenty of love…but no mercy for those who seek to deride my Catholic brothers and sisters.

Luke 16:19-31 applies to all of us Christians, each and everyone. God has spoken and given us His Word for all time.

Answered this…

How firm a foundation ye saints of the Lord is laid for your faith in His excellent Word.

What more can He say than to you He has said. To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled.

This is not gospel nor the Word of God …but the words of a Sola Scriptura hymn.

We do not believe the errant doctrine of SS so don’t seek to foist that on us.

Love? Where is the love of accusing the brethren of something that is not true to begin with and then seeking to perpetrate false teachings upon them?

Don’t cry “foul” when I call you on it CG99.

 

[cleargospel99]

Church Militant,
You don’t have to believe in Sola Scriptura to believe in the Word of God. Many Christians have idiosyncratic beliefs. Thankfully God does not extend salvation conditioned upon our orthodoxy.

For the benefit of all the Christians, would you care to provide us with an exposition of Luke 16:19-31 to increase our understanding?

These are the Words of my Lord Jesus Christ. I beseech thee, my dear brother to bless us with the infallible interpretation of this parable.

God Bless you,
cg99

 

[RNRobert]

Perhaps it was this Protestant minister, Woodrow Kroll. I read this book. amazon.com/Back-Bible-Woodrow-Kroll/dp/1576736784/ref=sr_1_3/102-0560232-2073703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175542448&sr=1-3. In it, he mentions the decline in Bible reading by Catholics and Protestants. He also has a little quiz testing Biblical knowledge.

It might be him. The name sounds familiar.

 

[Bishopite]

Why do MOST Catholics not know the bible well, Protestants usually know it inside and out, forward and backwards. I just was curious what some of you think on this, I’m guilty myself, I don’t knoe a good method of learning it, I read it daily, but I don’t know it.

This is something with which I totally disagree. As a former Proestant, I often talk with Protestant Pastor friends and many Protestant friends also and a lot of them know some Scripture but many of them really don’t know what I thought they did when I was Protestant. Certainly Catholic have a ways to go in understanding Scripture, but by the same token so do many Protestants. Show them 2 Thes 2:15 for example and most of them will be surprised the Bible says to hold to the Traditions passed down to you by word of mouth or letter.

 

[cleargospel99]

Bishopite,

Would be so kind as to provide one concrete example of an oral tradition passed on from Paul that is not written down in scripture?

Your Brother in Christ,
cg99

 

[Fidelis]

Bishopite, Would be so kind as to provide one concrete example of an oral tradition passed on from Paul that is not written down in scripture?

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Bishopite did not say that St. Paul himself stated that he personally handed on any particular oral traditon. If you look at 2 Thes 2:15, you will see that Paul is speaking in the plural. The Church* as a whole* has passed down Sacred Tradition and, in contrast to Sacred Scripture, it is not tied to any one man, including St. Paul.

Hope that helps.

 

[Kristopher]

… a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith: IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; … consistent with the very Church of Rome itself as described in Jim Akin’s article right here: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp … Christians please read your bible because God told you to do it. …

This quote you provided from the Westminister Confession of Faith is fallacious reasoning, a circular reference. It is nothing short of “stupid”, in as literal of a meaning of the word as one may obtain, for describing something characteristic of a person who has failed to comprehend the most rudimentary facts of scripture, authorship, and interpretation.

Scripture cannot interpret itself, but must be interpreted in accord with those who authored scripture, that is the meaning of the word “interpretation”: to bring as clear of an understanding as one can to what the author most precisely, or most accurately intended. The Bible having a variety of authors, and many of them unknown, presents a problem to those choosing to interpret scripture; however, the commonality among all authors of scripture is fundamentally, exclusively, the Holy Spirit. It is in accord with the direction of the Holy Spirit, that all scripture must be interpreted, not scripture itself, but the Holy Spirit and therefore, God.

The whole body of scripture, that is in fact Catholic, may easily be heard in its entirety within any Roman Catholic Church across a period of years, either with daily mass, or weekly mass and therefore, one may encourage daily or weekly mass to accomplish whatever education in scripture is requisite to knowing God’s word, and in practice as well, one must attend a Catholic Church to live what Jesus taught; what Jesus said, in terms of what I understand from my own experiences, and understanding of theory as it pertains to Christian and Judaic theology.

Scripture may never be used to interpret itself: the whole arguement based on this sort of reasoning can only yield a fallacious conclusion. It is stupidity that either would assert, or attempt to argue such a point. Interpetation must be done in accord both with those who authored scripture, and the Holy Spirit by whom those authors were inspired.

You misrepresent the article, that you cited in your post: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp, this article is very clear, that the Catholic Church " … has no official commentary on Scripture. … ", citing not only reasons related to the exorbitant cost involved with producing such a commentary, but also reasoning, well, that scripture study is an ongoing field of study, with new facts being discovered continuously; whether we choose to reference findings that confirm the authority of the Apocrypha from the Dead Sea Scrolls, or any other archaeological dig. This does further support the claim, that scripture must be interpreted in accord with those who wrote scripture, hence, the need for archaeology, Arabicology, and of course, traditions both Catholic, and Judaic.

 

[cleargospel99]

Kristopher,

“The first of these was that “serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out” (DV 12). This means that no properly understood assertion of Scripture will ever contradict another. If it does so, it must be a false interpretation.” James Akin-Catholic Answers

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. WCoF 1:9

These two concepts seem remarkably similar to me.

In philosophy, this is known as the Law of non-contradiction.

 

[cleargospel99]

Fidelis,

The only thing you provided was a recapitulation of 2 Thess 2:15.

It should be easy for you to demonstrate for us that you can produce proof of the Apostolic origin of a single oral Tradition binding on the conscience that is not contained in the Holy Scriptures.

Otherwise you are just practicing “spooftexting”. The very thing your peers condemn.

 

[Fidelis]

Fidelis,

The only thing you provided was a recapitulation of 2 Thess 2:15.

Wrong.

You asked Bishopite to produce an oral tradition for St. Paul. I simply pointed out that Bishopite did not claim that St. Paul himself stated that he personally handed on any particular oral traditon. In an effort to make Bishopite’s actual assertion look ridiculous, you **added **that part, thus setting up a straw man.

I further went on to point out that if you look at 2 Thes 2:15, you will see that Paul is speaking in the plural. The Church as a whole has passed down Sacred Tradition and, in contrast to Sacred Scripture, it is not tied to any one man, including St. Paul. This is somewhat more than a simple “recapitulation of 2 Thess 2:15.”

(Please represent what I and others say accurately. You have failed to do this several times now, and it tends to make others doubt your sincerity and good will. Thanks. )

 

[Chancellare]

Fidelis,

Here is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Christians please read your bible because God told you to do it. If you let me hang around long enough, we could get through the whole thing just by reading this thread.

Your Protestant Westmister Confession does not stand on firm ground as pointed out by the Church. Your SS doctrine has produced thousands of “infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture”.

The same Bible which persuaded Luther that Christ is really present “in, with and under” the bread and wine is the same Bible which persuaded Zwingli that Christ is only spiritually present in the sacrament. The Anabaptists, who denied the validity of infant baptism, read the same Scriptures as the Calvinists, Lutherans and Anglicans who retained the infant baptism. Multiply these by the thousands of other preachers from other denominations of Protestants who follow SS doctrine. Now tell me where is the “true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one)” in all these interpretations?

Isn’t this a mockery of your Westminster Confession? Or is it simply because SS is a big error?

 

[cleargospel99]

Chancellare,
According to Mr. Karl Keating

catholic.com/projects/wolves_in_sheeps_clothing.asp

Are you really in a good position to throw rocks?

Or do apologists a CA maintain a double-standard. I can just as easily ascribe all those errors to the failure to abide by Sola Scriptura.

Interestingly enough, did you consider that Mormons, JWs, Mooneys, and the former Jim Jones Peoples Temple also reject Sola Scriptura. If we are to judge people by the company they keep, the door swings both ways my brother.

Then again, that’s a bit off topic, I was only pointing out that the WCoF and the Official teaching of CA if not the Catholic Church itself have virtually identical principles for scripture interpretation. So what really is your beef?

 

[cleargospel99]

Fidelis,
You ol’ spooftexter

I was actually giving you a break by expanding the pool to any apostle and not limiting you exclusively to Paul.

Just produce the body: One unescripturated Tradition that is undisputably Apostolic in origin.

God bless you my brother,
cg99

Judgement comes to those who don’t know Scripture.

Romans 1:28-31
28Furthermore, **since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, **he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

 

[Chancellare]

Chancellare,
According to Mr. Karl Keating

catholic.com/projects/wolves_in_sheeps_clothing.asp

Are you really in a good position to throw rocks?

Or do apologists a CA maintain a double-standard. I can just as easily ascribe all those errors to the failure to abide by Sola Scriptura.

Interestingly enough, did you consider that Mormons, JWs, Mooneys, and the former Jim Jones Peoples Temple also reject Sola Scriptura. If we are to judge people by the company they keep, the door swings both ways my brother.

Then again, that’s a bit off topic, I was only pointing out that the WCoF and the Official teaching of CA if not the Catholic Church itself have virtually identical principles for scripture interpretation. So what really is your beef?

I appreciate your effort to sound conciliatory on points where principles are in agreement but let us not kid ourselves about the errors brought about from schismatic actions such as your WCoF. Those are facts and we can only tackle them with objectivity. No offense intended whatsoever. To use Luther’s phrase, here we stand, we cannot do otherwise.

 

[cleargospel99]

Who is being schismatic? The Reformers believed they represented the faithful remnant of the original apostolic faith.

It is important to point out that the Reformation was not a rejection of the essential marks of the faith. Monotheist, Trinitarian, Bodily Resurrection, one baptism, one communion…etc. See for yourself: WCoF Chapter 25

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.
Excepting the office of the Pope, which they felt had no Biblical or historical warrant. (a position not dissimilar to that of the Anglican, Orthodox, Coptic, or Assyrian [Nestorian] churches) I don’t think you will find very much to call schismatic.

Wishing you His best Grace during this week of the Passion, May God bless you mightily
cg99