Question about the Catholic church

Also, my good friend seebs once said:

"Supposed to believe the Bible, and supposed to believe nothing that is not in the Bible, are not the same thing."

"While the Bible talks about God, it *isn't* God, so, arguably, God is one of the things missing from the Bible that is essential to your salvation. You can be saved by God without having ever seen a Bible, but you can't be saved by a Bible without ever seeing God."

Click to expand...

The Bible is a representation of God.

I believe this question is much more important. I believe the BIble contains the complete word of God, specifically, the former, and current covenants, or contracts. The Lord tells us the Bible is complete, and man cannot add to it, or take away from it. This, is one of the focal arguments for Catholics and Protestants, since the Catholic Catechism introduces many new doctrines not supported in the Bible, as does, so called, "Sacred Tradition". Following these doctrines, outside of the Bible, is what makes someone Catholic.

Listening to God is fine, because he never contradicts His Word.  And, God has established the Body of Christ, or the Church.  We are encouraged to gather together to learn, worship, and be blessed.  I do not believe this "Church" is, exclusively, the Catholic Church, for Biblical, and Historical reasons.  I believe the Body of Christ is all believers, all who have been born again, or saved.

So the question is: If the Bible is complete, and man cannot add to it, where does that leave the Catholic Catechism?

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

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.

Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

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

Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


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:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

goss4jc

goss4jc,

The issue of adding to and subtracting from the Word of God is covered quite nicely in this thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34995.html

Michelle

Sorry, Seebs.

Let's make a deal. I won't grade your English, and you don't have to grade mine.

/me giggles...

I'm a terrible, terrible person. I used to proof read my husband's love letters to me.



Peace and punctuation,
~VOW

Originally posted by chelcb

We learn about the Holy Spirit in the pages of the bible, we learn that Jesus will send him. How does one think that the HS gets from point a to point b?

The reformers never, ever said that.

The bible never, ever says that so their opinion is based on...?

Click to expand...

Chelsi, can you please explain, I'm not understanding your comments.

Originally posted by chelcb

When, since the time of the reformers claimed sola scriptoria (bible alone) has it ever done anything other than divide Christians, not join and now with these statements, isolate?

Click to expand...

huh? I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say, sorry.


Auntie.

I think she is trying to say that the idea of Sola scriptura, with no one over you to interpret it, leads to what we have today, 10000 people interpreting scripture there own way, and each absolutely certain that they are the ones doing it correctly.

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
I think she is trying to say that the idea of Sola scriptura, with no one over you to interpret it, leads to what we have today, 10000 people interpreting scripture there own way, and each absolutely certain that they are the ones doing it correctly.

Click to expand...

Indeed. My thinking is that the problem isn't the diversity of voices - which I think helps us lead each other out of error - but the unshakeable certainty that this week's denomination is The Revealed Truth.

Thanks I can eat 50 eggs. But I didn't understand the Holy Spirit comments, either. Sorry!



(btw, can you really eat fifty eggs, and if so, why?)

Originally posted by Auntie
Thanks I can eat 50 eggs. But I didn't understand the Holy Spirit comments, either. Sorry!



(btw, can you really eat fifty eggs, and if so, why?)

Click to expand...

 

To clarify further, I meant that when we read Jesus telling us about the promised Holy Spirit and then we read him telling his apostles to go..and preach, go...and baptize, go...and forgive sins, how does the bible believing Christians that do not think they need Church, only the HS get from the promise of him to actually having him? I think the Church can help out in this area.

And for one who believes in sola scriptoria the very reformers who freed us from the traditions of the Church never says that we don't need 'church', never said that 'all' one needs is the HS and the bible.

And the bible itself does not say that 'all' we need is the bible and the HS and not the or a Church. In fact it is a blatant contradiction because Jesus said he was building a church, I hardly think he would build it to have us neglect it.

And this is pretty simple, since the bible alone liberation we have had more divisions and more isolation, not more unity, the thing it claims to have created by breaking down the walls of the "Church."

Originally posted by chelcb
 

To clarify further, I meant that when we read Jesus telling us about the promised Holy Spirit and then we read him telling his apostles to go..and preach, go...and baptize, go...and forgive sins, how does the bible believing Christians that do not think they need Church, only the HS get from the promise of him to actually having him? I think the Church can help out in this area.

And for one who believes in sola scriptoria the very reformers who freed us from the traditions of the Church never says that we don't need 'church', never said that 'all' one needs is the HS and the bible.

And the bible itself does not say that 'all' we need is the bible and the HS and not the or a Church. In fact it is a blatant contradiction because Jesus said he was building a church, I hardly think he would build it to have us neglect it.

And this is pretty simple, since the bible alone liberation we have had more divisions and more isolation, not more unity, the thing it claims to have created by breaking down the walls of the "Church."

Click to expand...

Thanks chelsi. You did a good job explaining things. Actually tho, it is probably a very small minority of people who believe they don't need fellowship within a church with other Christians. I mean, even this message board is Christians fellowshipping with each other.

As for unity, I am amazed at the unity I find everyday. It's there, you just have to look for it and give it validation when you see it. We are all united in Christ's Blood, regardless of where we choose to attend church on Sunday.

Originally posted by Mephster
From the 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith we read: "All things necessary for...man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." This means that the doctrine of sola scriptura itself must be found in the Bible -- and it isn't.

Another Protestant definition of sola scriptura is that of John MacArthur: "Sola scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."

In general, Protestants use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support their notion of sola scriptura.

All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be fit, fully equipped for every good work."

By focusing on the word inspiration, they imply that the Bible is the Christian's sole and final authority. Their underlying premiss is that Scripture is the only truth that is divinely inspired, therefore it can and must be our only divine authority.

Protestants use the words like: "primary," "absolute," "final court," and "all doctrine" to set the parameters around their definition. However, none of these words, nor their lexical equivalents, does Scripture ever apply to itself.

Thus the problem of sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

Within the realm of modern non-Catholic churches, "Bible alone" speaks more to the rejection of things like the Book of Mormon. For example, your statement here: "By focusing on the word inspiration, they imply that the Bible is the Christian's sole and final authority. Their underlying premiss is that Scripture is the only truth that is divinely inspired, therefore it can and must be our only divine authority." You see, this is something a Mormon missionary might use as an opening statement, the goal being to ultimately convince someone that the Book of Mormon is a divine and acceptable authority, in addition to the Bible's authority.