The Bible Is Not An Instruction Book In Christianity

[Katholikos]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1100418' date='Oct 24 2006, 08:25 PM']
In summary, the Church was not derived from the Bible but vice versa.

I would not completely agree that it is not an instruction book however as it is the creators manual on how to live our lives. There are many passages that indicate this. Without the Church however it is greatly misunderstood.
[/quote]God provided the means of transmission of His Truth through the ages by giving the apostles and their successors, the bishops, authority to teach in His name and by promising to be with them forever. The teaching of the apostles and of the apostolic churches continues to this day, and will continue to the end of time.

We learn our Faith -- doctrine -- from the the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. We read the Scriptures to apply them to our lives.

I say again: [u]The Bible is not an instruction book in Christianity[/u]. It does not tell us what to do in order to be saved, how baptism should be administered, what baptism does or not do to the soul, whether babies should or should not be baptized, how often we should gather together for worship and on what day, how our worship service should be structured, how often we should receive Communion -- if at all, how to get married, and on and on.

Protestants have [i][b]deduced[/b][/i] what they think they should be believe from what is written in the NT. They draw [b][i]inferences [/i] [/b] about what to believe from the NT because the instructions are not there.

The NT was not meant to be an instruction book. It was written by Catholics, to Catholics, and for Catholics in the heart of the teaching Church. When it was taken out of that context in the 16th century and made to stand alone, the result is thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations that disagree with every other denomination in one or more doctrines or practices, and all claim to teach the truth about what they Bible says. Oy vey!

The Catholic Church is not a product of the Bible. The Bible is a product of the Catholic Church, produced under the guidence of the Holy Spirit, who will guide the Church forever. Christ will be with the Church forever. We have His Word on that.

The Church is the Mother of the Scriptures, not the Daughter.

Likos
former Southern Baptist, agnostic, atheist

------------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1100647' date='Oct 25 2006, 01:37 AM']
I believe I disagree, both the new and old testaments were written by holy men instructed by God to write down the inspired "word of God." Mother Church was founded by Christ to instruct and teach all of the people of the world the salvation of Christ. The New and Old testaments are instruction books, because Mother Church uses them to instruct and teach us how to live, and please God.

What do you mean by instruction, "bible alone"? Or the Bible is in no way a book of instruction?
[/quote]I said, [u]the Bible is not an instruction book (a "what-to- believe-and-how-to-put-it-into-practice" book) on the Christian religion[/u].

In the absence of instructions, Protestants have deduced or inferred what is to be believed and taught, with disastrous consequences.

-----------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[thessalonian]

Kathlicos,

I am not sure what distintion you are trying to make. The scriptures do teach or the Catechism is wrong in many places such as this.


7: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1114 (222 bytes ) preview document matches
4 "[b]Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures[/b], to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . of the Fathers," we profess that "the sacraments of the


16: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 117 (756 bytes ) preview document matches
in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written[b] "for our instruction[/b]". 3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can
URL: [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/117.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/117.htm[/url]

Most certainly Sola Scriptura is in error but lets not go too far the other way.

2Tim.3
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Most certainly the scriptures are to be understood in the context of the Church and they are a product of the Church but they go hand in hand with sacred oral tradition to pass along the teachings of Jesus Christ. That after all is what the word "Gospel" means and there are four GOSPELS in scripture. They teach the plan of salvation. Maybe I am missing something in your posts?

Edited October 25, 2006 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

Perhaps, Kath is saying that Scripture is an inerrant and infallible "Outline" which makes an earthly athority necessry, while Euty believes that Scripture has all the "Details" as well, which makes a 'Catechism' and Church athority superfluous.

[thessalonian]

Outline is not the word I would use but your probably close to his point. It's more like if my wife tells me to go to the store and get milk, it's not an outline but there is much involved that simply doesn't need to be spoken among those who think alike. I know where the store is and have a set of car keys etc. If someone comes in to our home and we tell them to go get milk there is much more explanation needed in between the lines.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1100876' date='Oct 25 2006, 01:27 PM']
Kathlicos,

I am not sure what distintion you are trying to make. The scriptures do teach or the Catechism is wrong in many places such as this.
7: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1114 (222 bytes ) preview document matches
4 "[b]Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures[/b], to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . of the Fathers," we profess that "the sacraments of the
16: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 117 (756 bytes ) preview document matches
in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written[b] "for our instruction[/b]". 3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can
URL: [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/117.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/117.htm[/url]

Most certainly Sola Scriptura is in error but lets not go too far the other way.

2Tim.3
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Most certainly the scriptures are to be understood in the context of the Church and they are a product of the Church but they go hand in hand with sacred oral tradition to pass along the teachings of Jesus Christ. That after all is what the word "Gospel" means and there are four GOSPELS in scripture. They teach the plan of salvation. Maybe I am missing something in your posts?
[/quote]Let me try again.

[u]The Bible is not an instruction book in Christianity[/u]. It requires a teacher.

The Bible does not contain the entire revelation of God. It does not proceed in an orderly fashion to lay out what we need to do to be saved, what we are to believe, how we are to practice our faith, or the consequences if we don't. It is a [b]collection[/b] of writings, written by different authors at different times and locations for different audiences and purposes. There is nothing systematic about it. The NT letters are arranged by the length of the writing, not by any coherent pattern for the presentation of doctrine.

Did you read what I said in earlier posts about deductions and inferences? I'll give you a concrete example: Some Protestants claim that the NT teaches that baptism is not necessary, but nevertheless immersion (submersion) is the only "valid" method. These beliefs are [b][i]deduced[/i][/b] from the Scriptures, not expressly stated in them. If the NT told us that "water and the Spirit" in Jn 3:5 means baptism and that it is absolutely essential to salvation, that it washes away sin, that babies are to be baptized, and how to administer baptism, there wouldn't be the arguments that have raged since the Deformation of the 16th century when the authority of the teaching Church was rejected.

Doctrines are not clearly stated in the NT -- not even the basic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The NT was not intended to be used to teach doctrine apart from the Church that wrote it.

The Scriptures are the inerrant, infallible Word of God. But what good is an infallible book without an infallible interpreter and teacher?

------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[desertwoman]

:applause:


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1100688' date='Oct 25 2006, 09:00 AM']
God is about a relationship, not a rule book that can be bought for $12.97. A Church organization and athenticated and approved commentaries are AIDS to help with the relationship, not concrete rule books that will cover every single imaginable circumstance. That is where the relationship comes in. OMG, the irony of Euty wanting an infallible document that would cover everything.
[/quote]

[thessalonian]

Kath,

I agree with what you say regarding protestantism and the Bible. I agree it needs a teacher. But I don't find your concluding statements to be theologically correct. They are either/or's when I see it as both and. Yes the scriptures are instructions from God but that does not mean they don't need a teacher or are explicitly complete in themselves.

Blessings

[quote]God is about a relationship, not a rule book that can be bought for $12.97. A Church organization and athenticated and approved commentaries are AIDS to help with the relationship, not concrete rule books that will cover every single imaginable circumstance. That is where the relationship comes in. OMG, the irony of Euty wanting an infallible document that would cover everything.[/quote]

For the most part I agree with this. The problem is who's commentaries are right. If the commentary is wrong then what good is the book being infallible? Oh, well then the individual discerns by the Holy Spirit where the commentary is wrong. Ya, right. Why couldn't the writers of the commentary have discerned the errors. It's a can of worms if you don't have a Church organization ordained by God to guide the people in truth. "Those who worship God MUST worship in spirit and in TRUTH". One must have the right truth about the Bible in order to have a right relationship with God. error matters.

Edited October 25, 2006 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

I can't cut the mustard and be a Catholic, because it requires me to believe there is a greater degree of 'correctness' resides in the 'Church Clergy' than I can begin to accept.
Just as you Catholics will say that graces can flow from a corrupt and sinful priest when he adminsters Sacraments, I believe that graces flow from a sinful and corrpt organization, like the Catholic Church, or Baptist Church, or NIV of the Bible, or the KJV of the Bible. The Catholic Church wants it's members to assent their will and attest that it is infallible in all matters of faith and morals. I find that a crock of [edit]. The Catholic Church, I believe, is a constant and guarenteed source of Sacramental Grace. It is the original source and most complete source, but definitely not the only source of Grace. The Catholic Church can run itself and if it choses to say I can't be Catholic, so be it. It cannot say that I am not a Christian because it speaks in fallible human terms.

[thessalonian]

Anomoly, sounds like you have some issues with submission to deal with. That's all I will say. The Catholic Church does not say that those who are not Catholic cannot recieve grace. The problem I have in your post is that I see a lack of openness to the fullness of grace.

[Anomaly]

No. The problem you see is the my lack of willingess to say that the humans who run the Catholic Church are infallible to the extent they want to claim. I would concede the Church is infallible only in very limited instances. The Church is corrected often, despite itself, just as Grace resides with the Baptists and Pentecostals.

I find it amusing at the many different "main problems" I've been told I have.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1100994' date='Oct 25 2006, 04:30 PM']
Kath,

I agree with what you say regarding protestantism and the Bible. I agree it needs a teacher. But I don't find your concluding statements to be theologically correct. They are either/or's when I see it as both and. Yes the scriptures are instructions from God but that does not mean they don't need a teacher or are explicitly complete in themselves.[/quote]To repeat: the NT is not an instruction book in Christianity. I have not said that the NT scriptures don't come from God, or that they are not instructive, or that we can't learn from them. I have said that the NT does not teach doctrine. Doctrines are [b][i]inferred[/i][/b] or [b][i]implied[/i][/b] in the NT, not directly stated. They must be [u]deduced[/u] or [u]interpreted[/u] from the text.

Please show me where the NT tells us that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, begotton not made; that the Holy Spirit is a person; the method to be used in baptism; which family members should be baptized or not baptized; that baptism washes away sin or is only a symbol; how old we should be when we are baptized; whether or not we have to believe before we are baptised; that we should or should not confess our sins to a priest; that God does or does not predestine some people to Hell and the predestined have no control over their fate; that we can or cannot lose our salvation; that polygamy is permitted or forbidden; when and how we are to be confirmed, if at all; how to structure our worship services; which day of the week we should gather to worship; that sin is not possible before the 'age of reason' and what the age of reason is; how old we should be before we receive Communion; how often we should receive Communion (if at all); that Communion either is (a) symbolic, (b) or "spiritual," © consubstantial with the bread and wine, or (d) the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. etc. etc. etc.

These examples of a few doctrines from various denominations, and some from the Catholic Church, are not expressly stated in the NT and have to be [b][i]deduced [/i][/b] or [i][b]interpreted[/b][/i] when the NT is made the sole rule of faith and morals. The instructions for "what to believe and how to practice the Christian faith" are not given in the NT because that was not the purpose for which the NT was written by the early Church. And therein lies the problem.
-------------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1101166' date='Oct 25 2006, 08:59 PM']
© consubstantial with the bread and wine, or (d) the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. etc. etc. etc.
[/quote]
©

Sorry...the phorum corrects ( c ) to ©...it's just funny when it happens in a list...I've done it a few times myself.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1101178' date='Oct 25 2006, 07:13 PM']
©

Sorry...it's just funny.
[/quote]
Good thing this thread needed that "comic" relief.

Edited October 26, 2006 by Anomaly

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1101186' date='Oct 25 2006, 09:20 PM']
Good thing this thread needed that "comic" relief.
[/quote]