"bible Is The Basis Of All Doctrine" - T Or F?

[Katholikos]

Lumberjack wrote on another thread, [i]How is Mary Related to My Salvation:[/i]

[b]"the bible is the basis for all doctrine... the teachings of Christ and the apostles."[/b]

I've started this thread to ask him:

Please provide the proof(s) [u]from the Bible[/u] for your statement that the "Bible is the source of all doctrine . . . the teachings of Christ and the apostles. . ." And, since the Bible is a collection of writings and not a continuous, complete-in-itself document, please provide the God-given, inspired list of the table of contents. Thanks.

Comments, anyone?

JMJ Likos

Edited May 18, 2004 by Katholikos

[Brother Adam]

The Bible is the divine revelation of God to man. While scripture in context claims the Old Testament to be good for all teaching, reproof, and so forth, in itself it is not a doctrinal treatsie. Nor is the Old and New Testament together.

It is sure ground on which doctrine should be built, and in the Catholic Church, the Word of God is the ground which the Foundation of Truth builds doctrines of Truth. It is the "Word of God", yet so to, must reformed Christians admit, was anything Christ said, the Word of God, for Christ is the Word of God incarnate. Yet Christ is not "The Bible incarnate"

When the Bible's canon was finally closed in 397, it's message would still be passed through oral tradition for over another millinium. Without printing presses and with a world over 90% illiterate, this is the means of passing on the gospel message.

[Aloysius]

you're gonna make a great Catholic apologist... maybe even one day rivaling Scott Hahn!!!

great explanation, my man. We're Sola Verbum Dei, and the Word of God encompasses the entire message and not just a closed book.

Pax Amorque Christi

[crusader1234]

At the end of one of the Gospel's it says 'more happened that if i wrote it down it would be too much' or something... And through apostolic tradition we can see there are many things that arent written in the bible that are true. I'm sort of lazy but you should get the idea.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 18 2004, 09:24 PM'] you're gonna make a great Catholic apologist... maybe even one day rivaling Scott Hahn!!!

great explanation, my man.  We're Sola Verbum Dei, and the Word of God encompasses the entire message and not just a closed book.

Pax Amorque Christi [/quote]
I just turned in my Application to Franciscan yesterday, so hopefully I will be able to sit under his teaching. As I keep reading Catholic books though, I'm finding that his books really are more introductory material, absolutely excellent introductory material though. I'm sure his actual classes will be increadibly difficult though.

Opus Dei member Father John Waiss gives an excellent explaination on what all encompasses "The Word of God" in "Letters between a Catholic and an Evangelical", which is a great read for everyone here on the debate table.

Edited May 19, 2004 by Brother Adam

[the lumberjack]

in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...

I guess you are right likos, we SHOULDN'T build our doctrine off of what Christ taught...or what God inspired the authors of the Bible to write...

you win.

God bless.

[dUSt]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 18 2004, 11:21 PM'] in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...

I guess you are right likos, we SHOULDN'T build our doctrine off of what Christ taught...or what God inspired the authors of the Bible to write...

you win.

God bless. [/quote]
Are these types of comments necessary? I consider this to be intentionally, and uncharitably taking someone out of context for the purpose of sarcasm.

Let's try to follow the example of Christ when replying to eachother.

God bless.

[CreepyCrawler]

oh i thought lumber was being sincere. i can never tell. but i'm gullible anyway. the following is not a sarcastic statement:


so.... we SHOULD build our doctrine off of what christ taught, what God inspired the authors of the bible to say, and what God inspired the church fathers to say, too. yes it's the bible but it's foolish to think that all of what God has to say and who He is can be contained in one book and that He doesn't use other means to communicate with us. the bible is one basis of catholic doctrine, but there are others and ultimately, it is all based on God. peace.

[Theoketos]

The Word in John was, is and will be Jesus. The Bible is based off of Doctrines, and True Doctrines do not conflict with the Bible, and are based in its wisdom.

It takes a big man to admit that some else wins.

[mulls]

it's not about us people trying to win. Christ ultimately wins.

the question is, are we doing our best to stay on His side?

[jasJis]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 19 2004, 09:28 AM'] the question is, are we doing our best to stay on His side? [/quote]
That's exactly the point. That means seeking all sources of Grace and the Holy Spirit that leads us to Him. That means not settling for just 1 source of Grace and Guidance and being open to all His abundant and overflowing aid. His Grace is in more than Scripture, more than the local bible study group, more than the lone preacher at your church, more than the 50 or 50,000 members of your local church.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 18 2004, 11:21 PM']in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...

I guess you are right likos, we SHOULDN'T build our doctrine off of what Christ taught...or what God inspired the authors of the Bible to write...

you win.

God bless.[/quote]

The New Testament is based on the living, dynamic, teaching Church. The NT reflects the teachings of the Church, not vice versa. The Church did not come out of the NT; rather, the NT came out of the Church.

The Church is the household of God, built upon the apostles and the prophets -- before the NT was ever written and collected into one 'book' (Ephesians 2:19-20). The apostles learned their teachings from Jesus who commanded them to teach what He had taught (Mt 28:20). Not everything that Jesus and the apostles taught was written down (John 20:30, 21:25). Part of it was preserved in writing and became the New Testament. Part of it was preserved and has come down to us through Sacred Apostolic Tradition. [i][b] Both[/b][/i] are equally the Revelation of God -- the teaching of Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

So doctrine is not limited to the written word. There's the Bible and then there's everything else Jesus taught -- the "rest of the story."

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[the lumberjack]

dust, with respect to the Bible, I have no respect towards people who make it less than what it is...

so, if there was and is a problem with my previous post, I am sorry.

if doctrines do NOT come from the Bible, then why did the authors of all the epistles even BOTHER to write to all the fledgling churches that they wrote to?

to correct, instruct, and help guide...since they could not be there themselves.

is there anything that a Christian does not need in the Bible?

we need Christ to be saved
we should have faith
we should be baptized
we should have good works
we should pray
we should fast
we should flee from evil
we should cling to good

and on and on and on and on...is there ANYTHING that the Bible doesn't teach us?

is there anything that we need as Christians in our walk that the Bible does NOT lay out for us?

and please, I beg of you not to delve into documents that seek to add to the Bible...whether 1900 or 19 years old, it doesn't matter how long they've been around if they're not correct.

Christ layed waste to the centuries of traditions the Jews had developed for themselves...he elevated the law to a degree that NO ONE could be saved by anything they did.

it went from "thou shalt not kill" to..."anyone who hates his brother is guilty of murder"

so it is because of Christ that I don't hold to any of the Catholic Church tradition of man.

God bless.

[CreepyCrawler]

i was always under the impression that christ didn't lay waste to jewish tradition but fulfilled it.

is there anything a christian needs that's not in the bible, you ask? well, you need God. God's not in the bible, He's talked about in the Bible but it can't contain Him. It's His words but the Bible isn't God. I think it's entirely possible to not ever see a bible and be a great christian, just like the early churches never saw a bible.
But, that doesn't mean that I am diminishing the Bible's worth at all. It's holy because it is from God but I think it's insulting to God to think that that's the only way He can communicate with us and that's the only thing we need. Who am I to limit God to a book?

[dUSt]

To answer your question, the Bible [b]does[/b] contain everything we need, but [b]we[/b] need more than the Bible.

For example, you could take a four inch thick medical textbook, containing everything you need to know about how to perform brain surgery--but without the proper teachers, a hospital, instruments, doctors, etc--that textbook really doesn't do you much good, does it?

We can even take it down to the most basic level. The Bible does contain everything we need, but we need more than the Bible: we need eyesight in order to see the pages, an education in order to read, a language in order for us to understand, etc. You say you don't need the Church--I say, the Church plays just as important a role in understanding the Bible as does eyesight, education and language.

God bless.

[the lumberjack]

jewish man made tradition or the Mosaic Jewish law?

they are two different things.

[the lumberjack]

dust, I don't know if I can take the analogy of a medical book and compare it with the Bible...its like comparing apples and cyborgs...at least to me.

but... in reference to the first post,

Paul (or someone else) went and verbally gave them the gospel, right?

right

THEN, when word got to Paul (or the other Apostles) that a church they had helped found had started to err, they had to write to them because they were busy and/or could not get to them as fast as a letter could...right?

right.

so, yes, I agree that we need someone to instruct us in the learning of the Bible...but we have all the reproof for learning, wisdom and knowledge located in its pages once we have that instruction.

this is not for personal private interpretation...this is what the early fledgling churches did, and this is why the apostles felt compelled to write and correct them...and revisit them if possible/necessary. or is this not the reason that Paul and the other authors of the epistles wrote to the churches?

hope you understand what I'm saying.

God bless.

[dUSt]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 19 2004, 02:31 PM'] this is not for personal private interpretation...this is what the early fledgling churches did, and this is why the apostles felt compelled to write and correct them...and revisit them if possible/necessary.  or is this not the reason that Paul and the other authors of the epistles wrote to the churches?

hope you understand what I'm saying. [/quote]
I understand. But the difference between you and me is you believe that the Apostolic authority Christ gave to His apostles ended with their deaths. I don't.

I base this on the fact that the Bible wasn't compiled for at least 300 years later, and certain books were left out--certain books were included. If the Apostolic authority Christ gave to His church didn't extend past the Apostles death, then we would have no basis for accepting the table of contents of the Bible as inspired.

Secondly, I base this on the fact that there is Biblical evidence that successors [b]were[/b] chosen for the apostles--the Biblical example being a successor chosen for Judas.

Correct me if I misinterpreted your beliefs.

[Quietfire]

Maybe I understand what you are saying Lumber, then again, maybe not.
But then explain that if we have all the reproof then why..
do some still argue that we should observe Jewish dietary customs?
do some still argue that we should observe Saturday Sabbath?
do some argue that Christ is not divine?
do some argue that Christ is or is not present in the Eucharist.?
do some still argue that after 2000 years, the Catholic Church is wrong?
do some still argue that revelation is in reference to letters written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor, and not some catastrophic ending of Earth?
I could go on and on, and on.
How many denominations? How many since the Reformation? How could everyone be right? and wrong?
If someone has been debating and defending the SAME thing for 2000 years, then why is it that some STILL wish to argue it.

These are all essentially the same arguements over and over and over again. And then on top of that, when something 'new' is shown, there are arguements over that...
"oh, its something that the Church 'added'."
Aw...Come on!!!!
Every time I read the same book, I find something new in it...but its the same book.
Every time I watch the same movie, I find something new in it...but its the same movie
Every time I go for a drive on the same route, I discover something new...but its the same route.

It is inbedded within us. We see things gradually because we grow gradually. Sometimes though, we dont see it because deep down we dont wish to grow. Whether it be fear, stubborness, idleness, anger, denial.
If we didnt grow gradually, then it would all be too much to take in.

Sometimes the information needs to come to us slowly.

Peace.
And sometimes I believe that after all these millenia, we will never grow up.

Edited May 19, 2004 by Quietfire

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='May 18 2004, 06:40 PM']Lumberjack wrote on another thread, [i]How is Mary Related to My Salvation:[/i]

[b]"the bible is the basis for all doctrine... the teachings of Christ and the apostles."[/b]

I've started this thread to ask him:

Please provide the proof(s) [u]from the Bible[/u] for your statement that the "Bible is the source of all doctrine . . . the teachings of Christ and the apostles. . ."  And, since the Bible is a collection of writings and not a continuous, complete-in-itself document, please provide the God-given, inspired list of the table of contents.  Thanks. 

Comments, anyone?

JMJ Likos[/quote]
Lumberjack, this was a two-part question based on your own statement:

1. Please provide the proofs [u]from the Bible[/u] that the Bible is the basis of all doctrine. (It has been established, from the Bible itself, that the New Testament does not contain the entire teaching of Christ and the apostles.)

2. Please provide the God-given list of the table of contents upon which you rely in order to be certain that the collection of separate writings contained in your "Bible' -- [i]ta Biblia[/i] -- is complete.

You know, of course, that when a Catholic and a Protestant say "Bible," they're not referring to the same book! Ours has 73 writings; yours has only 66.

Which of these Bibles is "the basis of all doctrine"?

Please answer. Thank you.