The Bible Is Not An Instruction Book In Christianity

[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]

[Justified Saint]

The original point is well said (and all its re-statements). The Bible is not a rule book or a program on how to live your life. If the truth is to set you free then that will take some work (i.e. thinking, interpretation, application etc.)

It is the Protestant and Fundamentalist mistake to confuse the Bible with its so-called "plain meaning" as though it came to us completely unmediated from the mouth of God. Once you make that move then you have made an idol. We seem to forget that church dogma and doctrine are interpretations that are deduced from the text, like Katholikos said. If you equate dogma with some kind of scientific 'fact' of the text then you are heading down a blind alley that will only lead to despair.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1100688' date='Oct 25 2006, 08:00 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]
How did I miss this?

While I agree [b]our relationship with God is more than a book[/b], certain $12.97 books are a part of the relationship with God.

If we imagine our faith as a locomotive and our journey to God with the tracks being laid by God, Scripture, the Catechism, the writings of saints, and other proper books fuel the engine. The more we read these works, the stronger our engine becomes. The less we consume these works, the engine becomes weaker and colder. "I think I can. I think I can" becomes "I think I can't. I think I can't," and we end up taking the wrong track at the next junction.

It's easy to tell someone to have a relationship with God, but imagine there was no Scripture, no writing of the saints, no Catechism. Our faith would be a train wreck. God knew this. When the Israelites were lost, God gave Moses the written word. He didn't say "I'll be your Father" and leave it at that. It required instruction. The message could have been relayed by Moses as it was done many times before, but that wasn't enough. He wrote it into tablets.

The Word gave direction and meaning to the relationship between God and his people just as that $12.97 book does.

[Budge]

[quote]The Bible is not an instruction book in Christianity.[/quote]

Sigh, it is always sad for me to see a Catholic who has managed to have scripture chained away from their heart.

Scripture is an instruction book and better said a GUIDE.

[b]Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.[/b]

What does that verse mean to you? Anything?


[quote]The Bible does not contain the entire revelation of God[/quote]

Name one revelation [b]not in the Bible[/b], that a Christian needs to know.

Do you realize the Bible itself, says IT IS WRITTEN over 90 times?

I googled that phrase on a KJV Bible site.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103196' date='Oct 28 2006, 12:55 PM']
Sigh, it is always sad for me to see a Catholic who has managed to have scripture chained away from their heart.

Scripture is an instruction book and better said a GUIDE.

[b]Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.[/b]

What does that verse mean to you? Anything?
[/quote]
Yes, God's word is transmitted through Scripture and Tradition. These together ARE a guide for Christianity.

[quote]Name one revelation [b]not in the Bible[/b], that a Christian needs to know.

Do you realize the Bible itself, says IT IS WRITTEN over 90 times?

I googled that phrase on a KJV Bible site.[/quote]

Well, according to you, sola scriptura would be one such revelation, although we would disagree.

[cmotherofpirl]

The Trinity

[Cam42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103196' date='Oct 28 2006, 10:55 AM']

Name one revelation [b]not in the Bible[/b], that a Christian needs to know.

[/quote]

The Immaculate Conception.

[Akalyte]

Three Legged Stool:

Magesterium
Scripture
Tradition.

=Christianity

[cmotherofpirl]

the idea that Revelation is closed

[XIX]

Whether that cute red-headed girl likes me.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103196' date='Oct 28 2006, 11:55 AM']
Sigh, it is always sad for me to see a Catholic who has managed to have scripture chained away from their heart.[/quote]It's always sad for me to see a Protestant who has no knowledge of the history of the Bible, misinterprets it, and tries to twist it into serving a purpose for which it was not intended.

[quote]Scripture is an instruction book and better said a GUIDE.[/quote]Protestants have tried to make it into an instruction book, but that is not what it is. The NT is not comprehensive, and it does not give instructions on exactly what we must do to be saved. all that we are to believe, and how to put our faith into practice. It is a [u]collection[/u] of the Catholic Church's own writings. which record the early life of the newborn Church. It's like a family album. Make no mistake -- it is the inspired Word of God; but it is the Church who teaches us this, not the writings.

[quote][b]Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.[/b]

What does that verse mean to you? Anything?[/quote]It means that God's written word is not His only word.

[quote]Name one revelation [b]not in the Bible[/b], that a Christian needs to know.[/quote]The list of books that belong in the Bible.

[quote]Do you realize the Bible itself, says IT IS WRITTEN over 90 times?

I googled that phrase on a KJV Bible site.
[/quote]And do you realize that each time "it is written" appears in the Scriptures, it refers to the Septuagint OT Scriptures rejected by most Protestants? Go figure. The NT would not be collected, canonized, and preserved until the end of the fourth century.

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