Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Catholics into the Bible?
CatholicBridge.com ^ | not given | David MacDonald

Posted on 09/11/2012 7:21:36 PM PDT by Salvation

Are Catholics into the Bible?

In this Article

  1. What does the Catholic Church teach about Bible access and reading?
  2. The Catholic Mass is totally Bible centred
  3. The Catholic Church protected the Bible
  4. Does the Church agree that the Bible is the unerring word of God?
  5. Why do we need help interpreting Scripture?
  6. Paul & Barnabus consulted Church authority on Scripture interpretation
  7. Isn't the Bible the only authority?
  8. Why does the Catholic Church think it has the right interpretation?
  9. Catholics take the Bible at its word
  10. Is the Church squashing private interpretation?
  11. Is an evolving understanding of Scripture relativistic?
  12. Don't most Evangelicals trust an interpretive authority?
  13. Why do Catholics refer to the Catechism? Why don't Catholics just use the Bible?

What does the Catholic Church teach about Bible access and reading?

In sections 131-133 of the Catechism we find this:

Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."...Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology...The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful...to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

I do not think it could be any clearer than this. The Church is telling Catholics "Read your Bibles." You may have heard that Catholics were not allowed read the Bible in earlier centuries. That is a very complicated subject that many Evangelical pastors have turned into a simplistic slogan against Catholics. In the days when peasants were illiterate, peasant Catholics depended on clergy who could read, on the Scripture stories as depicted visually on stain glass windows and statues. I explore the history of Catholic Bible reading here.

The message to Catholics of this generation, who are literate and able to read, unlike Christians in earlier centuries is "Read your Bibles." We thank our Evangelical friends for so enthusiastically getting into Scripture and helping turn the last century into an age of Bible literacy.

The Catholic Mass is totally Bible centred

The Processional March of each Mass is lead by a person holding the Cross and then a person holding the Bible up high in the air. What many Evangelicals don't know is that each Catholic Mass has four Bible readings in it, and the Liturgy is pulled right out of Scripture (Mat 26:26-28, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:17). This layout of the Mass has continued for over a thousand years. If I follow Church advice and go to Mass everyday, I make a beautiful journey through the Bible. Perhaps by going to daily Mass we do not learn the chapter and verse numbers but it is still a wonderful exposure to Scripture. It is kind of like this. When I was a kid I did not know all the street numbers in my neighbourhood like the postman, but I knew where everybody was because I was exposed to them every day. I got to know them. By going to Mass we get a fantastic exposure to God's Word.

Of course we have to study privately and/or in groups also and the Church instructs us to do that.

The Catholic Church protected the Bible

The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. They were incredibly accurate. We have a modern discovery that is a testimony to how accurate the Monks were when they copied the Bible. The "Dead Sea Scrolls" were discovered in 1947 and they date back to 200 BC. They contain Old Testament books such as Isaiah. They predate some of the Monk's copies by 1500 years. Yet the hand copied Bibles created by monks are almost identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is remarkable given that the Monks were working from copies of copies. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed.

The Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, spiral bound, with an NIV sticker on it. The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). A timeline of how the Bible came to us is here. Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:

"Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!"

Even the word Bible is a Catholic word. Surprizingly, the word "Bible" is not in the Bible. It means books from the Greek word βυβλος-byblos meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day.  We love the Bible. Honest!

Does the Catholic Church agree that the Bible is the unerring Word of God?

The Church's official position on the complete inerrancy of the Bible

The Catholic position on Scripture has always been that it is without error on faith and morals and also on everything else. It is the word of God, word for word. The imperfect people who received inspiration to write it did not mess up when they put the pen to paper, even though they were fallible humans. Even with the rise of science Vatican I asserted it, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pious XII, and Vatican II all reasserted the complete inerrancy of Scripture. The box to the right shows the councils and popes' reaffirmation of this truth.

Some modern "theologians" at Vatican II wanted to limit the inerrancy of Scripture to "faith and morals" allowing "errors" in Scripture on historical events, dates etc... but Pope Paul VI stood by the Church's consistent position. The line "for the sake of our salvation" probably meant that God gave us Scripture for the purpose of our salvation. It does not make sense to say that God would put exactly what he wanted in Scripture and create an error there. To assume that the inspired writers made mistakes is to put the Bible on the same level as every other inspired book, which clearly it is not.

Why do we sometimes need help interpreting Scripture?

Scripture says:

Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch...reading the prophet Isaiah...[Philip] asked "do you understand what you are reading?" He replied "How can I unless someone guides me?" and he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him (Acts 8:30-31)

Philip, who was an apostle and a representative of Christ's Church, helped the Ethiopian eunuch interpret the Scripture. In the Old Testament we read:

So the Levites read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8 - my emphasis)

Catholics and Evangelicals agree that the Bible is the unerring word of God. Where we differ is where the burden of interpretation lies. Evangelicals follow Martin Luther’s feeling that an individual can interpret the Bible perfectly if they pray first. Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit guides our Bible reading and illuminates our understanding. I've had some amazing experiences with Scripture where the words just came alive for me.

However, I'm not sure that every time someone picks up a Bible, prays, and starts reading, that they are surrounded by the Holy Spirit, even if they are sincere. For example, Martin Luther, after praying and reading the Bible, decided that the Book of James didn't belong in the Bible. To me this is a problem, because here is a guy prayerfully reading the Bible, who decided parts of it didn't belong there, yet he said the Bible was the unerring word of God. This seems kind of cyclical to me. In the preface to his Bible, Martin Luther said:

"the St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw ... for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it."

About the Book of Revelation, Luther said:

"I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . there are many far better books for us to keep."

So even for Martin Luther, Scripture alone was not enough, he acknowledged that there needed to be human authority governing it, he just thought that the authority should be him, rather than the Catholic Church.

Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. They say, "the main things are the plain things." My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are forwarded by sincere honest Christians who claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Surely God did not want people to have conflicting interpretations of Scripture, because that would be in conflict with the Bible itself which calls us to unity. (Jn 17:21) Each of these 33,820 denomination was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true.

Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about.

To me this is an unauthentic and superficial unity, not the deep unity that we are called to. Many have written to me and said "the only thing that is important is that we agree that Jesus is Lord." I totally agree that Jesus is Lord, but if that is all we needed to know then I wonder why He gave us 1500 pages of Scripture. He could have just showed up for a day and said "I'm Lord" and did a big miracle and split, but He didn't. He taught his apostles, who were the Church, for 3 years. His apostles wrote down his words and eventually it became what we now call the Bible. I think this was Jesus' wish.

Many "Bible believing" denominations who say "Jesus is Lord" have now ruled that Gay Marriage and abortion are OK. This includes Lutherans, some Methodist churches, the United Church, Anglicans, Episcopalians etc. That is their interpretation of Scripture. I have a problem with that. I think Jesus understood the human mind's capacity to rationalize its own wishes even with the Bible in hand, and while saying "Jesus is Lord." I believe we need a higher authority than millions of diverse and conflicting Christians with Bibles in their hands. Catholics think that the final word on the interpretation of Scripture falls on the authority to which Jesus appointed. (Mathew 16:18-19).

Paul and Barnabus consulted the central authority of the Church on the interpretation of Scripture

We have a Biblical example of the Church having a central interpreter in early times during the crisis of faith over circumcision. (Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3) This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.

Isn't the Bible alone the only Authority? (sola Scriptura)

That is probably the biggest division between Catholics and Evangelicals. So I thought I should explain it a bit and not leave it hanging, 'cause I can see how it seems blasphemous for a Catholic to say the Bible is not the "only" authority. Most certainly the Bible is infallible. However, Catholics believe that the Bible itself teaches us that the Church came before the Bible. Jesus did not write any books of the Bible. Jesus chose NOT to write but rather to build his Church, and 30-60 years later He inspired the members of his Church write down the Gospels. Several hundred years after that, He inspired members of his Church to decide what books belong in the Bible. A history of the Bible is here. If Jesus inspired members of the Church to infallibly write the Bible and later infallibly decide on what writings to include in the Bible, I think He can inspire the Church to make right interpretation of Scripture on matters that are critical to our salvation.

The following passage is often used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone)

"...the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training" (2 Timothy 3:15-16)

The passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree. Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need?  Most certainly not. Interestingly, there was no New Testament written back then so if this passage was saying Scripture is all we need, it would be saying that the New Testament wasn't necessary, which is obviously untrue.

Catholics believe that the "Bible alone" theory is not what the Bible teaches.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18)

Scripture says "And the Word became Flesh" (Jn1:1) It doesn't say "and the Word became paper." God became Flesh, He instituted and commissioned his Church. Later He inspired members of his Church to write, then He inspired members of the Church to discern which books to include in the Bible, and He inspired his Church to interpret it. This is what Catholics believe, and that is what all Christians believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Why does the Catholic Church think that its interpretation of Scripture is right?

Catholics believe Jesus ordained Peter and the Apostles to be the teaching authority over God’s Word to us. We believe that God gave Peter a special Grace to teach infallibly. Jesus said "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:18). We believe that Jesus extends this grace through Peter's successors to the present day Pope. We call this special grace infallibility. We think it is a rallying point and a great source of unity that Jesus summons us to in Scripture. More Christians are in unity with Rome in this way than all the other denominations combined.

The Catholic Church does not claim to fully understand all Scripture. There are many mysteries within its pages that still are not fully understood. What the Church is saying is that whatever has been revealed to it and set out in Dogma is true. There are many areas of Scripture that are still mysteries, and therefore not defined as Dogma. There is much for the Church to learn. We believe God is not finished with us. That is why we say that the Catholic Church is on a pilgrimage. (more about that below)

How is it possible for one organization to be confident in its claim of infallible interpretation of Scripture? Perhaps the question should be "Can God make it possible for one organization to have the power of discernment?" Could God do this if He wanted to? I believe every Christian would agree that He can do anything. The Church believes Jesus wanted to do this, He promised it, and He delivered. (Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13).

Catholics think that perhaps God organized the authority thing to prevent us from having a thousand variations of Catholicism based on every person who gets a conflicting insight about Scripture. If this happened, it would not be consistent with Jesus' wish for Unity. (Jn 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25 Phil 1:27 Eph 4:13-15, Eph 4:5).

Catholics take the Bible at its Word

A Catholic friend Gary Hoge says that he discovered that in most cases where Catholics and Protestants disagree over biblical interpretation, it was, ironically, the Catholics who interpreted the Bible literally, where we Protestants gave it a figurative, allegorical interpretation. For instance:

...It seemed to me that Catholic theology usually allowed the Bible to simply mean what it says, without the complicated exegesis and linguistic gyrations that were sometimes necessary to make it support my beliefs. (From Gary Hoge) Catholics do believe what the Bible says.

Is Church authority squashing the individual's private interpretation of Scripture?

I don't think the Church is into squashing the individual. In fact it has great respect for the individual. Most of our Saints were simple individuals not in positions of power. Yet they have become great examples to the whole Church. The Church has great respect for these individuals who have said "yes" to the Lord. The Church learns from these individuals and has incorporated their interpretations of Scripture into doctrine. The Church relies on gifted individuals. The Church feels that God has anointed some individuals such as Thomas Aquinas with understanding. The Church goes into a process of prayer and discernment on the validity of interpretations by individuals and makes doctrine from some of the interpretations that emerge out of this official discernment.

The Church is totally cool with private interpretation of Scripture. In fact many of our doctrines were defined through the giftings of people like Thomas Aquinas and Jerome who had private revelations about the interpretation of Scripture. These insights went through a process of discernment, prayer and examination by the Church. Once accepted, they eventually helped mold our understanding of what God was saying to the Church through his Holy Word.

The Church is also cool with guys like you and me having private revelation, if it does not conflict with sound doctrine. If we have a new insight into an area, it can be discerned, prayed over and reviewed the same way as it was for Thomas Aquinas and others who helped mold the Church's understanding of Scripture.

We have a recent example of this. Thérèse de Lisieux was a young nun who died at 24 years old. She was a "nobody" in the Church - just a little nun in a far away Carmelite convent. The Church looked at her writings and they were floored! They made her a doctor of the Church and she has influenced modern thought about the Bible in a major way. My evangelical friends will be glad to know that her greatest contribution was her total abandonment and confidence in Jesus. She had a personal relationship to Him. He was her personal Saviour.

 

What about the Catholic Church's evolving understanding, isn't that relativism?

Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. I would say that that is pretty well the entire job of an Evangelical preacher, to help people interpret Scripture and put it into practice in their lives. There are presently dozens of conflicting interpretations of Bible passages by different Evangelical denominations and cell groups. (i.e., the Rapture)  Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are claimed to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Truth is not relative then there is only one truth. Catholics think its better that it is interpreted by the authority to which Jesus gave the authority. (Mathew 16:18-19). The Catholic Church doesn't claim that it understands everything about Scripture. Rather, it says that what has been revealed and defined as Dogma is true. The Church is on a pilgrimage of faith and its understanding of the mystery of God is evolving.

What many Evangelicals do not know is that no mainstream Evangelical denomination agrees with the writings of the early reformers on some fundamental issues; for instance, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the role of the Eucharist, contraception, etc... Martin Luther's writings (even after the reform) are closer to Catholicism than they are to modern ECLA Lutherans. I think this clearly shows that the Evangelical understanding of Scripture has "evolved."

Richard John Neuhaus describes the Catholic Church's Pilgrimage of Faith this way.

. . . the Catholic Church, knowing that theological formulations fall short of expressing the fullness of truth, trusts the continuing guidance of the Spirit in a course of doctrinal development toward the ever more adequate articulation of God's Word relative to the questions posed by the time . . .(3)

Article 66-67 of the Catechism says:

"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. ...Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

Evangelicals had an "evolving understanding" of Scripture regarding slavery

Perhaps the best way to throw light upon the Catholic approach is to look a dilemma in the Protestant world in the last century. Many slave owners used Scripture to justify the slave trade. They had many Bible quotes to back it up. Some would say that people who were against slavery were against the Bible and therefore against God. However, good Christians had a revelation about the interpretation of Scripture. Careful and prayerful examination of these scriptural passages revealed that the abolition of slavery would in no way contradict Scripture. Although the Bible had not changed, its meaning on this matter sharpened. Scriptural understanding matured on this matter. After much pain, God's will on the interpretation of Scripture about slavery won out. Praise God. "Amazing Grace." (The Vatican's interpretation of Scripture always was against slavery.)

Right up until the 1500's Christians including the reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and the Catholic church thought the planet earth couldn't move around the sun. They cited Scripture passages stating that the world was "immovable" therefore they felt it could not turn as Copernicus theorized. (i.e., 1 Chron 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and Ps 104:5) 

Currently thousands of denominations are interpreting Scripture differently from each other, even though Scripture warns against this. (2 Peter 1:20) Each group is saying they have the correct interpretation. To me this is a perfect example of the "many truths" problem that is found in relativism.

Catholics feel that God is not finished with humanity and that He is constantly revealing things about his Holy Word to us. The Church is on a "Pilgrimage" of faith and understanding. It is maturing and evolving. I don't think the Bible is a dusty archaic book that is frozen in time. It is the living word of God.

Evangelicals often trust an "authority's" interpretation of Scripture rather than their own personal interpretation

Not many of us understand Hebrew and Greek of 2000 years ago which is considerably different from today’s Hebrew and Greek. Each translation of the Bible is interpreted based on many historical factors such language usage of the time etc. The Evangelical who reads the Bible in English, is already reading someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. They trust someone else’s judgment.

The minute we walk into Church and hear a pastor's sermon we are influenced on Bible interpretation. Every Evangelical who goes to a Bible study is being influenced by someone else's interpretation of Scripture. Every student in an Evangelical Bible College is being influenced. We must admit that we are all affected by many different influences when interpreting Scripture. And in a way, these Evangelical sources act as teaching authorities, the way the Vatican does for Catholics.

One of my Evangelical friends used to open up the New International Bible Commentary (an authority) in order to get the "right" interpretation. This does not appear to me to be consistent with his Sola Scriptural beliefs?  It seems that commentaries, concourses and even Bible studies are quite a Catholic idea in that they represent an "authoritative correct" interpretation of Scripture. Any Evangelical student in Bible college has accepted an "authoritative" interpretation of Scripture. But many of these organizations are in conflict with each other on the interpretation of Scripture even though their leaders are prayerful, brilliant, faithful and humble people. It still doesn't solve the unity problem. Who's right - they both prayerfully read their Bibles? Jesus wanted all Christians to be unified in their understanding of Scripture. We think the inspired authority explanation is more Biblical and offers a greater chance at Christian unity.

Why do Catholics refer to the Catechism? Why don't Catholics just use the Bible?

If I walk into any Evangelical book store I will find abundant commentaries on the Bible. Every Evangelical seminary has hundreds of books that are studies to support the students on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Every denomination has statements about how it interprets Scripture. The Catechism is a synopsis of the Catholic faith. Its primary source is Scripture. Its other sources are the history and writings of the very first Christians (which we call the Church Fathers), the liturgy, and the Church's teaching authority which is called the Magisterium. If you want to know what the Church teaches about anything from abortion to the Trinity, you will find it in the Catechism. The Catechism in no way replaces Scripture. It is dependent on Scripture.

 



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Related Articles

Other Bible Topics

The Role of Tradition
How come Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible
OK what's the deal on these "extra" books in the Bible
History of how the Bible came to us

Notes:

(1) http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/matt/mt15_1.htm

(2) Father Mateo at www.cin.org

(3) Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995, Neuhaus' chapter, "The Catholic Difference," 175-227; quote from 209-210:


1 posted on 09/11/2012 7:21:40 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...
I do not think it could be any clearer than this. The Church is telling Catholics "Read your Bibles."

Catholic Bible Ping!

2 posted on 09/11/2012 7:25:05 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I am not Catholic.
To the headline: I do not even understand the question.
I have in my family Nuns and Priests and they are all Biblical centered.


3 posted on 09/11/2012 7:32:52 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Catholic Scripture Study Bible - RSV Large Print Edition


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther



Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

4 posted on 09/11/2012 7:34:09 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I think the author is trying to get to those Catholics who might have a Bible on their coffee table, but have never picked it up to read it.


5 posted on 09/11/2012 7:36:06 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Tried to post but connection went zot. Agree with authot.


6 posted on 09/11/2012 7:36:51 PM PDT by Tax-chick (My love for babies is God's love.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Well, that makes sense.
We all should pick up a Bible now and then.
Check that - everyday.


7 posted on 09/11/2012 7:37:27 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I am overwhelmed with the hearsay in the bible. Most of it was written 40 to 140 years after the resurrection. The term hearsay is a statement made by a third party not available in the trial, taken for the truth of what was said out of court. The reason for this is there is no way to cross examine what was said and is painfully unreliable . It is simply no evidence and not permitted in any civilized courts. http://antinomianism-salvation.blogspot.com/p/the-bibledespite-contridictionserrors.html


8 posted on 09/11/2012 7:40:59 PM PDT by marygonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo

Ok.
I actually do not know your point here.
Third parties were eye witnesses.
Are you saying that Jesus was not The Son of God and was not The Savior?
Sorry, I really do not understand your point.


9 posted on 09/11/2012 7:44:28 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo

I think you might be wrong on the dates here.

The Old Testament was written from the oral tradition that had been handed down generation to generation while the Israelites were in exile — at least most of it was.

The dates of the New Testament writings go anywhere from around 30 to 40 years after Christ died till 90 years after Christ died.

Look up any Bible (Catholic) online and you will see the approximate authorship dates in the introduction of each book of the Bible.


10 posted on 09/11/2012 7:49:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Every day, the Mass centers on the Gospel with the Liturgy of the Word. Every day, the Word of God is proclaimed from Catholic pulpits.


11 posted on 09/11/2012 7:50:28 PM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Two thumbs up. WAY UP!


12 posted on 09/11/2012 7:58:27 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (Go Egypt on 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Two thumbs up. WAY UP!


13 posted on 09/11/2012 7:58:30 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (Go Egypt on 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo
Books of the Bible in Canonical Order
14 posted on 09/11/2012 8:01:43 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo; svcw
I am overwhelmed with the hearsay in the bible. Most of it was written 40 to 140 years after the resurrection....
http://antinomianism-salvation.blogspot.com

Howdy Benchim! Care to update your list of prior aliases, before you get zotted again?

marygonzo
Since Jun 15, 2012

delbertt
Since May 16, 2011

wildcarduces
Since Apr 12, 2011

Benchim
Since Sep 09, 2010


15 posted on 09/11/2012 8:02:12 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (At the end of the day, you have to worship the god who can set you on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Thanks, FRiend.


16 posted on 09/11/2012 8:02:25 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Ok, nice - relief its not me.


17 posted on 09/11/2012 8:04:59 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The Catholic Mass is totally Bible centred
... What many Evangelicals don’t know is that each Catholic Mass has four Bible readings in it,
///
very true. ...there are many misunderstandings and false beliefs about Catholics.
(and often, sadly, much pure venom!)
...i like how this article tries to bring us closer through the Bible we share.


18 posted on 09/11/2012 8:13:49 PM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I have a disagreement with the statement that a commentary is an “authority”. A commentary is an opinion. One that I am free to accept or reject as much of as the Holy Spirit, and my own intellect, lead me to.


19 posted on 09/11/2012 8:19:06 PM PDT by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“What many Evangelicals do not know is that no mainstream Evangelical denomination agrees with the writings of ...”

Hey, they recovered the Gospel. This led to the freedom to reexamine all of Scripture and examine those other issues. I’m thankful they did.


20 posted on 09/11/2012 8:19:12 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Sorry, gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

These final words from the bible would be the point I would suggest Catholics begin their study of the book.

Revelation 22:18
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.


21 posted on 09/11/2012 8:20:51 PM PDT by bramps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Third and fourth hand parties are NOT witnesses. If you sit in a circle of 10 people and tell a set of facts to pertson 1 who whispers it to the next person, what comes out at the end is not what went in at the top. Let’s take Luke ,for example. Luke was a protege on Mark. Mark had no first hand knowledge at all. He was a follower of Peter after the resurrection. Peter did not write!! (1st and 2nd Peter were not written by him— many think Mark wrote because he could write.) So you have Luke writing what Mark said what Peter may have said. That is double heresay!!
I am a steadfast believer in Jesus as the son of God (therefore saved) But I discount the false icon of the “bible” assembled 362 years after the resurrection. I think it is evil to worship the bible and not JESUS.


22 posted on 09/11/2012 8:22:09 PM PDT by marygonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Not me. Who are you?


23 posted on 09/11/2012 8:28:59 PM PDT by marygonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bramps

When the Apostle John says “this scroll” what do you imagine he is referring to?


24 posted on 09/11/2012 8:29:39 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo

I mean these Mohammedans.


25 posted on 09/11/2012 8:30:29 PM PDT by marygonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Elendur
The Catholic Mass is totally Bible centred
... What many Evangelicals don’t know is that each Catholic Mass has four Bible readings in it

What many Catholics don't know is that the Mass skips almost three-quarters of the Bible. For example, the daily Mass-attending Catholic hears 3378 verses (13.5%) out of the Old Testament in two years' time, and 5689 verses (71.5%) out of the New Testament in three years' time (the reading cycles repeat themselves after that). The Bible has 33001 verses, yet only 9067 are read in Mass, i.e. only 27.5% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) is heard by a daily-Mass-attending Catholic.

Check out the charts for yourself on the thread Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)

26 posted on 09/11/2012 8:31:54 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (At the end of the day, you have to worship the god who can set you on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What happened to the book of Bartholomew? He was actually there? And the book of Hermes? Instead they put James in there. All wrong. Even Eusephius admitted errors in the compilation 362 years after the resurrection.


27 posted on 09/11/2012 8:34:52 PM PDT by marygonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Leaving aside the fact that the average nondenominational/Evangelical hears less of the Bible at service than a Catholic hears at Sunday Mass, a Catholic who attends Mass daily will hear the entire Bible read to him over the three year cycle.

The percentage of non-Catholic pastors who systematically read the entire Bible from their pulpits to their congregation is approximately zero. The percentage of Catholic pastors who do so is approximately 100%.

28 posted on 09/11/2012 8:42:06 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

What’s interesting about the statistics you posted is that, if true, then Protestants probably only hear about 6% to 10%of the Bible in three years’ attendance of Protestant services. I say that because no non-liturgical Protestant goes to church services every day. None. And even those who go every Sunday would only go over a small portion with the service - often far less than what Catholics hear and read at Mass. Your statistics have really opened my eyes to just how deprived of scriptures through their sects Protestants are. No wonder so many Protestants know so little about God’s Word.


29 posted on 09/11/2012 8:43:25 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

A timely topic. My Catholic Women’s Bible study group starts up again tomorrow. It’s been around for about 5 years.


30 posted on 09/11/2012 8:43:40 PM PDT by married21 (As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

The ‘scroll’ that John warned against ‘adding to’ or ‘taking away from’ would be the bible itself.


31 posted on 09/11/2012 8:44:02 PM PDT by bramps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bramps

Incorrect. “This scroll” is the Book of Revelation.


32 posted on 09/11/2012 8:46:41 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chesley

To me, some commentaries are better than others. I pretty much go along with you, but the biblical scholars know a lot more than I do.

So I cautiously judge and choose.

My own interpretation is skewed by my life experiences.


33 posted on 09/11/2012 9:00:03 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Wouldn’t you know I’d run into the one person still alive who was there and actually talked with John!

How about these passages:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I commmand you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.


34 posted on 09/11/2012 9:02:43 PM PDT by bramps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
A good reference book for the biblical quotations in the Mass.

A Biblical Walk Through the Mass by Edward Sri (Book Review) [Ecumenical]

A Biblical Walk Through the Mass (Book): Understanding What We Say and Do In The Liturgy

35 posted on 09/11/2012 9:03:11 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo

Errors must have been discovered within them and they did not meet the criteria for the Canon of the Bible.


36 posted on 09/11/2012 9:04:37 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: married21

Our started up again today. We are studying the Book of John and the Letter of John.


37 posted on 09/11/2012 9:05:59 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; wideawake

Protestants actually read the bible themselves rather than depend on flawed Catholic translations. I became a Christian several years ago after becoming friends with Evangelicals who motivated me to actually read the Book. I soon realized that true Christians actually walk the walk 7 days a week rather than simply show up on Sunday and then ignore everything preached as soon as stepping outside of Church. Not to mention that Christians actually follow ONLY God’s word. Not man’s.


38 posted on 09/11/2012 10:16:41 PM PDT by bramps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bramps

If there was any real Catholic’s where were they when Caroline Kennedy said what she did as a Catholic?


39 posted on 09/11/2012 10:48:52 PM PDT by scooby321 (AMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Each of these 33,820 denomination was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true. Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about.

Not true. When are Catholics going to start being honest about the bogus 30k+ denominations? Seems like this gets tossed out as if everyone accepts it is a proven fact when it is NOT. However many denominations there are under the "Protestant" umbrella by no means implies that every one has a different interpretation of Scripture. There are central, main tenets that make up what is called Christianity. There cannot possibly be 30,000 DIFFERENT interpretations or beliefs about those tenets - that's ridiculous! I'd like to hear why there are hundreds or thousands of Catholic denominations then. Does it really mean there are that many differences in beliefs among them all? When an author has to state such a blatantly false statistic, then it calls into doubt anything else he might say. Sounds like pure propaganda to me!

40 posted on 09/11/2012 11:13:24 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“Each of these 33,820 denomination was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true. Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about.
Not true. When are Catholics going to start being honest about the bogus 30k+ denominations? Seems like this gets tossed out as if everyone accepts it is a proven fact when it is NOT. However many denominations there are under the “Protestant” umbrella by no means implies that every one has a different interpretation of Scripture. There are central, main tenets that make up what is called Christianity. There cannot possibly be 30,000 DIFFERENT interpretations or beliefs about those tenets - that’s ridiculous! I’d like to hear why there are hundreds or thousands of Catholic denominations then. Does it really mean there are that many differences in beliefs among them all? When an author has to state such a blatantly false statistic, then it calls into doubt anything else he might say. Sounds like pure propaganda to me! “

The much bandied numerical denominations you and others herein have mentioned come from a protestant, that is to say non-Catholic book. The fact that Catholics mention this number is one thing. The fact that the number has been used repeatedly in the various editions of that book and other similar ones is of course a seperate matter, and one you should take up with the author, if it is such a bother.

Whether you care for or wish to dispute the number of the denominations, they are, without question, many. And unlike your statement, there are NO Catholic denominations. There is ONE Catholic Church. There are a number of rites within the Catholic Church. A rite represents an ecclesiastical tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. The beliefs are the same. For clarity, I will repeat this:

Whatever the number of the denominations one wishes to use, they do not believe exactly the same thing. PERIOD.

ALL of the rites of the Catholic Church BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. Unlike the denominations, they are ONE. This is because they are the Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ Himself.

A bit from scriptureCatholic on that:

“Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).” There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

John 17:9-26 - Jesus’ prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.

John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.

Rom. 15:5 - Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.

Rom. 16:17 - Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.

1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - again, the Church does not mean “invisible” unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.

Eph. 4:11-14 - God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church.

Eph. 4:3-5 - we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.

Eph. 5:25 - the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.

Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 - we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations.

Phil. 1:27 - Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.

Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different “Protest”ant denominations?

Col. 1:18 - Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.

1 Tim. 6:4 - Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.

2 Tim. 2:14 - do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ’s Church.

2 Tim. 4:3 - this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ’s teachings which He gives us through His Church.

Rev. 7:9 - the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is “catholic,” which means universal.

1 Peter 3:8 - Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.

Gen. 12:2-3 - since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church.

Dan. 7:14 - Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.

1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ’s Church.”


41 posted on 09/12/2012 2:40:07 AM PDT by sayuncledave (et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bramps

I will accept your sarcasm as an acknowledgment that you added to Revelation a sense it did not carry.


42 posted on 09/12/2012 3:16:37 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bramps; vladimir998
Bramps, you clearly cannot read either Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic for that matter) therefore you do not have the discernment to judge the accuracy of any translation of Scripture.

Moreover, you have no way of knowing what books do or do not belong in the Bible - you have no objective standard for assessing which texts are God's Word and which are man's.

You accept a canon given to you by men.

Finally, your post implies that no Catholic "walks the walk" 7 days a week. That's an indefensible proposition on many levels and only defensible on the ground that no Christian alive has not fallen in some way.

43 posted on 09/12/2012 3:25:05 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bramps

You do realize you are not being humble before God and are guilty of the sin of Pride, right?


44 posted on 09/12/2012 3:30:16 AM PDT by verga (Forced to remove tag line by administrator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; sayuncledave
You say that are certain main tenets that define Christianity, bb, and that the view that there are 30,000 denominations is propaganda - presumably because the main tenets are held to by these denominations.

I would point out that of the groups that hold to "the Bible alone" as their standard there is differentiation on many "main tenets": (1) simple predestination versus double predestination versus free will (2) Trinity versus Oneness (3) infant baptism versus believer's baptism (4) premillenialism versus postmillenialism versus preterism including pre tribulation and post tribulation varieties (5) signs and wonders continue versus signs and wonders ended with the apostolic age (6) dispensationalism versus covenant (7) the "prosperity Gospel" versus Christian simplicity (8) women in ministry versus women outside of ministry (9) substitutionary atonement versus "example of love" (10) Spiritual presence in Eucharist versus memorial, etc.

These are all main tenets to many, many Christians. There are more than 10,000 possible combinations of views right there.

Far from being "ridiculous" this kind of doctrinal pluralism is a stark reality.

45 posted on 09/12/2012 3:52:51 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bramps

You’re so cute!


46 posted on 09/12/2012 4:04:54 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa (Vote for Goode, end up with evil, pat self on back repeatedly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; sayuncledave; Salvation
There are lots of these new bjorn groups, new ones are created every day

  1. Some say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
  2. Some say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
  3. Some say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
  4. Some say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
  5. Some say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
  6. Some say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
  7. Some say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
  8. Some say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
  9. Some say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
  10. Some agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
  11. Some agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
  12. Some agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
  13. Some believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
  14. Some agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
  15. Some say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
  16. Some say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
  17. Some say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
  18. Some say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
  19. Some say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
  20. Some say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)
Which of these are "true" ?

Of course, there's a lot of change happening. Next week the North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism is due to split into the Central-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism and the Central-Southern-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism, but this is good driven as there as a dispute in the Congregation on matters of doctrine, Bobama thought that he should be Preach-pasto-Prophet Elder on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and alternate Sundays while Michelle thought that she should be that -- as she had yoga-pilates-kickboxing class on Thursdays.

47 posted on 09/12/2012 4:58:20 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; sayuncledave; Salvation
the problem is the motto "semper reformanda" -- always reforming. There are new directions being found, new interpretations everyday.

Each new bunch of Reformatters reformats the old.
  1. You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
  2. Generation 2: Then you have the Calvin-Zwingli crowd rejecting these two as well as other aspects of orthodoxy
  3. Generation 3: Knox and the Anglican compromise
  4. Generation 4: The Unitarians like Michael Servetus who went from being Catholic to Lutheran to Reformed to denying the Trinity.
  5. Generation 5: the Baptists who now rejected infant baptism (quite unlike their namesakes the Anabaptists (now called Mennonites)) and said that there was a great Apostasy in the first centuries of Christendom (Gen 1-3 took later centuries as the dates of their "Great Apostasy")
  6. Generation 6: the Restorationists at the Great Awakening, like
    • The Millerites, to become the Seventh DayAdventists -- with Ellen G White saying that Jesus was the same as the Archangel Michael and that Satan woudl take the sins of the world at the end of time and other beauties. They came up with their own version of the Bible
    • The Unitarians and Universalists -- reborn and reinvigorated by this reformatting, they tossed out the Trinity and eventually they end up as they are today where they believe in nothing
    • Jehovah's Witnesses: they tossed out the Trinity too and came up with their own version of the Bible
    • The Mormons: they took the Trinity and made it three gods. They too came up with their own version of the Bible
  7. Generation 7: the Orthodo Presbyterian C, the FourSquare Ahoy! Pentecostalists, the Raelians, the Branch Davidians, the Creflo-Dollar crowd, the Jesse Dupantis (I went to visit Jesus in heaven and comforted Him) etc -- one step further beyond generation 6
  8. Generation 8: ... any one of the new sects formed since 1990

48 posted on 09/12/2012 4:59:14 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

They were calling for her to rephrase her statement to “As a protester against Catholic morals....”


49 posted on 09/12/2012 5:01:44 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bramps; wideawake
The closing of the book of the Apocalypse says not to "add" or "take away from" this (i.e. Apocalypse/Revelation) book

The Bible is a collection of books, of which Revelation is just one

50 posted on 09/12/2012 5:05:27 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson