Why are Catholics so against Scripture only ?
You can't use John 21:25 because that talks about the things Jesus "did" not said.
You Can't say how important tradition is because there is bad tradition also - Mark 7:8.
The Bible itself says that the Bible is all we need for doctrine:
"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
So there is one church that is the pillar of truth out of all the denominations. So how do we know which one is the true church? The one that lines up with the Bible. And that can not be the Catholic church with all its non-biblical doctrines (Mary, purgatory and infant baptism).
So you do not consider the New Testament valid Scripture for doctrine?
Peter even said that Paul's writings were Scripture - 2Peter 3:16-17
Scripture and tradition go hand in hand?
Show me one baby baptized in the Bible
Show me the assumption of Mary in the Bible
Show me Purgatory (the place mentioned not assumption) in the Bible
Show me the office of the priest in the Bible
Show me the sprinkling or pouring method of baptism in the Bible
I am not talking about “assuming” interpretations but Scripture that is with out a doubt.
- Monica VLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
Most Catholics that I meet in person aren't against scripture. Usually, I show them what the Bible says, and I show them how it clearly contradicts what Catholicism teaches. Almost every time, the person immediately confirms their long held suspicions that the Catholic church is religious corruption. They see the truth of the real gospel, then they Accept Christ as Savior and begin living their life as a Christian for the first time.
Catholicism is against Scripture, but most Catholics aren't. They're just caught up in the middle and don't know any better until we show them.
- WolfeblaydeLv 71 decade ago
You've completely misinterpreted 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Nowhere in those verses does it say that the Bible is the *only* means of formulating doctrine, but that's how you and many other Protestants choose to read it.
In point of fact, "Sola Scriptura" is unscriptural, itself. Paul speaks of clinging to the traditions which have been handed down:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
And your last comment makes it clear that no matter what a Catholic tells you about the Scriptural foundation for our doctrinal beliefs, you intend to reject it. Even when Scripture is cited, you'll weasel out of agreeing with a Catholic because it's "assuming" an interpretation. That's a classic Baptist/fundamentalist/evangelical take on "Heads I win and tails you Catholics lose" if ever I saw one.
If you prefer to worship the Bible instead of God, that's your right and privilege. But your assumption that you alone are correct labels you as both self-righteous and arrogant -- two traits that God hates.
And that, my dear, *is* most definitely Scriptural:
Proverbs 30:12-13 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.Source(s): Catholic convert Zero tolerance for anti-Catholic bigotry in '09
- Anonymous1 decade ago
1) Why are Catholics so against Scripture only ?
You don't have to be Roman Catholic. Follow the logical trail with me...
A) Only Scripture can be used to form valid doctrine. Therefore,
B) Any Christian doctrine not based on Scripture is not valid Christian doctrine.
C) Doctrines A) and B) are not based on Scripture....
2) The Bible itself says that the Bible is all we need for doctrine:
a) That is clearly NOT what that passage says
b) Even if you interpret this passage (I don't know how) to arrive at "the bible is all we need for doctrine", that is STILL not the same as "the bible is the ONLY source of valid doctrine". Following that logic, if all I need to live is bread and water, I should never eat anything other than bread or drink anything other than water!
Final thoughts: I am a Fundamentalist Christian. I believe that the bible is the *most reliable* source of Christian doctrine, and I believe that it should be interpreted literally except where the bible itself indicates otherwise.
That being said, there is a difference between "non-biblical doctrines" and "doctrines contrary to the bible". We see something VERY much like the Roman Catholic purgatory here, for example (18-22):
though it most definitely does not detail the place of the unsaved conscious dead in the way that the Roman Catholic Church does.
But, really - if you accept Scripture as your sole guide, how can you condemn practices that do not **contradict** Scripture, such as infant baptism and purgatory? To put it more simply: if Scripture does not indicate that these doctrines are wrong, why would you believe that they are wrong?
- SldgmanLv 71 decade ago
You cannot use 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 to condone sola scriptura because the "Scripture" refered to in that verse does not include ANY of the New Testament, which is part of our Scripture. Yes, Peter later says that Paul's letters should be considered Scripture, but where does that leave the Gospels, the Book of Acts, James, Revelation, and other books not written by Paul?
Secondly, you are trying to make that verse say something that it does not say. The first word of the verse is "all", not "Only" Catholics do not deny that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, but that verse does not say that "only scripture is profitable for doctrine"
Lastly, "Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that was invented in the 1500s by people who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church. They had to have some authority, so they declared the Bible their own authority.
The doctrine of sola scriptura also make the preaching of your own ministers as well as your own preaching meaningless.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- tebone0315Lv 71 decade ago
Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 38,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 38,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Did Jesus Christ write down any part of the New Testament with His own hand? No, He did not. If the Bible was to be the sole authority of the Church, shouldn't the Founder have written down His Own teachings? Shouldn't He have at least stated something similar to the following: "the written works of My disciples will be the authority upon which My Church is based?"
Didn't Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings? No. With the possible exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles. In fact, only the Apostles Sts. Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the ONLY authority to be followed in the Christian religion?
Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all." Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages. All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone. Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?
- DMGLv 51 decade ago
Why do you feel compelled to tell Catholics what they believe? Obviously you are neither an expert or know by being one, therefore your ignorance comes through loud and clear. You spread false testimony. Anyone I have ever encountered who has done this sort of thing, does it in the hopes of garnering hatred toward the victims of the gossip. You claim to be Christian, but hate mongering is certainly not what Jesus taught. Your actions speak for themselves, and you will harvest the fruit of your planting.
- Jim ((C.A.B.))Lv 61 decade ago
Well, placing a BOOK in equal position with GOD is unbiblical in itself, is it not?
Which did JESUS HIMSELF establish: the Bible, or the Church?
Answer: the CHURCH. As "misty" stated, Christ never even instructed His Apostles to write down anything. But, being the good men of God they were, they did anyway.
Christ Himself, however, DID establish the Church. He instructed us to use this wonderful extension of Himself to continue His works of revelation and salvation. See Mt. 16: 18-19.
Don't get me wrong... the Bible is wonderful as well. It is truly the Word of God. But it is not the ONLY tool that God has instructed us to use.
<<"Show me one baby baptized in the Bible">>
Well, there was Jesus... But I don't suppose that is enough for you, is it?Source(s): Mt. 16: 18-19 states: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ((C.A.B.)) = Catholics Against Bigotry
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Their leaders discourage Bible reading because they don't want the people to find out that it's a man-made religion. They don't go by the word of God, the Bible. They are like the Pharisees making a public show of their religion and having a religious spirit.
- CLv 71 decade ago
Because Jesus left us more than just Scripture.
In fact, Jesus did not even directly leave us the Scripture. Scripture was compiled 300 years later by the Catholic Church. Do some research on the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Jesus left us:
1. The Sacraments
2. The Church.
3. Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Your verse says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, Catholics would agree with that. It does not say that "Scripture alone is to be used"
But, the teachings of the Catholic Church can not be in conflict with Scripture. And they are not, aside from a few twisting Scripture or taking it out of Context.
How do I know? Well I was a Protestant for 42 years and studied the Catholic faith for the last 20 off and on before becoming Catholic. I have checked all of those Catholic Bashing verses that get thrown out, and when you shine the light of day on them, and study the meaning of the whole scripture instead of one verse, it is very easy to see.
If all Jesus wanted us to have was a book, he would have left us one. He did in fact leave us the Church.
Peace and God Bless.
- 『 』Lv 71 decade ago
For one "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. " [John 20, 30]
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with the angels of His power: in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8)
"Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9)
The principle of “the Bible alone as the sole rule of Faith”, cannot be a true principle of Christianity because it has no basis in the history of Christianity.
How did the early Christians learn their Faith?
How was the Faith communicated to them?
How did Our Lord tell the Apostles to communicate the Faith, the truths which must be believed for salvation?
He commanded them, “go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”. He said to Peter, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18). And Saint Paul taught clearly that it is the Church that is the pillar and mainstay of truth (I Tim. 3:16).
Our Lord gave to Peter authority, and He commissioned the Apostles to preach in His name. “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21).
Our Lord wrote no books. Nor did He say to His Apostles: “Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself”, which is the essence of Protestantism — each individual reads the Bible and decides for himself what are the truths of Christianity. No! As I said, Our Lord established a Church to teach in His Name: “He that heareth you heareth Me, he that despiseth you, despiseth Me” (Luke 10:16). “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt. 18:17).
The Church and the Faith existed before the New Testament. Only five out of the twelve Apostles wrote anything down at all! The Church was teaching and administering the Sacraments, the Apostles were forgiving sins, the Church was making martyrs for seven to ten years before one jot of the New Testament was set down on parchment.
The Church was spread throughout the entire Roman Empire before a single word of the New Testament was written. We had Catholic saints and martyrs before we had Gospels and Epistles.
The first Gospel was written by Saint Matthew, about 7 years after Our Lord left the earth. The next was the Gospel of Mark, written 10 years after Christ ascended into Heaven. The Gospel of Saint Luke was written 25 years after Our Lord’s Ascension, and the Gospel of John was written 63 years after Our Lord left the earth. The Apocalypse was written a good 65 years after the Ascension of Our Lord. And all of this was written, as Pope Leo XIII reiterates, under Divine inspiration.
If Scriptures are clear to understand, why did Martin Luther and his imitators make new catechisms of Christian doctrine? Why do they fill the libraries with innumerable books of interpretations, explanations and commentaries? Above all, why have they any churches, where the Scriptures are explained, if the Scriptures are sufficient? And if there should be a church, why so many churches, of so many denominations, in every city and in every town? If there is a clear statement that in the Scriptures which all Christians should endeavor to put into execution, it is certainly the desire which Christ expressed in His prayer to the Eternal Father on the eve of His Passion and Death, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17, 21). What else do such words mean than that all Christ's followers should first of all have the same faith?—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4, 5).Source(s): "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book." Jn. 20:30 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Jn. 21:25 "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you." 1 Cor. 11:2 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:14 "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thess. 3:6 "Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us." 2 Tim. 1:13_14 "And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." 2 Tim. 2:2 "But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them." 2 Tim. 3:14 "As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father." 1 Jn. 2:24 "But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ." Jd. 2:17
- 1 decade ago
because the scriptures convict, because the Bible goes against everything the catholic church stands for, becuse God wrote the Book and its ALIVE, because of course naturally the catholic church being a crupt seed, not of God (therfore they are of the Devil) (Luke 16:13) the devil doesnt want them to read the Bible and find out the Truth! the Truth that JESUS SAVES. its not of Good works, baptisim (infant or grown), its through the Blood!!!!!! praise the LORD!!!!!!! *gospel bumps* that is why!
and btw if yall are trying to find anything to support baby batisum,, assumption of mary, purgatory, and water sprinkling, in the bible FORGET IT!!!!!!! sorry to bust yalls bubbles but ITS NOT THERE!!!!!!!!!
id encourage you take the time to look up the following scriptures
1 Timothy 2:5
Hebrews 9:27Source(s): THE KING JAMES BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!