"Bible beleiving Church"

[Odell]

Pastor Jim I am going to go about this alittle different

Since Pastor Jim want answer my question I will go into detail of why he want and cant answer my question

Pastor Jim how am I to know your interpritation is correct? Lets forget im Catholic but I am a member of what you call a bible believing Church. How would I know that your interpritation is better or right while my bible believing Chruch contradicts your bible believing Chruch?

He cant answer because he knows he is falible my bible believing Chruch says something different. All I can do is read scripture and hope God leads me to the correct view that would be Pastor Jims failible interpretation.

For instance I know a many Baptist and Baptist ministers who dont believe Christ purifing us before we enter heaven denies the sufficiency of Christs atonement rmember baptist believe Jesus covers our sins this is why most protestants agree there is a final sense of sanctification when you die. Because Hebrews 12:22-23talks about the spirits in heaven that have been made perfect.

Again all Pastor Jim can tell me is read scripture and im doing that but all I got Is just hope, hope that God is leading me because im failible Pastor Jim is falible. He can tell me what he thinks scripture is but he is failible

So again how am I to know with out goiong into the subject of Purgatory that Christ sanctifying us before we enter is dening the sufficiency of Christ? How am I to know you are right and my good friend baptist minister is wrong?

He cant answer this because he is failible he could be wrong and I could be right

Just because you had the finest bible teachers around does not make you inallible either

I want a honest answer how would you tell a member of your Chruch that is contaplating or studing Ignatius writings as you did in bible school im sure. How would I know Im really confused how am I to derive the truth I read Ignatius and to me it dosent contradict scripture you dont seem to contradict scripture either im confused I read scripture and dont know where to go from here

What am I to do Pastor Jim?

What do you know the Pastor Jim cant answer this question either

Some Pastor we have here

He cant say read scripture and hope you agree with me and not Ignatius

Why because God gave us more than just meir hope he gave us more than a bible he gave us a Chruch that is the upholder and defender of truth that we can turn to. We dont have to turn to a failible Pastor when we have the Chruch

Pastor also cant answer that he knows Ignatius was Catholic. why then does he still believe the Catholic Chruch came into existince 400 years after the assembly of the bible because he knows he is wrong in one of the statments and he would be showing his faliblity. cant do that when your tring to convice someone your interpritation is right

sorry Jim but God gave us a Chruch. listen to her stop hoping your falible interpritation is right. he gave us so much more if you listen to her scripture will make so much more sence and you would beable to answer some one when they ask you simple questions

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Friend Pastor Jim. I have dealt with - and humbled - you before, sir. I find you to be a bomb-dropper, an obfuscator, and simply an agitant. Your posting record - which is lengthy - provides crystalline proof that you have no purpose here other than to cause disruption. You are not interested in dialogue; rather, you make bombastic claims and inflammatory accusations - on a Catholic website, mind you - and then retreat from the inevitable reaction and backlash to claim victimhood. This is not intelligent dialogue, sir; it is pure antagonism. Quite frankly, you should be banned, as you bring nothing to the table.

To back up my claim, here are quotes from you up to page 6 (I got tired of reading your screeds) of this thread. First, we will start with the agitation aspect:

*“They may all be Bible believing churches (although with the state the UMC and the Catholic churches are in, I’d be a little skeptical).”

“I mean that the Catholic church routinely teaches things that are not Biblical, ignores things that are, and puts it’s traditions and the opinions of “early church fathers” over scripture.”

“I have heard many non-Catholic Christians use the term essential and non-essential. For example, we, baptists for example, believe with the presbyterians when it comes to the essential doctrine but not the non-essentials. What are the essentials and non-essentials? As far as I know the Catholic Church does not teach that there are essential and non-essential doctrines.”

“Oh, no. The Catholic church absolutely does teach that there are essential doctrines. They’re just not the same essential doctrines and the Bible’s essential doctrines.”

“Christians are commanded to study the scriptures so that we may rightly divide the word of truth (that means that terrible “i” word that Catholics are so afraid of: interpret) in 2 Timothy 3.”

“Could you please show where the 1 John passage says anything at all about your eucharist? Or is this just another of your “self-interpretations”?”

“Ignatius is certainly welcome to his opinion, but an opinion is all it is.”

"I disagree. There are many traditions you hold that contradict scripture. "

“And once you learn the Bible, you become and ex-Catholic.”

“I reject the authority of your religious organization because your religious organization rejects the authority of the word of God.”*

And here we go to the retreat mode and declaration of victimhood status:

*“And I wish there was a Catholic here who was interested in sincerely discussing an issue and not just looking for an excuse to throw rocks at non-Catholics.”

“So then, because this is a Catholic website, insults and attacks by Catholics…what…don’t count?”

“Have you really been attacked? Or insulted? Please link to one: I’d like to see”*

Pastor Jim, please, show some manhood. All posts in which you are involved portray you as a dog chasing its tail, sir. Cease dropping bombs, getting a response you don’t agree with and which pins you in a corner, and then defensively lobbing another to confuse and obfuscate - over and over and over. This only stirs up the thread and negates any attempt at a true discussion - all the while causing offense. Conduct yourself in a mannerly, charitable way and you will be treated accordingly. To continue to behave as a child doing nothing more than trying to get a rise out of some peers does not reflect well on you, sir.

And it certainly isn’t doing God’s work.

First, please stop attributing statements to me that I never made. 2/3 of the things you’ve quoted me as saying were actually said by somebody else.

Second, isn’t it interesting that so many of your fellow Catholics have come to my defense stating that they do believe you and those in your corner have treated me unfairly.

One of your fellow Catholics, Michael96 (I think) was so upset by the way several of you had ganged up on me, he stated that he no longer wanted to post here.

4057664]Pastor also cant answer that he knows Ignatius was Catholic.

Actually, I’ve told you twice that Ignatius was Catholic and I know that you know I did because you then asked me if I taught my congregation that.

why then does he still believe the Catholic Chruch came into existince 400 years after the assembly of the bible because he knows he is wrong in one of the statments and he would be showing his faliblity.

Huh? I never said that the Catholic church came into existence in the 8th century.

In fact, I have acknowledged to you several times that the Catholic church was a part of the church that was established in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, roughly 34 AD/

sorry Jim but God gave us a Chruch. listen to her

I do listen to the church to the extent that what the church says is based on the word of God. I just don’t listen to your church because I’m not Catholic.

stop hoping your falible interpritation is right. he gave us so much more if you listen to her scripture will make so much more sence and you would beable to answer some one when they ask you simple questions

Honestly? How am I supposed to believe that becoming Catholic will make scripture make “so much more sence (sic)” after reading so many posts where Catholics have butchered the scriptures?

I wouldn’t invite you to “leave” Christ: I’d invite you to experince the fullness of all that Christ died to give us.

I have that now, thank you.

So by implication are we not in communion with Christ and His Church?

As much as you’re implying that we’re not in communion with Christ and His church by stating that we don’t have the “fullness of truth” or cannot take communion because we’re not in communion with Christ and His church.

Now before you accuse me of being a hypocrite (not saying you would, but if I left if there you could), I do think you are in communion with Christ and His Church, just not full communion, but in communion nonetheless. Did you mean to express something similar?

Yeah, I do believe that’s hypocritical.

 

[Neal]

…

Did you even read the rest of my post?

I mean, you quoted it, I said you are in communion, for the most part as you hold fast to the creed, I assume you do anyway.

I was asking if you hold that catholics are in communion at all or not…

quit playing the victim.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Tell the truth Pastor Jim, you love it in this forum, don’t you. You feel as if you are deflecting blows from those darn Catholics, as you reply to our posts with wild abandon.

The problem is, it gets to a point where you disgree for the sake of disagreement, and thats the point at which people become insular.

A good theologian from ANY faith, will study theological works from all religions, and understand where they are coming from: He may not agree, but he will understand. I’ve heard Scott Hahn, after he became Catholic, quoting from protestant scholars when those scholars had real insight into a particular subject. The truth is, ALL faiths have some truth in them, to one degree or another, and your & our beliefs our far closer than the beliefs of totally different religions, and therefore have more to offer each other…

But your kneejerk reaction against all things Catholic does you a real disservice. Granted, you may never become Catholic (even though I think you should) but there is much to learn from the great doctors of the Church and saints of the ages. Only a fool would throw out a baby with the (supposed) bathwater.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

I was asking if you hold that catholics are in communion at all or not…

I answered your question, but since I know how you love to ignore everything I say, I’ll repeat myself one time for you:

I believe that some Catholics are in communion as much as Catholicism believes that we’re in communion when they tell us that we don’t have the fullness of truth and will not allow us to participate in their version of the Lord’s Supper because they believe that we’re not in communion with Christ or “His church”.

 

[Odell]

Huh? I never said that the Catholic church came into existence in the 8th century.

Sorry I miss read
originally posted by Pastor Jim
If the Catholic church wrote the Bible, then how do you explain that 2/3 of the Bible was written at least 400 years before the Catholic church was established?

In fact, I have acknowledged to you several times that the Catholic church was a part of the church that was established in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, roughly 34 AD/

Well assuming you believe you can trace your lineage back to Christ as well

When did your Chruch stop having bishops and priest and authority over the flock in which it shepereds?

I do listen to the church to the extent that what the church says is based on the word of God. I just don’t listen to your church because I’m not Catholic.

You listen to your Chruch in which you are the head but you really have no athority as the early Chruch fathers did over there flock

You listen to your own falible interpritation YOU admit to being falible YOU admit you could be wrong

What you dont ralize is simotaniously you are saing you could be teaching error you could be saying something that is not the word of God

Did not Christ say whoever hears you hears me whoever rejects you rejects me. Can you say the same Pastor Jim?

Honestly? How am I supposed to believe that becoming Catholic will make scripture make “so much more sence (sic)” after reading so many posts where Catholics have butchered the scriptures?

Butchered:shrug:

Like when you cant explain Christ sanctifing us before heaven contradicts Chirst atonement

Like when you cant explain why you have no bishops

Like you cant exlain from scripture at least why YOUR congregation can throw you out YOUR own flock

You cant explain who has authority over you but you do believe in authority but if YOU dont have it then who does in your Chruch?

You cant answer that question Jim

 

[atmmgraves]

Pastor Jim, you are a dedicated obfuscator, sir. I would not bother with you any more except for this statement:

“First, please stop attributing statements to me that I never made. 2/3 of the things you’ve quoted me as saying were actually said by somebody else.”

My friend, every single quote I put in my post was stated by you, and only you. This is verifiable. Start at page one and proceed to page 6. They are all there for all to see.

To accuse me of “attributing statements to me (you) that I (you) never made” is, basically, calling me a liar. Which I am not. I will not accuse you of such, sir. I will state only the obvious - that in your frenzied attempts to obfuscate, confuse, and agitate the folks on this forum, you have chased your tail so often and vigorously that you yourself are too dizzy and discombobulated to remember what you yourself posted.

You are not bridging a gap, or closing a divide. You are widening it. This, again, is not God’s work.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

please stop attributing statements to me that I never made. 2/3 of the things you’ve quoted me as saying were actually said by somebody else.

---

They may all be Bible believing churches (although with the state the UMC and the Catholic churches are in, I’d be alittle skeptical).
.

I mean that the Catholic church routinely teaches things that are not Biblical, ignores things that are, and puts it’s traditions and the opinions of “early church fathers” over scripture.

I have heard many non-Catholic Christians use the term essential and non-essential. For example, we, baptists for example, believe with the presbyterians when it comes to the essential doctrine but not the non-essentials. What are the essentials and non-essentials? As far as I know the Catholic Church does not teach that there are essential and non-essential doctrines.

Oh, no. The Catholic church absolutely does teach that there are essential doctrines. They’re just not the same essential doctrines and the Bible’s essential doctrines.

Christians are commanded to study the scriptures so that we may rightly divide the word of truth (that means that terrible “i” word that Catholics are so afraid of: interpret) in 2 Timothy 3.

Could you please show where the 1 John passage says anything at all about your eucharist? Or is this just another of your “self-interpretations”?

Ignatius is certainly welcome to his opinion, but an opinion is all it is.

I disagree. There are many traditions you hold that contradict scripture.

And once you learn the Bible, you become and ex-Catholic.

I reject the authority of your religious organization because your religious organization rejects the authority of the word of God.

Pastor Jim did say all of these things note the links. Apparently, nobody said the last three quotes because they don’t show up on the CAF search function. It’s very strange because I do remember reading them. I’m almost positive Pator Jim said them. I guess when one edits their posts so often it’s easy to deny things were said.

 

[ziapueblo]

Pastor Jim,

You play the victim very well. I really like your statement:

First, please stop attributing statements to me that I never made. 2/3 of the things you’ve quoted me as saying were actually said by somebody else.

I checked. They are all your quotes.

Second, isn’t it interesting that so many of your fellow Catholics have come to my defense stating that they do believe you and those in your corner have treated me unfairly.

So many? Only 2 that I have seen, Michael96 and myself. And you haven’t even accepted mine. Your are antagonizing everyone on this thread. Asking questions of Catholics is one thing, but personal attacks on our faith is another. You say that you are being treated unfairly . . . hogwash! All we are doing is asking questions and because you cannot or will not answer many of them you play the victim.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Pastor Jim did say all of these things note the links.

Actually, I didn’t say all of them. About 2/3 of them are things people said to me that I responded to.

My friend, every single quote I put in my post was stated by you, and only you.

Actually, they’re not. Several of them are things that were said to me by others and were falsely attributed to me.

You play the victim very well.

Oh, that’s original.

I checked. They are all your quotes.

Actually, only a couple of them are my quotes. The rest are things said to me or questions asked of me by other people.

So many? Only 2 that I have seen, Michael96 and myself.

You can dismiss them if you like, but I’m grateful for their kind words.

You say that you are being treated unfairly . . . hogwash! All we are doing is asking questions and because you cannot or will not answer many of them you play the victim.

First of all, if that’s hogwash, then I guess all of your fellow Catholics who stuck up for me are full of hogwash, too.

Second, stop being such a child. You know very well that it has nothing to do with asking questions but with the way you couch those questions.

 

[Neal]

I answered your question, but since I know how you love to ignore everything I say, I’ll repeat myself one time for you:

I believe that some Catholics are in communion as much as Catholicism believes that we’re in communion when they tell us that we don’t have the fullness of truth and will not allow us to participate in their version of the Lord’s Supper because they believe that we’re not in communion with Christ or “His church”.

Okay, this is rediciulus, if you have read my previous posts you would see that I try and defend you half the time and I have not ignored anything you have said.

Your post implied that we were not in communion with Christ, I said, "hey we are, we both are, I hold that proteistants are not in full communion, but communion nontheless.

But what my subsequent post was about was the fact that you think that is hypocritical… its not! I still think that you are in communion with Christ, you are a Chritian who I assume holds true to the apostle’s creed. You said (read above) "not in communion with Christ or “His church”, I dind’t say that, or if I did earlier I clarified, talking about full communion.

It’s a whole different thing to say

“you guys have most of your stuff right, but not everything”

than to say

“you guys aren’t in Christ” which is what you implied in the original post.

Please try and respond more kindly, I must say that this bothers me, I mean, in theis thread alone I have defended you muliple times…triedto ease the tension.

thanks for nothing.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

thanks for nothing.

So, let me get this straight: when you say that we’re not in full communion, you say that that’s actually defending me, but when I hold you to the same standard and say that I don’t believe you’re in full communion, that’s wrong?

Isn’t that just a little hypocritical?

I’m curious, how is saying that we’re not in full communion with Christ “defending” me?

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Can I make a request?

Can we go back to whatever the topic is supposed to be about?

 

[adstrinity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziapueblo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I have seen things differently. However, I apologize for the way that you feel that you are being treated. May the Lord Bless you Pastor Jim.

Ah, yes. The Clinton apology. I haven’t seen one of those in a while.

“I apologize for the way you feel you have been treated” is not an apology. It is a way to shift the blame on the person allegedly being apologized to, and making it appear to onlookers like you apologized, without ever having to take responsibility for your actions.

An actual apology would simply be, “I apologize for the way you have been treated.”

Why on Earth would you think that apologizing to someone for the way that they feel is a reasonable thing to do?

Quote:
Is this not a personal attack against Catholics. Is this not putting down the Catholic Church. You are insinuating that Catholics are not born again.
No, actually, that isn’t at all what I said. Precisely the opposite. By stating that there are Catholics who are born again, I stated that there are Catholics who are born again.

The good news for you, though, is that your fellow Catholics don’t really care what I said, they only care what you tell them I said.

Quote:
Tell that to Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, and the waves of protestant PASTORS joing the Catholic Church.
OK. I would tell that to the scores of Catholics who leaving Catholicism and becoming Protestants and Baptists but they already know that.

Quote:
PJ, I’m not going to look for speceific quotes, but many times you will reply with “thats not what the Bible says” which can seem dismissive as we also have biblical backing for what we are saying
And there’s that Catholic double standard again.

Funny how a Catholic can take a verse terribly out of context and he has “Biblical backing” that I am not to question, but when I cite a passage of scripture without any commentary, just letting the text of scripture speak for itself, all you tell me is “you’re misinterpreting it”.

Quote:
I don’t know what that means
Don’t worry. Adstrinity is fluent. She’ll tell you what it means.

As I post this, I note Pastor Jim has already been banned, but, I didn’t see ziapueblo make this statement, and I don’t see why I was mentioned. I am posting this because I want to know where I missed this. This quote.

 

[ziapueblo]

It is great to be on these forums. I enjoy my conversations with Catholics. When I have questions about our faith. The responses I receive are outstanding. The Catholic Answers Forums have really helped me to understand my faith more and more. I have grown so much in my faith.

I also enjoy my dialogues with many of the non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians on this forum. I am very saddened that this thread turned out the way it did. God bless you all.

ZP

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Cool

 

[Neal]

So, let me get this straight: when you say that we’re not in full communion, you say that that’s actually defending me, but when I hold you to the same standard and say that I don’t believe you’re in full communion, that’s wrong?

Isn’t that just a little hypocritical?

I’m curious, how is saying that we’re not in full communion with Christ “defending” me?

had you read all of my post I said “prior posts” not this last exchange, but whatever, play the poor picked on victim. You DID NOT SAY initially that you thought we were in communion. Now if that is what we are saying then thats fine, we disagree, but the initial post that set this off was when someone INVITED you to visit the Church, you said “no thanks, I am in communion with Christ and His Church” or something to that effect and I was like, okay…so are we not in communion with christ, and I clarified that I think you are in communion with the church but not full communion, you said that is hypocritical, its not; mine was saying that we disagree but are all still in Christ, though not in full union with his church, you insinuated that we were not in communion with Christ or his church, so yeah, I take issue.

And if you read my prior posts in this thread you will see me saying basically, that everyone needs to calm down and take a breath and stop getting so heated, but it seems you want no part of that.

So whatever, be how you will.

 

[Neal]

oh, it seems he has been banned…

okay, reboot topic!

 

[lak611]

I was raised as a Catholic, went to CCD, Catholic high school and Catholic college. I received all my sacraments on schedule. I never understood the Catholic faith, though. I thought it was just a bunch of rules, so after college, when I was living on my own, I left the Catholic Church and did not practice any religion for 5 years.

I was (and still am) a music fan. One of my friends has a friend who was in a local Christian rock band. There was a Christian music festival. My friend asked me to go. I said I would, since I like music.

At the festival, there were representatives from various churches: Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. A man from the Baptist church gave me a KJV Bible. I had never read the Bible before and decided that I would read it. After reading the Bible (with only 66 books) all the way through, I finally understood what I had been taught about the Catholic Church. I repented of my sin, first to God and then to a priest, and went back to the Catholic Church. Since then, I have studied the Bible extensively in my parish Bible study.

The Holy Spirit used the Baptists to bring me back to the Catholic Church. :bible1:

 

[JustaServant]

oh, it seems he has been banned…

okay, reboot topic!

Before we were rudely interupted:

JED8643

Hypothetical situation:

A man goes to a local “rock” concert he reads about in the local newspaper. He is an avid music fan and although the bands advertised are “Christian” bands, he decides to give it a chance anyway. The man is basically agnostic and has no family roots in any organized religion.
Anyway, during the concert and preaching in between sets, the man has a deep conversion experience after hearing the Gospel for the first time. You could say “he got saved”. He responds to the alter call at the end of the concert and publicaly professes faith in Christ and accepts him as personal savior.
Now this is where it gets interesting. The concert is now ending and the preacher tells the new Christians to go out and find a “bible believing” church in order to take the next step in their new walk with Christ.

He immediately begins reading the bible and within the first week or two visit’s a handful of churches in his local area. After reading through scripture a question arises in his mind about Baptism. He wonders if he should have his two small children baptized.
He asks each pastor at the local churches he visits . The Lutheran ,Methodist and Catholic pastors say “Yes” (Baptism is regenerative) while the Baptist and Nondenominational pastors say “No” (Baptism symbolic; only for adult believers). Both groups use scripture to support views. He also brings up other topics such as predestination, end times prophecy and assurance of salvation . He gets many differing answers.

What qualifies a church to be a “bible believing church“?
Can all Christian churches regardless of doctrine claim this title? If the answer is no, what is the specific measure we use to determine it?

Sorry for the long story, I have heard this phrase used before and was hoping someone could explain it.

JED

savedsinner

I think that when the non-catholic churches claim to be “bible believing”, what they are really claiming is that they believe “scripture alone” as their final authority to teach salvation.
If the teachings of another church contradicts what that “bible believing” church believes the bible to be teaching, then the other teachings would be be deemed either unbiblical, or up for debate if it was not considered to be essential for salvation.

Most protestant churches believe in scripture alone as their sole rule of faith, that is having authority over the believer, with the traditions and the writings of the church fathers being helpful for insight to scripture, but if those resources contradict their interpretation of scripture, then they are not to be believed.

While the Catholic church believes in scripture and the church with its sacred traditions and teaching magisterium all having authority over the believer.

So with the Catholic church being a “bible believing” church, we believe that we look to the church for the correct understanding of what is written within the bible, the bible is inerrant and infallible, and the church is infallible in its teaching of what is held within scripture in matters of faith and morals.