Bible statements for "Bible Christians"

[JaneFrances]

Well maybe you should look beyond the walls.
Try going to a forum that has less than 90% catholics, and pose the question what was the sermon and readings on today… you’ll find many episc. anglican and conservative lutheran churches all preached from the same reading. I forget the term but know it to be true.

The term is Liturgical readings.

And I’m not so sure Anglicans and conservative Lutherans, especially, would consider themselves “Bible churches.” To be sure, these two faith traditions, like the Catholic Church have a strong emphasis on Sacred Scripture, but they are hardly on par with the contemporary qualifications of “Bible church” as they both also hold fast to many aspects of liturgical worship and sacramentality.

 

[allischalmers]

Bible Christians believe that they are they ones that are the true Bible believers and Catholics are not. I’m compiling a list of statements made by the inspired writers of Scripture that you’ll never hear from a non-Catholic service or evangelizer. I’m sure my fellow Catholics will be able to add more to this list, but I wanted to throw out some appetizers.

Question #1: when was the last time a “Bible believer” preached on the truth that “Baptism now saves you” as does St. Peter in his Epistle? Why does an inspired author have no problems saying those words, but Bible believers do?

Question #2: When was the last time you heard a sermon on “faith without works is dead?” James felt comfortable saying it, why not Protestants?

Question #3: How about a pastor preaching to his flock that the must “work out their salvation with fear and trembling”? If your Bible church is not preaching these things, then why is it a Bible church?

Question #4: When do you think you’ll hear from non-Catholic pulpits the Biblcal statement that the “church is the pillar and groud of truth?” Again, if inspired authors saw it fit to include these statements in their evangelization, why not so-called Bible churches? These statements are taught daily in the Catholic church. It is language and wording that Catholics are very comfortable with. Why is it that the Bible uses language, and makes statements that non-Catholics shudder at?

How many more can we come up with?

Without a doubt I can say that I have heard a Baptist Preacher or teacher, teach on each of the four questions above. When they did the real truth was make know.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[ricko]

I preached a sermon on the text pertaining to #1 a couple of months ago… and **no-one ****disagreed **when I was finished, that a person **doesn’t **have to be baptized with water to be saved.

So, I guess you’re wrong on all points.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

Trying to follow your wording. Are you saying that Baptists believe you must be baptised to be saved? I thought it was only symbolic to them.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Bible Christians believe that they are they ones that are the true Bible believers and Catholics are not. I’m compiling a list of statements made by the inspired writers of Scripture that you’ll never hear from a non-Catholic service or evangelizer. I’m sure my fellow Catholics will be able to add more to this list, but I wanted to throw out some appetizers.

Question #1: thru
Question #4: …

How many more can we come up with?

I would say it is highly unlikely that Mk 16:15-16 is a favorite sermon topic of our separated brethren. Jesus says the way to be saved is to hear the gospel as preached by the apostles, believe it & be baptized. The bible is totally useless in trying to determine the content of this gospel as there is no book/chapter of the bible that claims to summarize this gospel that Jesus taught the apostles & which they preached.

The only way to learn it is from the Church, the foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), which Jesus founded. It was passed on from the apostles to their successor bishops & has been transmitted by the Popes and bishops from generation to generation for 2,000 years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Since no other church/denomination has Apostolic Tradition, by definition no other church/denomination knows what this gospel is. The non-Catholic churches make the error of (allegedly) starting from the bible to determine this gospel. This method contradicts Jesus’ words to listen to his apostles and their successors.

This explains why there are over 25,000 Protestant denominations and there is total confusion, disagreement and splintering. That’s why it is best to listen to Jesus’ Church, not man-made churches founded by ex-Catholic priests like Fr. Martin Luther and his spiritual descendents.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Another set of verses that Protestant ministers avoid like the plague when preaching is John 6 where Jesus says that unless we eat his body and drink his blood we will not have life eternal. Jesus is quite specific, does not backtrack when challenged and does not say he is only speaking symbolicly.

But by the end of the 16th century, according to the late Fr Hardon, SJ, there were over 200 different interpretations, including symbolism, of those eucharistic verses. But that is to be expected when we throw out the gospel as preached by the apostles and follows the theology of a man,Fr. Martin Luther, OSA.

 

[CANman]

I preached a sermon on the text pertaining to #1 a couple of months ago… and no-one disagreed when I was finished, that a person doesn’t have to be baptized with water to be saved.

So, I guess you’re wrong on all points.

I believe you failed to read post number 7, which says it will be talked about only to be refuted. So you just validated my point. The Bible makes clear statements on doctrine that you deny This was the purpose of this thread. Why is it the Bible uses language that is foreign to you?
The Word says “Baptism now saves you”, you say it doesn’t. Who should I believe?

 

[CANman]

Not to get caught up in an issue that is on a different thread but if anyone gave a sermon on James 2:24 standing all by itself they would be quite dishonest in doing so, context, context, context… That being said many bible churches do the same thing the catholic church does, in going through the complete bible in a 3 year span.

The concept behind this thread is bogus.

The concept is not bogus. I’ve read many of your posts on different threads along with other non-Catholics and haven’t seen the use these verses to “prove” the point, unless, of course, it is used it to try to refute the clear meaning of text.

Context is important. but you still cannot negate the clear meaning of one text with another that is seemingly in contradiction. “Faith without works is dead” is true, just as “we are justified by faith apart from works of the law…” is true.