Bible statements for "Bible Christians"

  • Thread starter Thread starter CANman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CANman

Guest
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?
 
Hi,
I have heard 2, 3, and 4 in a sermon before just not the same intrepretation as the catholics.😃
 
You’re stepping on dangerous ground. The fact is, there are so many different churches and denominations that consider themselves “Bible Christians” who teach and believe different things. Sometimes they seem infinite. You just can’t make a statement like “You’ll never hear these verses from a Bible Christian” because undoubtedly there will be at least one Bible Christian who does use those verses to prove you wrong and make you look like a fool. 😉 So I would be VERY careful what you say in this area. You’re making a sweeping generalization and anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic could tear it apart.

That said, a couple of verses that I had never heard at my non denominational church are:

John 20:23
Matthew 16:18
 
I’ve never heard a Bible Christian do a sermon on 1 Samuel 6:17:

“The golden hemorrhoids the Philistines sent back as a guilt offering to the Lord were as follows: one for Ashdod, one for Gaza, one for Ashkelon, one for Gath, and one for Ekron.”
 
I agree with another poster that one must be careful making sweeping generalizations about Bible Christians. There are sooo many different Bible churches that I would be willing to bet these subjects have been discussed in some form or fashion in one of them somewhere. Here are some other questions to bring up:

Where does the Bible:
• Teach that it teaches the essential truths of the Christian faith so clearly presented that even the uneducated can read the Bible and come to understand them?
• The four Gospels are divinely inspired and ought to be included in the Bible?
• Teach that all sins are the same?
• Teach that a Christian can’t lose his salvation?
• Teach that public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle?
• Teach that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person equal to the Father and the Son?
• Teach that Jesus has two intellects and two wills?
• Teach that there is one God with one Divine Nature, but three distinct but equal Divine Persons?
• Teach the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception?
• Teach that the individual interpretation of each individual is authoritative?
• Teach that it teaches the essential truths of the Christian faith so clearly presented that even the uneducated can read the Bible and come to understand them?
• Teach which truths are essential and which truths are unessential?
• Reject the necessity of Baptism?
• Reject the idea that Baptism removes sin?
• Prohibit polygamy?
• Rejects that the Apostles were appointed to dynastic offices?
• Teach that Peter was not the head of the Apostles?
 
Should I repost my “sola scriptura cannot be practiced” post?

🙂
 
I have to apologize for after re reading my post I realized it wasn’t stated as succinctly as I wanted to. The point I was trying to make regarding the verses I quoted was that Catholics use them in daily verbage, common language. While I have never heard a non-catholic evangelize me using those same phrases unless, of course, they were trying to refute them. I just find it strange that the Bible uses language and phrases most Bible Christians I’ve spoken with or heard would never dare to say. Is that clearer?
 
CANman said:
. I just find it strange that the Bible uses language and phrases most Bible Christians I’ve spoken with or heard would never dare to say. Is that clearer?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The reason they do this is because they have many man-made traditions that make null the very scriptures they are trying to uphold 🙂

Bible: Baptism now saves you.
Their tradition: No it doesn’t, baptism is only a symbol.

Bible: This is my body.
Their tradition: No it is not his body, it is only a symbol.

Bible: This is my blood.
Their tradition: No it is not his blood, it is only a symbol.

Bible: If you do not listen to the Church, treat them as unblievers.
Their tradition: The Church has no authority.

See? 🙂
 
awfulthings9 said:
I’ve never heard a Bible Christian do a sermon on 1 Samuel 6:17:

“The golden hemorrhoids the Philistines sent back as a guilt offering to the Lord were as follows: one for Ashdod, one for Gaza, one for Ashkelon, one for Gath, and one for Ekron.”
Click to expand...
It would be fun to hear a 1 hour sermon on this verse!
 
awfulthings9 said:
I’ve never heard a Bible Christian do a sermon on 1 Samuel 6:17:

“The golden hemorrhoids the Philistines sent back as a guilt offering to the Lord were as follows: one for Ashdod, one for Gaza, one for Ashkelon, one for Gath, and one for Ekron.”
Click to expand...
BobCatholic said:
I wonder if it would be a pain in the butt 😃
Click to expand...
I think it would require a Preaching Proctologist to be truly inspiring.😉
 
CANman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
CANman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
BobCatholic said:
Bible: Baptism now saves you.
Their tradition: No it doesn’t, baptism is only a symbol.
Click to expand...
I hate “only a symbol”. That doesn’t mean anything, and misses the whole point! Baptism and the Eucharist are symbols, but as symbols they must be the spiritual reality of their physical representation.

Typically “only a symbol” falls into “this is only spiritually God’s body and blood, but not really.” As though the spiritual world were less real than the physical world.

I often think that the division between the two is often arbitrary.

So not only is the protestant tradition (in terms of protestants who accept “only symbols”) a human tradition, as you say rightly, but it is also a vacuous one.
 
noma said:
I hate “only a symbol”. That doesn’t mean anything, and misses the whole point! Baptism and the Eucharist are symbols, but as symbols they must be the spiritual reality of their physical representation.

Typically “only a symbol” falls into “this is only spiritually God’s body and blood, but not really.” As though the spiritual world were less real than the physical world.
Click to expand...
Wow, that is an amazing point. I like the way you said that. Mind if I use it? 🙂
 
bibleapologist said:
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
Click to expand...
Wasn’t wrong at all. You don’t have to be baptized with water. I believe that the church also excepts a baptism of blood, and one of desire. They must be baptized though.
 
Eschato said:
I don’t believe that for a second.
Click to expand...
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.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I went to a bible church who read the bible together in one year. However, that was people privately reading the passages at home. The pastor would only address a few verses a week. Sometimes he wouldnt even preach about verses we had read that week. So technically, the church read the Bible in a year, but probably a 10% of the Bible was explained from the pulpit. And honestly, I’m being generous with that estimate. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top