Do Protestant Churches twist what Scripture says to fit their interpretation of the Bible?

[PerryJ]

Dude, that’s pathetic. I’m sure they’ve been told many times they’d make even better Christians as Catholics. Billy Graham wasn’t exactly a stranger to John Paul II, and that is indeed exactly how Catholics see it. It’s not disrespectful. I’ve been told the same thing myself many times, not to dis me but to say how much more better I’d be if only.

The real horror is thinking, what do Catholics imagine the Borjas would have been like if they’d been Protestant? {shudder}

It is not pathetic and the person is not being disrespectful. This is a breakdown of understanding. Let us say we have a Catholic and a Protestant that are equally devoted to Christ in everyway. The Catholic has the potential of becoming a stronger Christian because the Catholics believe that through the Sacraments Christ not only spiritually touches them; but, he also physically touches them. Every Sunday a Catholic actually stands before Christ, bows his head and accepts him into his body. This being the Eucharist. For a moment agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. If this premise is true one can see how a Catholic would believe that they have the potential of being greater as Christ physically touched them. As it appears that you do not believe in the Eucharist I am thinking you did not understand his point. It is not meant to be negative. It is a difference in beliefs.

I have read much of the posts and find few that are truly trying to understand the others points. They want to win a debate. Did not the Pharisees and Saducees commit the same action during Christ’s lifetime. Did not Christ state that this was wrong.

 

[t68ware]

It is not pathetic and the person is not being disrespectful. This is a breakdown of understanding. Let us say we have a Catholic and a Protestant that are equally devoted to Christ in everyway. The Catholic has the potential of becoming a stronger Christian because the Catholics believe that through the Sacraments Christ not only spiritually touches them; but, he also physically touches them. Every Sunday a Catholic actually stands before Christ, bows his head and accepts him into his body. This being the Eucharist. For a moment agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. If this premise is true one can see how a Catholic would believe that they have the potential of being greater as Christ physically touched them. As it appears that you do not believe in the Eucharist I am thinking you did not understand his point. It is not meant to be negative. It is a difference in beliefs.

I have read much of the posts and find few that are truly trying to understand the others points. They want to win a debate. Did not the Pharisees and Saducees commit the same action during Christ’s lifetime. Did not Christ state that this was wrong.

Thank you. I have the utmost respect for everything Catholic but it does irritate me when we Protestants are considered second class Christians. That is why I brought up Billy Graham. Nobody would ever disagree he is not a true Christian, yet he is not Catholic. In modern America today, with the exception of the Pope (whom I love!) there is not a Catholic today who has more impact on the unsaved than Billy does. Is he a second class Christian? According to what I have read, some think so.

 

[PerryJ]

I would like to add that I am sure when Billy Graham and Pope John Paul met that they were in awe of each other. They spoke of Christ, discussed their faith, the mission for Christians and how to make the world better. I am sure both learned from each other as they both thirsted to know more about Christ and his loving presence. I doubt if they debated and were negative. When we look up to these men we should try to emulate them and I am sure they would want us all to be loving to each other and learn from each other.

 

[Robbinson]

I have read much of the posts and find few that are truly trying to understand the others points. They want to win a debate. Did not the Pharisees and Saducees commit the same action during Christ’s lifetime. Did not Christ state that this was wrong.

Well said - Amen. I think we all have to admit that none of us, individually, really understands every word of scripture. Only Jesus could do that. We can try - and hopefully with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, can gleam an understanding of scripture that harmonizes all scripture verses with each other. To me, scripture is like an onion, just when you peal back a layer, you find yet another one of even greater complexity (and greater flavor!).

The proof of this statement is the shear number of denominations within the Protestant faith - filled with sincere Christians all trying earnestly to get it right - yet disagreeing over many doctrines of theology (all with sincere, but different interpretations) re: tounges, baptism, eternal security, etc. And to be fair, among indivivual Catholics (notwithstanding the belief in the Church’s ultimate authority on interpretation) there is often disagreement (so it seems on the meaning of individual verses).

So - with that in mind, we should all debate in good faith but with an open mind - then all of us may learn or teach - but that’s not possible when the mind is closed and if we (any of us) focus on winning the debate rather than confirming, or discovering, truth.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[guanophore]

“2+2 = 4, you moron!” Feel the love!

I don’t call names to people, and certainly have never called sandusky a moron. He has far more scholarship than most of the posters here, with whom it is a pleasure to dialogue.

 Are you Byzantine, or one of the others?

Yes. One of my self appointed duties on this board is to remind people that Apostolic Teaching is not Roman, but Catholic.

It would be an interesting study, for sure! If anybody has a reference to such a study, I’d like to see it.

I bet you will see the results of it by November, if you have not already.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Thank you. I have the utmost respect for everything Catholic but it does irritate me when we Protestants are considered second class Christians. That is why I brought up Billy Graham. Nobody would ever disagree he is not a true Christian, yet he is not Catholic. In modern America today, with the exception of the Pope (whom I love!) there is not a Catholic today who has more impact on the unsaved than Billy does. Is he a second class Christian? According to what I have read, some think so.

Well, then, my apologies, T68. I thought you were being sarcastic, not understanding that there’s no essential disrespect in the Catholic perspective that they have the fullness of doctrine while we Protestants lack almost all but the essentials. Some use that as an excuse for pride and others don’t, in the same way some Protestants use our own doctrines as an excuse for pride and others don’t.

 

[t68ware]

Well, then, my apologies, T68. I thought you were being sarcastic, not understanding that there’s no essential disrespect in the Catholic perspective that they have the fullness of doctrine while we Protestants lack almost all but the essentials. Some use that as an excuse for pride and others don’t, in the same way some Protestants use our own doctrines as an excuse for pride and others don’t.

Apology accepted and I look forward to many meaningful conversations, be they Catholic or Protestant!

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I don’t call names to people, and certainly have never called sandusky a moron. He has far more scholarship than most of the posters here, with whom it is a pleasure to dialogue.

No, you don’t seem the type. It’d probably get you kicked off this forum anyway. Calling names isn’t the only way to fail to express love. I heard a missionary a few years ago tell about a young convert in Africa who went off to a nearby animistic village, got on his soapbox and started screaming at people to repent. They beat him up and kicked him out. He was very proud of having been persecuted for Christ, until the missionary asked if he had been beaten for Christ or beaten because he was acting like a jerk.

Yes. One of my self appointed duties on this board is to remind people that Apostolic Teaching is not Roman, but Catholic.

What’s your take on the chance of there ever being a Ukrainian Rite?

I bet you will see the results of it by November, if you have not already.

It would be nice to see voting patterns broken down by Rite, but I doubt we’ll see it. I’m not sure how many people would tell the pollsters they wrote in the Pope, anyway!

 

[sandusky]

Crazy Diamond:

Let’s just make sure it’s the good news doing the dividing, and not arrogance on our part.

I have no reason for being arrogant concerning the Gospel—I don’t deserve what it offers.
Crazy Diamond:

Proclaiming the gospel is more than just repeating doctrinally correct phrases.

And the venue, and the one(s) to whom it’s being proclaimed. Polemics have their time and place, and are effective.
Crazy Diamond:

If you don’t take your own propensity to sin seriously, you can’t really believe the Bad News that made the Good News necessary.

It was by the conviction of the truth of the bad news that I embraced the good.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I have no reason for being arrogant concerning the Gospel—I don’t deserve what it offers.

I think the same way, but I don’t always feel the same way. It’s when I start feeling elevated that I’m most likely to offend with my tongue rather than the gospel.

This thread is actually a terrific venue for you and me to be able to demonstrate one of the greatest differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and that is the ability to examine our practices and beliefs and challenge and change them by a completely independent authority, the Scriptures. Sure, the title of the thread is childish and arrogant and insulting; but asking “does my church twist the Scriptures?” is part and parcel of what Protestants are supposed to do as a basic part of spirituality. It’s not the same for Roman Catholics. So I think this venue, far from being a place to vent our own ability to be snotty and childish, is a much better place to point out one of the really deep fundamental divides between the Scripture-focused and Liturgy-focused traditions in Christianity (which are both a lot more attractive than the Culture-Subsumed traditions rotting before our eyes).

And the venue, and the one(s) to whom it’s being proclaimed. Polemics have their time and place, and are effective.

It’s the oldest struggle in Christian apologetics, and I sympathize. The gospel always has its place, miracles are rarely amiss, but when do you use sarcasm, mockery, exaggeration, or satire? I can’t say I’ve found a great answer, except twice, many years ago. On both occasions, I felt the Holy Spirit just take over my whole frame of mind and I was able to say something totally outrageous and insulting to the other person, without the slightest tinge of contempt or condemnation. It was eerie. I would never have been able to say those things myself without sounding hateful, but instead of punching me the other person stopped dead in their tracks and the whole tone and direction of the conversation shifted and became softer and more positive. Sometimes I wish He would do that more often, but He doesn’t, and I can’t say I have a great answer for when to use polemics and when to cut to the heart of the matter and ignore the silly little digs.

It was by the conviction of the truth of the bad news that I embraced the good.

Can’t say it was quite the same for me. I didn’t know if all people were really sinful, I just knew I was being a horrible person and needed somebody to help me change. My parents were evangelical Protestants, so it was natural for me to turn there first. I’m think Christ would have had mercy on me regardless of which Christian tradition I had turned to for guidance.

 

[qui_est_ce]

This thread is actually a terrific venue for you and me to be able to demonstrate one of the greatest differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and that examine our practices and beliefs and challenge and change them by a completely independent authority, the Scriptures.

One little correction, there are there really is no such thing as Roman Catholicism. It is more proper to refer the the Church that looks to the primacy of the the bishop of Rome as CathoIic. Roman Catholicism refers to the Roman Rite. There are many rites, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc., in the Catholic Church.

Sure, the title of the thread is childish and arrogant and insulting;

I agree it could have been worded better.

but asking “does my church twist the Scriptures?” is part and parcel of what Protestants are supposed to do as a basic part of spirituality.

Say what?

It’s not the same for Roman Catholics. So I think this venue, far from being a place to vent our own ability to be snotty and childish, is a much better place to point out one of the really deep fundamental divides between the Scripture-focused and Liturgy-focused traditions in Christianity (which are both a lot more attractive than the Culture-Subsumed traditions rotting before our eyes).

I like you!

I just knew I was being a horrible person and needed somebody to help me change.

I’m think Christ would have had mercy on me regardless of which Christian tradition I had turned to for guidance.

It’s a journey.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Most of them don’t twist scripture, but some may. There are some denominations, which I don’t consider protestant that contradict themselves even through scripture. Majority of Protestants agree on Scripture and such views as the Catholic Church does. The only ones I have ever encountered in twisting scripture has been Jahova’s whitness and King James Only Bible Believers

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

One little correction, there are there really is no such thing as Roman Catholicism. It is more proper to refer the the Church that looks to the primacy of the the bishop of Rome as CathoIic. Roman Catholicism refers to the Roman Rite. There are many rites, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc., in the Catholic Church.

I understand, but the Orthodox, Copts, Assyrian Church of the East, the Old Catholic Church, and even some Catholic Church of England folks get touchy if “Catholic” is used strictly to refer to “the Church that looks to the primacy of the bishop of Rome”. Even that phrase is a bit too broad, because many others also say they view the bishop of Rome as “first among equals”, it’s just they emphasize the “among equals” part.

The phrase “Roman Catholic” doesn’t leave out the minor Rites, in my opinion, and it’s a sight better than “Romish Catholics” or, worse yet, “Popish Catholics”. If you can come up with a phrase of less than twenty letters that implicitly includes the other Rites as well as Latin, limits those included to Rites that look to the bishop of Rome as the head of Christ’s Church on earth, are in full communion with it (so, excluding SSPX), and is a phrase used somewhere in reasonably ordinary conversation, why, I’ll be delighted to use it. Oh, one last test: in can’t be offensive to my Latin Rite Roman Catholic wife or in-laws.

: Say what?

Surprising, eh? Nobody states it quite that way, but that’s the way it works. Protestant preachers can’t say “look at everything you’re taught and compare it to Scripture” without the implication “including what you hear me say.” That’s why the modern Baptist denominations (which are descended from the Anabaptists), Reformed (descended from the Calvinists), and, say the Evangelical Free Church (descended from Lutheranism) all look basically the same theologically. Their ancestors may have hated, hunted, and murdered each other, but over time their descendents have largely abandoned the virulence of their differences, since that virulent insistence was never backed up by Scripture. A Protestant from one of those denominations generally has little discomfort joining a church from one of the others when moving to new city, in large part because many of the differences have disappeared, or come to be seen as disputable differences that everyone should be convinced of but not break fellowship over.

I like you!

Well, thank you! That makes my day.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I understand, but the Orthodox, Copts, Assyrian Church of the East, the Old Catholic Church, and even some Catholic Church of England folks get touchy if “Catholic” is used strictly to refer to “the Church that looks to the primacy of the bishop of Rome”.

That’s their problem!

The phrase "Roman Catholic" doesn’t leave out the minor Rites, in my opinion, and it’s a sight better than “Romish Catholics” or, worse yet, “Popish Catholics”. If you can come up with a phrase of less than twenty letters that implicitly includes the other Rites as well as Latin, limits those included to Rites that look to the bishop of Rome as the head of Christ’s Church on earth, are in full communion with it (so, excluding SSPX), and is a phrase used somewhere in reasonably ordinary conversation, why, I’ll be delighted to use it. Oh, one last test: in can’t be offensive to my Latin Rite Roman Catholic wife or in-laws.

Point well taken. Many don’t understand the difference and use Roman Catholic as perjorative, little realizing how ignorant it makes them look.

Surprising, eh? Nobody states it quite that way, but that’s the way it works. Protestant preachers can’t say “look at everything you’re taught and compare it to Scripture” without the implication “including what you hear me say.” That’s why the modern Baptist denominations (which are descended from the Anabaptists), Reformed (descended from the Calvinists), and, say the Evangelical Free Church (descended from Lutheranism) all look basically the same theologically. Their ancestors may have hated, hunted, and murdered each other, but over time their descendents have largely abandoned the virulence of their differences, since that virulent insistence was never backed up by Scripture. A Protestant from one of those denominations generally has little discomfort joining a church from one of the others when moving to new city, in large part because many of the differences have disappeared, or come to be seen as disputable differences that everyone should be convinced of but not break fellowship over.

That explains a lot. I used to wonder how people just casually would change denomations. From a Catholic perspective, it looks like they’re constantly converting.

Well, thank you! That makes my day.

 

[Syele]

k.
That explains a lot. I used to wonder how people just casually would change denomations. From a Catholic perspective, it looks like they’re constantly converting.

There is no conversion most of the time. I was in a non-denominational Church and them moved to a new town and joined the Assembly of God Church here. The differences are very very small. We sing the same worship songs, same order of service, 99% same beliefs, same kinds of activities, even use the same Sunday School Curriculum for the children. The intro course used for joining the church is the same one too. In another town I lived in I attended a Charismatic Episcopal Church. While they had more significant differences in how a Sunday Service was conducted (liturgical) the beliefs were not different than what I have believed all my life. Just looking at the names I “converted” many times in my life. But if you look closely, what I believe has never changed.

 

[ralphinal]

I am still having trouble understanding that if the Church predated the NT SCriptures, and the Church compiled the NT Scriptures, and the Church listed the Canon of Scriptures, and Scriptures call the Church the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth,” and no where do the Scriptures say that they are above the Church, how that came to be the case.

 

[PerryJ]

I am curious about the concept of TULIP. (Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irrestiable Grace and Perserverance of Saints.) As a Protestant this was seldom discussed by my general congregation and I do not believe many understood it. As I studied and became more involved I found a hard line between Protestant denominations that believe and those that did not. I scanned just a few websites and still find these thoughts. Can Protestants tell me where they believe their Church is on this issue and what their beliefs are about this? I am just curios and am trying to understand the perspective everyone is coming from.

 

[Syele]

I am curious about the concept of TULIP. (Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irrestiable Grace and Perserverance of Saints.) As a Protestant this was seldom discussed by my general congregation and I do not believe many understood it. As I studied and became more involved I found a hard line between Protestant denominations that believe and those that did not. I scanned just a few websites and still find these thoughts. Can Protestants tell me where they believe their Church is on this issue and what their beliefs are about this? I am just curios and am trying to understand the perspective everyone is coming from.

I do not believe in TULIP, neither does my Church. I currently attend a Assembly of God. the-highway.com/compare.html I would fall on the Arminianism side.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

That’s their problem!

Ah, but now you put me in a bind! To satisfy you, I have to offend others. So, since you refuse to be so charitable as to look for another phrase, , “Roman Catholic” it is (until we find a better term), whether referring to Latin, Byzantine, or whatever Rite.

I’ll refer Guanophore to this post whenever I’m challenged on the phrasing.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I am curious about the concept of TULIP. (Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irrestiable Grace and Perserverance of Saints.) As a Protestant this was seldom discussed by my general congregation and I do not believe many understood it. As I studied and became more involved I found a hard line between Protestant denominations that believe and those that did not. I scanned just a few websites and still find these thoughts. Can Protestants tell me where they believe their Church is on this issue and what their beliefs are about this? I am just curios and am trying to understand the perspective everyone is coming from.

I think that’s what’s meant when people refer to “Five-Point Calvinism”. Not sure though. I grew up in a Lutheran offshoot.