Non Denominational Christians question

[spurgeon]

Personally I dont think I could give bible quotations to prove one should be a catholic.I was not converted to catholicism because of anything that is in the bible.You cannot start with a false premises and make a valid argument. IT does not have to come from the bible at all.Motst good things in the whorld are not in the bibble, any material facts would do.I joined the church because of all the precious devotions e.g the Secred heart Of Jesus, devotion to the immaculate Heart of Mary, Devine mercy,First Saturday,The scapulars medals devotions and all the promises that come with them.They all come from God because they are revealed by Jesus and people Like the Blessed Virgin who come from Heaven.None from Heaven can deceive us.,be they angeles, saints Jesus the Holy Spirit of Mary etc.
Do they reject the American constitution because it is not in the bible?

 

[Randell]

Strider:

Go to John Martignoni’s web site at:

www.biblechristiansociety.com

Order the tapes “One Church” and “Catholics and the Bible.”
They may even be among the six free tapes he gives away.

In any event, get those two tapes. In your case, “One Church” would be critical. It will explain why the Catholic Church is the one, true Church established by Jesus Christ, and the arguments are all based on Scripture, so Protestants will understand and accept them.

If you study his arguments, you won’t get so flustered. Also, while you’re there, check out all of the other great tapes he’s got.

Thanks for the guidance…the tapes are ordered.

 

[Randell]

Maccabees:

I think something that might valuable to the me and Jesus crowd who rejects the church and the sacraments is that thye have some truth the scriptures but not the complete truth and not the complete fullness of the faith at best they have the grace of baptism and the scriptures what are they missing 6 sacramaments among those the body and blood of Jesus present in the eucharist they are also missing 7 very useful books of the Bible. And of course they are missing the guidance of the vicar of christ even in biblical terms they are missing the shepherd who holds the keys.

A good example may be that evangelicals have been given only the gopsel of Matthew. By that book you might have enough to save you and begin a personal realtionship with christ however, that is not the entire new testament the fullness of the new testament lies outside of what they have. So by accepting the church they can have the rest of the new testament and the fullness of the new testament. They in essecne have a part of the body of christ but have no realtionship but the early head of that body the bishop of Rome its kind hard to know the body without knowing its head.

Which books are they missing? Why do you think they are not in their bible?

 

[Exporter]

Randell:

Ok that is good I used that one. I need concrete information please. Is there bible passages to prove RC is the best way? I don’t believe so. They asked me to find something that states that being RC is the right way. I am not that good at finding quotes in the bible. Is there any? They say that they only take the bible as truth. For them, if it is not in the bible then it is not the truth. How can you argue with that?

:banghead:

Hey Randall I know all about their, “if it’s not in the Bible, I don’t want it stuff”.

Turn the tables. Ask them to show you IN THE BIBLE where it says the Bible is the inspired word of God and also where in the Bible does it say just which Books are to be in the Bible.
Ask then to show where it says the Southern Baptists Church is the one Church of God.

 

[Maccabees]

Randell:

Which books are they missing? Why do you think they are not in their bible?

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
Luther quoted Sirach as scripture and authoratative in his 95 thesis. Then later when he debated Eck on the validity of purgatory and prayers for the dead Eck brought up 2 Maccabees as proving this as an ancient Jewish practice adopted by early christians. Luther did not argue the interpretation that prayers for dead involved praying for thos in purgatory which was the accepted interpretation for many centuries prior. Instead he conveniently debated its status in the canon although he did not question the duetros canonocity previously. It was a argument of convenience since he did not agree with what the book taught it was no longer canonical. It was the same reason he did not include include James, Hebrew, Jude and Revelation under his canon heading. It should be noted these books and the duetros were in Luther’s Bible but they were in seperate section from the other canoical books his opinion led him to beleive were canonical.

 

[Randell]

Exporter:

Hey Randall I know all about their, “if it’s not in the Bible, I don’t want it stuff”.

Turn the tables. Ask them to show you IN THE BIBLE where it says the Bible is the inspired word of God and also where in the Bible does it say just which Books are to be in the Bible.
Ask then to show where it says the Southern Baptists Church is the one Church of God.

I got them on that one yesterday…they are looking…more to follow.

I asked them where in the bible it says to read the bible. They said in not so many words the “scripture” means bible.

They said that RC added the 7 books (do you know which ones) not that they were taken out. Is there proof that they were taken out or added in?

They did not have an answer for the SBC question. Other than to say that they are they only belong to Christ, not some body like the Catholics or Baptists, they are non-denominational (I don’t think I spelled that right)
.

 

[Randell]

Maccabees:

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
Luther quoted Sirach as scripture and authoratative in his 95 thesis. Then later when he debated Eck on the validity of purgatory and prayers for the dead Eck brought up 2 Maccabees as proving this as an ancient Jewish practice adopted by early christians. Luther did not argue the interpretation that prayers for dead involved praying for thos in purgatory which was the accepted interpretation for many centuries prior. Instead he conveniently debated its status in the canon although he did not question the duetros canonocity previously. It was a argument of convenience since he did not agree with what the book taught it was no longer canonical. It was the same reason he did not include include James, Hebrew, Jude and Revelation under his canon heading. It should be noted these books and the duetros were in Luther’s Bible but they were in seperate section from the other canoical books his opinion led him to beleive were canonical.

Where did you find this information. No disrespect but I would like to read for myself.

Thanks

 

[Sophie]

Randell, The Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth booklet offered on this web-site is also good. It quickly refutes, quite often with scripture, many of the typical Protestant arguments. You can most likely pick one up at your church or any Catholic book store, also.

 

[NewChristian27]

bengal_fan:

ask them how they know the bible is true. then ask them where we got the bible and who first said it was inerrant (hint, it was the catholic church who gave us the bible, first said it was inerrant, and still says it today).

Correction: We have the Old Testament from the Jews. Why have I never seen anyone give them credit on this site?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, the Old Testament is from the Jewish scriptures–but the Old Testament is not the COMPLETE Jewish scripture of the time, just as the New Testament does not contain every writing of the apostles (the Didache is NOT part of the NT, nor the Protoevangelium of James, nor the “gospels” of Mary and Thomas). There is a great deal of written and oral Jewish scripture that is not contained in the OT or in sacred tradition.

The main point is, that the Christians of the church Ignatius (in the 2nd century A.D.) called Catholic were the ones who codified what is accepted today as the Bible. In doing so, they rejected many contemporaneous works, not as being “wrong” per se, but as being not divinely inspired. Not every letter of Peter or Paul was divinely inspired, you see.

But what God had divinely inspired throughout the ages and scribes had written WAS infallibly discerned by the Catholic Church through the power of the Holy Spirit, and codified, and given to the ages as the Bible. We can thank all the holy scribes who were divinely inspired by God, AND we can thank all the holy men who under the Spirit were able to “put it all together” in His name.