Protestant Idolatry

[Rightlydivide]

Apparently, you have not heard of, or reject the “power to bind and loose”? Do you suppose that the method of choosing Bishops might have needed to change between the time of forming a church out of nothing and today, when it is well formed and needs only perpetuation?

Please explain how your faith community does it just like the Apostles. I would love to hear.

No it did not need to change. Binding and loosing has nothing to do with changing doctrines or even practices. Why would you suggest it does?

 

[po18guy]

No it did not need to change. Binding and loosing has nothing to do with changing doctrines or even practices. Why would you suggest it does?

Idolatry. That’s the topic. I deleted that post because it was off topic. To challenge Catholicsm, please begin another thread. Thank you.

 

[crazzeto]

That is fine. Yes he did give him another name. This an important verse and passage. Now is it what you claim it is? Well…Mark and Luke do not even include the passage! I am not denying the claim but context is important. What exactly are you saying about Peter that I would disagree with?? Got any specifics?

Whoa now, let’s not try and minimzie any verse in the bible. I will call your attention to 2 Timothy 3:16

6

3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

God had something to say through Matthew’s pen. More over every gosple which offers a listing of the apostles (complet) always starts with Peter. This isn’t just coincidence. Arguing the Primacy of Peter in the Gosple is a tough propisition, if it’s a tough propisition in the Gosple then I would have to say it’s simply a tough propisition arguing the primacy of Peter.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am not trying to minimize it; I am trying to argue against forming one’s entire view of polity on ONE verse. Context is everything.
You guys are still not saying specifically what it means. Lets see what happens. Oh, where is the verse in the Bible that says starting a list means that the present Bishop of Rome has primacy?

 

[mackbrislawn]

How about the agape meal of the 1st century? You know from Paul’s letter that it was a meal, albeit people misused the meal, and that in 11:33 you find they started eating the meal together. But of course that is not what you do. You have changed the meal described by Paul and the one found in the gospels for a man holding a cup and handing out a host. Is that what Paul even remotely describes? No of course not. Jesus? No. What about the Didache where people eat as well?

Yes, interesting point about the agape meal. Now, many non-Catholic bible-believing churches nevertheless follow the Catholic example of a man holding a cup and handing out a host. Or, they pass the bread and wine along and people take from that. Not an agape meal as you describe.
So, are there congregations (perhaps yours) that do follow a true agape meal? Where the people eat an actual meal? I am interested in your practice in this matter.

 

[AmateurPianist]

…no answer to my previous post??

So then is this verse idolatry:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Hebrews 3:12.

And anticipating your response, yes the Word of God is more than the written Word of God. But, the written Word of God is the Word of God.

But what is the difference between:

know what we need in our hearts"

which according to the premise of the OP is idolatry and

able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart

which the Bible does claim is an attribute of the Word of God.

 

[benedictus2]

So then is this verse idolatry:

Hebrews 3:12.

And anticipating your response, yes the Word of God is more than the written Word of God. But, the written Word of God is the Word of God.

It is indeed. But the Written Word of God is not God. We are only to Worship God not the written Word of God so yes, Idolatry.

The written Word of God is not the Trinity nor is it a person of the Trinity.

Before the written words was ever, God was and is and is to come.

 

[benedictus2]

That is fine. Yes he did give him another name. This an important verse and passage. Now is it what you claim it is? Well…Mark and Luke do not even include the passage! I am not denying the claim but context is important. What exactly are you saying about Peter that I would disagree with?? Got any specifics?

That Mark and Luke did not include it is beside the point. Matthew is one of the Four Gospels.

I think you know what we mean by this passage but how exactly do you understand it?

 

[benedictus2]

Oh I love this. Jesus was lying!! How about your interpretation is incorrect? Have you considered that? That is an option everyone should always consider.

Well how about you give us you exegesis on the subject and then we can discuss?

What a lot of “Bible believing” Christians seem to overlook is that Christ did not write anything. What He CHOSED/WILLED instead was to build a church. If Scripture is prime in God’s will Jesus who was more than capable of doing that would have done so.

If we are to be left alone as to His intent, He would not have needed to choose 12 men.

 

[AmateurPianist]

It is indeed. But the Written Word of God is not God. We are only to Worship God not the written Word of God so yes, Idolatry.

The written Word of God is not the Trinity nor is it a person of the Trinity.

Before the written words was ever, God was and is and is to come.

Umm…the statement that was alleged to be idolatry was:

know what we need in our hearts

Which again is very close to what the Bible says about itself.

able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart

Neither statement says anything about the Word of God being a person of the Trinity.

Neither statement says anything about worship.

In lack of any quote or citation from the source, I can only speculate that most likely the author was thinking of Hebrews 3:12 when he made the allegedly idolotrous quote.

I: think what is goiing on is that you are wanting to jump in feet first and pounce on the Protestants for “idolatry” when at the same time you have neglected the minor little detail that the Bible makes just about the same claims concerning the Word of God that you are claiming (falsely) is idolatry. I must say that sounds like hypocrisy,.

 

[benedictus2]

Umm…the statement that was alleged to be idolatry was:

Which again is very close to what the Bible says about itself.

Neither statement says anything about the Word of God being a person of the Trinity.

Neither statement says anything about worship.

In lack of any quote or citation from the source, I can only speculate that most likely the author was thinking of Hebrews 3:12 when he made the allegedly idolotrous quote.

I: think what is goiing on is that you are wanting to jump in feet first and pounce on the Protestants for “idolatry” when at the same time you have neglected the minor little detail that the Bible makes just about the same claims concerning the Word of God that you are claiming (falsely) is idolatry. I must say that sounds like hypocrisy,.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 3:12.

There is nothing in the above verse where it ascribes to the written Word of God the same STATUS of God.

Sorry my friend, Hebrews 3:12 is not saying what you want it to say

 

[AmateurPianist]

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 3:12.

There is nothing in the above verse where it ascribes to the written Word of God the same STATUS of God.

Sorry my friend, Hebrews 3:12 is not saying what you want it to say

You are absolutely correct.

The phrase

and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart

in no way ascribes to the written Word of God the same status of God.

In the same way the phrase

know what we need in our hearts

in no way ascribes to the written Word of God the same status of God.

 

[bluelake]

Catholics are always getting accused of idolatry with our devotions to the Blessed Virgin and the saints. However I was reading a book that belongs to my Protestant brother, and it elevated the Bible to the status of God. I understand that the Bible is God’s written Word, but the Bible does not “know what we need in our hearts” (It actually said that–I am NOT making this up!) That is idolatry, my friends! That author, at least, replaced God with a book! Very sad…

CW,
The Bible is God’s word to us. Do you read the Bible?
See, ‘Does God know our hearts?’ See Acts 1:24, 5;41-42

God bless,
bluelake

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well how about you give us you exegesis on the subject and then we can discuss?

What a lot of “Bible believing” Christians seem to overlook is that Christ did not write anything. What He CHOSED/WILLED instead was to build a church. If Scripture is prime in God’s will Jesus who was more than capable of doing that would have done so.

If we are to be left alone as to His intent, He would not have needed to choose 12 men.

The irony. Will anyone even see it? You know specific details about his church because of the telephone game or these men wrote it down within 20 years after his resurrection. The same men who saw it felt the need to write it.
The ante-nicene writings are full of scriptural references. And how many references to sayings of Paul or Christ or Peter not found in scripture? HOw many again? Thats right…almost nothing.

 

[benedictus2]

The irony. Will anyone even see it? You know specific details about his church because of the telephone game or these men wrote it down within 20 years after his resurrection. The same men who saw it felt the need to write it.
The ante-nicene writings are full of scriptural references. And how many references to sayings of Paul or Christ or Peter not found in scripture? HOw many again? Thats right…almost nothing.

Exactly!!! We know this becuase of the Church He established on earth. The Catholic Church.

Other than that, I am not quite sure how your post addresses the points I raised.

 

[CWBetts]

CW,
The Bible is God’s word to us. Do you read the Bible?
See, ‘Does God know our hearts?’ See Acts 1:24, 5;41-42

God bless,
bluelake

I have read more of the Bible in two months than most people do in a year (and no, I am not exaggerating!! Since August 25th: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1+2 Samuel, and portions of the Psalms). The verse you site make no reference to the Scriptures, but to God. Jesus may be the Word made flesh. But that does not mean that Jesus is fully identical with the Bible. The Bible is a book. A very good book. It is the written word of God, but it is not worthy of worship. The Bible is not sentient. To attribute these qualities to the Bible is clearly idolatry. To say that the Bible is God is to say that the Gettysburg Address is Abraham Lincoln. God does know our hearts. The Bible does not.

 

[CWBetts]

The "word of God in Hebrews 4:12 has nothing to do with the Scriptures. It has everything to do with the person of Jesus Christ who was described as the “Word” in John’s Gospel. This verse is almost universally taken out of Context by so-called “Bible Christians” here is the passage:
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12-13, RSV-CE)
Taking verse 12 without verse 13 it would seem that the reference is to the Scriptures. But in verse 13 that particular interpretation falls apart. Why? Pronouns. “And before him no creature is hidden…” Would the divine author, under direction of the Holy Spirit make this kind of error? Would they refer to the Scriptures as a “him”? Or is it more logical to assume that the “him” is in reference to Jesus Christ, identified as the Word in John 1:1ff? When taken in context, this is one instance wher the term “word of God” is not in reference to the written word. I have not done an in depth study, but I would venture a guess that there are many times when the phrase “word of God” is used, and not in reference to the written word.

 

[RedBert]

back to the OP

re:The Word of God

King David said, “The law of Your mouth is better to me Than thousands of coins of gold and silver” (Ps 119:72). He also said, “Therefore I love Your commandments More than gold, yes, than fine gold!” (Ps 119:127)

Is it ok for someone to love The Word of God more than gold?

Would loving the Bible more than the most precious things on earth be acceptable?

 

[AmateurPianist]

The "word of God in Hebrews 4:12 has nothing to do with the Scriptures.

So the Scriptures are not the written Word of God?

Hmm…my version has the Him capitalized. The upper case makes it obvious whom the pronoun refers to.

 

[crazzeto]

I am not trying to minimize it; I am trying to argue against forming one’s entire view of polity on ONE verse. Context is everything.
You guys are still not saying specifically what it means. Lets see what happens. Oh, where is the verse in the Bible that says starting a list means that the present Bishop of Rome has primacy?

I didn’t give you one verse though? I gave you several, from two different books in the bible.