Protestant Idolatry

[CWBetts]

Polemics limit discourse.

Let me educate on what ecumenism is. It is not some warm and fuzzy “you worship in your way, I’ll worship in mine” Ecumenism is bringing the Separated Brethren back in Communion with Rome. To do this, they must be told of their heresies that they cling to. Modern Fundamentalism was invented, yes invented, in the early 19th century. Fundamentalism is 3rd tier Protestantism that truly have nothing in common with the 1st century Church. Read the Fathers and you would see seven Sacraments, and the Real presence in the Eucharist. Sola Scriptura was a concept completely foreign to them, as was so called “eternal security”. Modern Fundamentalists are not formal heretics, because to be a heretic you actually have to be Catholic first, but they do cling to heretical teachings.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Let me educate on what ecumenism is. It is not some warm and fuzzy “you worship in your way, I’ll worship in mine” Ecumenism is bringing the Separated Brethren back in Communion with Rome. To do this, they must be told of their heresies that they cling to. Modern Fundamentalism was invented, yes invented, in the early 19th century. Fundamentalism is 3rd tier Protestantism that truly have nothing in common with the 1st century Church. Read the Fathers and you would see seven Sacraments, and the Real presence in the Eucharist. Sola Scriptura was a concept completely foreign to them, as was so called “eternal security”. Modern Fundamentalists are not formal heretics, because to be a heretic you actually have to be Catholic first, but they do cling to heretical teachings.

I am not sure what the ecumenical comment is about…
We have everything in common with the first century church because we follow the word of God written in the first century. In fact, those documents also written in the first century also support my views. Why DID the Catholic Church do away with congregational polity found in the Didache and Clement. Listen, I think for those who have read my posts recognize I have read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and can comment at length on them.
Your thread is scattered all over the place. I will discuss any of the seven sacraments as they relate to the 1st century church. Which one do you want to start with? 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? No you long ago started to conflate the two. The fact of the matter is that you do not follow the teachings of the first century church. If you did you would know the curious invention of the Assumption, which was unfamiliar and unknown by the direct statement of a Catholic bishop in the 3rd century, was no where to be found.
And what of Euesbious and his accounta of a bishop ripping images off walls because such things were unknown to the church?
And finally what about the words the Didache clearly states the early church said at the Lords supper? Absolutely nothing in it to support your present view.
Now thats a scattered response! You protest against your former faith too much CW. I wonder…

 

[CWBetts]

I am not sure what the ecumenical comment is about…
We have everything in common with the first century church because we follow the word of God written in the first century. In fact, those documents also written in the first century also support my views. Why DID the Catholic Church do away with congregational polity found in the Didache and Clement. Listen, I think for those who have read my posts recognize I have read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and can comment at length on them.
Your thread is scattered all over the place. I will discuss any of the seven sacraments as they relate to the 1st century church. Which one do you want to start with? 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? No you long ago started to conflate the two. The fact of the matter is that you do not follow the teachings of the first century church. If you did you would know the curious invention of the Assumption, which was unfamiliar and unknown by the direct statement of a Catholic bishop in the 3rd century, was no where to be found.
And what of Euesbious and his accounta of a bishop ripping images off walls because such things were unknown to the church?
And finally what about the words the Didache clearly states the early church said at the Lords supper? Absolutely nothing in it to support your present view.
Now thats a scattered response! You protest against your former faith too much CW. I wonder…

St. Ignatius of Antioch chapter 7 of his letter to the Smyrnans he tells us how to Identify heretics: Don’t accept the real presence in the Eucharist, always fighting (hence 30,000 denominations). Chapter 8 we are to follow the Bishops as Jesus follows the Father (even if you take this to mean a pastor, and not a true Bishop, this means not to split off and start a new denomination because you get mad, again, a hallmark of Fundamentalism). Fundamentalism is a perversion of the Gospel. Sola Scriptura: Heresy. Sola Fide: Heresy. Once saved, always saved: Heresy. I protest against Fundamentalism because it is built upon a pile of lies. It is the house built upon sand. It will fall. Why? No foundation.

 

[benedictus2]

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…

A case of bibliolatry

 

[benedictus2]

Polemics limit discourse.

Polemics INITIATE discourse.

 

[po18guy]

From a fairly well-known bible only (sola scriptura) website:

We believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects. We believe the Scriptures to be “God-breathed” and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power.

This statement is not only non-biblical, but assigns god-like attributes to a physical object. That is idolatry. John 20:30 and 21:25 clearly state that Jesus did and taught many things that are not recorded in scripture and that “were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Yet, they claim that the bible is complete in all respects.

I have argued before that some bible-only believers give not only the above human and god-like attributes to the bible, but also that they are seldom if ever without the bible, may even have one beneath their pillow, have a revered place in their homes for their bible, treat it as a sacred object and place their trust in it. I am sure that some will cling to it even when Jesus returns. Idolatry.

 

[Daedelus76]

Some Protestants are like that, others are quite away of epistemology and hermeneutics, especially the recent philosophical develomentents in epistemology and postmodern thought. I think folks from the Anglican, Wesleyan, and to a lesser extent, Lutheran tradition are much better balanced. Often times I’ve encountered some of the more Fundamentalist types who are into heavy proof-texting to proof a pet opinion, or they get spiritually hung up on a single verse or passage, often reading too much into it.

OTOH, I have also seen Roman Catholics who are fond of proof-texting, and it’s just annoying, though it seems more confined to only a small percentage of Roman Catholics. The folks that impress me the most are the Orthodox, because they seem to do this the least. But then their epistemology doesn’t require them to have simple answers to everything.

 

[Rightlydivide]

St. Ignatius of Antioch chapter 7 of his letter to the Smyrnans he tells us how to Identify heretics: Don’t accept the real presence in the Eucharist, always fighting (hence 30,000 denominations). Chapter 8 we are to follow the Bishops as Jesus follows the Father (even if you take this to mean a pastor, and not a true Bishop, this means not to split off and start a new denomination because you get mad, again, a hallmark of Fundamentalism). Fundamentalism is a perversion of the Gospel. Sola Scriptura: Heresy. Sola Fide: Heresy. Once saved, always saved: Heresy. I protest against Fundamentalism because it is built upon a pile of lies. It is the house built upon sand. It will fall. Why? No foundation.

I do not believe in all of the fighting. We did not start all of the splits in Christianity. My church formed a long time after you and all of the other forms of Christianity could not get along. I suppose we could have stepped in and decide which one of the thousands of denominations was the most correct.
Honestly, I looked at you guys and all the other groups claiming that Apostolic Succession meant something. Then I realized that trying to figure out if the Anglicans had it, why the Orthodox do, why the Old Catholics do etc amounted to nothing. The Bible itself teaches us how to evaluate the different groups. Its their fruits.
Well now Ignatius. Have you studied the first Orthodox doctrine of Ignatius? I say that because his polity is clearly Orthodox. On the other hand, we also know this doctrine had to start somewhere. It does not exist in the NT. The one things that ALL of the letters have in common is the ultimate authority on earthy for all groups is who; the local bishop. Can you imagine a letter written to all of these churches and no mention of a papacy. It even states that Rome presides in the area of Rome. How much clearer do we need that?? Lets look at the patristic linguistics and find out that it does not state the Roman Empire but Rome itself. Break out the journals CW. Lay off the internet and lets talk about the area immediately around Rome.
I also talked in another thread about how Ignatius like Clement and Irenaues 70 years later talks about the two men who founded the church; Peter and Paul. Not a touch of a papacy in any of these writings in terms of Peter being more important or having more authority than Paul.
I am glad to talk about Ignatius. He refutes your primary claim of authority through successors of Peter.

 

[CWBetts]

I do not believe in all of the fighting. We did not start all of the splits in Christianity. My church formed a long time after you and all of the other forms of Christianity could not get along. I suppose we could have stepped in and decide which one of the thousands of denominations was the most correct.
Honestly, I looked at you guys and all the other groups claiming that Apostolic Succession meant something. Then I realized that trying to figure out if the Anglicans had it, why the Orthodox do, why the Old Catholics do etc amounted to nothing. The Bible itself teaches us how to evaluate the different groups. Its their fruits.
Well now Ignatius. Have you studied the first Orthodox doctrine of Ignatius? I say that because his polity is clearly Orthodox. On the other hand, we also know this doctrine had to start somewhere. It does not exist in the NT. The one things that ALL of the letters have in common is the ultimate authority on earthy for all groups is who; the local bishop. Can you imagine a letter written to all of these churches and no mention of a papacy. It even states that Rome presides in the area of Rome. How much clearer do we need that?? Lets look at the patristic linguistics and find out that it does not state the Roman Empire but Rome itself. Break out the journals CW. Lay off the internet and lets talk about the area immediately around Rome.
I also talked in another thread about how Ignatius like Clement and Irenaues 70 years later talks about the two men who founded the church; Peter and Paul. Not a touch of a papacy in any of these writings in terms of Peter being more important or having more authority than Paul.
I am glad to talk about Ignatius. He refutes your primary claim of authority through successors of Peter.

Don’t cherry pick. Ignatius demands obedience to the Bishops. Do you know another thing that can’t be found in the Bible: the Canon. That came form the Catholic Church. Sunday Worship. That’s tradition too. And the only way that you can say that Peter had no primacy among the Apostles is to ignore the Scriptures. He is mentioned more than all the others put together. When lists are given, he is first, and Judas is last. Coincidence? I don’t think so. If you would read and study the Fathers, and not just take the parts that match your invented theology, you would see that the Fathers were Catholic in doctrine and practice.

 

[crazzeto]

Don’t cherry pick. Ignatius demands obedience to the Bishops. Do you know another thing that can’t be found in the Bible: the Canon. That came form the Catholic Church. Sunday Worship. That’s tradition too. And the only way that you can say that Peter had no primacy among the Apostles is to ignore the Scriptures. He is mentioned more than all the others put together. When lists are given, he is first, and Judas is last. Coincidence? I don’t think so. If you would read and study the Fathers, and not just take the parts that match your invented theology, you would see that the Fathers were Catholic in doctrine and practice.

Further the Bible tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation (or bullwerk) of the truth.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P111.HTM

15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

I changed my “religion” when I saw what Rightlydivide had listed as his, mainly to emphisise that we Catholics do in fact follow the bible. We just follow every part of it, including the bible telling us that the final authority in faith and morals is not the bible it’s self, but rather the Church Christ Jesus left to nurture and build the faith.

 

[nlm]

From a fairly well-known bible only (sola scriptura) website:

This statement is not only non-biblical, but assigns god-like attributes to a physical object. That is idolatry. John 20:30 and 21:25 clearly state that Jesus did and taught many things that are not recorded in scripture and that “were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Yet, they claim that the bible is complete in all respects.

I have argued before that some bible-only believers give not only the above human and god-like attributes to the bible, but also that they are seldom if ever without the bible, may even have one beneath their pillow, have a revered place in their homes for their bible, treat it as a sacred object and place their trust in it. I am sure that some will cling to it even when Jesus returns. Idolatry.

Let me start by saying that many religions treat their written word with respect. The Jews ,the Muslins and yes the various Protestant denominations. I know of no protestant home where they have a place of honor for their Bible. I will say that they would never sit their Bible on the floor however. Is that idolatry? I think it is respect.The RCC, during mass, will walk in holding a copy of the written word high up for all to see. They also will have two individuals standing on each side of it when it is being read. The priest will encense the book prior to reading and will kiss it after reading it. Is this idolatry? I think it is respect. Many RC homes have places of honor for a favorite statue where they adorn it with flowers, burn voltives in front of it ect. I know many RC who actually do sleep with a rosary or a statue of Mary or a saint under their pillow.I know of RC who have a rosary hanging from the rearview mirror of their cars. Is this idolatry? I think it is respect. There is a BIG difference between respect of a book containing God’s word and idolizing it.Many RC’s treat many different objects as sacred objects.God Bless.NLM

 

[dragoneustace]

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…

I wrote the same on difrent thread.

In Westminster Confesion Bible is on first paragraph and God on second.

You can see picture on this protestant forum, on left-top side:

forum.protestanci.info/

1. In fact, protestants don’t like four gospels.

 

[po18guy]

Polemics limit discourse.

It’s also known as the truth. Look, you are on a Catholic forum. Do you expect any Catholic to compromise on God’s truth as revealed to the ONE CHURCH which Christ founded? If this causes you to embrace Christian unity with your last breath, it will have served the truth. You ask. We’ll answer in Christian brotherhood.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Don’t cherry pick. Ignatius demands obedience to the Bishops. Do you know another thing that can’t be found in the Bible: the Canon. That came form the Catholic Church. Sunday Worship. That’s tradition too. And the only way that you can say that Peter had no primacy among the Apostles is to ignore the Scriptures. He is mentioned more than all the others put together. When lists are given, he is first, and Judas is last. Coincidence? I don’t think so. If you would read and study the Fathers, and not just take the parts that match your invented theology, you would see that the Fathers were Catholic in doctrine and practice.

Absolutely Ignatius demands obedience to the local bishops and never once mentions a bishop who has any jurisdiction out of their area. Never. As far as your contention, Paul wrote the vast majority of the New Testament and Paul/Saul appears more times than Peter/Cephas. Peter disappears after Paul comes on the scene? Coincidence?
The Bible came from the Catholic Church? I suppose that is true if you do not county any of the books prior to the NT…care to rephrase your statement?
They were not Catholic in practice. Read this and tell me the last time your congregation voted on their leaders?

From Clement.

Afterwards they gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church

The apostles approved me. We know that. Paul for one appointed elders and so did Timothy. But who else? Eminent men. Men of character. But who has to approve them? The church. The whole entire church has to vote on them or the congregation? Clearly the local church has the final vote. But do you do that? Nope.

Oh but maybe that is an exception CW. Maybe the early church really did not teach congregational polity in choosing their leaders.

How about the Didache? The first century right?

You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried

Everyone knows that the early church elected the local bishops and deacons.

 

[po18guy]

Let me start by saying that many religions treat their written word with respect. The Jews ,the Muslins and yes the various Protestant denominations. I know of no protestant home where they have a place of honor for their Bible. I will say that they would never sit their Bible on the floor however. Is that idolatry? I think it is respect.The RCC, during mass, will walk in holding a copy of the written word high up for all to see. They also will have two individuals standing on each side of it when it is being read. The priest will encense the book prior to reading and will kiss it after reading it. Is this idolatry? I think it is respect. Many RC homes have places of honor for a favorite statue where they adorn it with flowers, burn voltives in front of it ect. I know many RC who actually do sleep with a rosary or a statue of Mary or a saint under their pillow.I know of RC who have a rosary hanging from the rearview mirror of their cars. Is this idolatry? I think it is respect. There is a BIG difference between respect of a book containing God’s word and idolizing it.Many RC’s treat many different objects as sacred objects.God Bless.NLM

Good points, all. Of course, we must treat Sacred Scripture with respect and honor. But, to believe that the book has power of itself is idolatry. It has no power except through the Holy Spirit - for it is not man speaking, but God speaking to man through the Spirit. Consider: there is a bible college that has a wall mural showing Jesus presenting the bible to us. How does that serve the truth? That seems to disregard the power of the Holy Spirit - which is the very inspiration for scripture.

Today, many groups who believe in Christ live in a parallel spiritual universe as compared with the early Christians. How? The early Church had Apostles and their chosen successors; the mass which made Calvary eternally present through the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist; the Body and Blood of the Lord; scripture, authority and the deposit of faith as taught to them by Jesus. But no bible.

Contrast that with many bible communities today: No Apostles or their chosen successors; self-appointed teachers; no altar; no presence of the one eternal sacrifice; no Body and Blood of the Lord; no authority to interpret scripture. ONLY a bible. Thus, lacking Apostolic succession, an altar, the sacrifice, the Body and Blood of the Lord, the bible must then substitute for all of the foregoing, and tends to take on a life of its own. Many do not even baptize! This is upside down, and a gross deviation from the form of the Church which Christ founded.

 

[CWBetts]

Absolutely Ignatius demands obedience to the local bishops and never once mentions a bishop who has any jurisdiction out of their area. Never. As far as your contention, Paul wrote the vast majority of the New Testament and Paul/Saul appears more times than Peter/Cephas. Peter disappears after Paul comes on the scene? Coincidence?
The Bible came from the Catholic Church? I suppose that is true if you do not county any of the books prior to the NT…care to rephrase your statement?
They were not Catholic in practice. Read this and tell me the last time your congregation voted on their leaders?

From Clement.

The apostles approved me. We know that. Paul for one appointed elders and so did Timothy. But who else? Eminent men. Men of character. But who has to approve them? The church. The whole entire church has to vote on them or the congregation? Clearly the local church has the final vote. But do you do that? Nope.

Oh but maybe that is an exception CW. Maybe the early church really did not teach congregational polity in choosing their leaders.

How about the Didache? The first century right?

Everyone knows that the early church elected the local bishops and deacons.

Sigh. As per the norm for Fundamentalism. Take a line, a verse, even a word out of context to try to prove a point. I neither have the time, nor the inclination, to effectively write a book to refute your ridiculous claims. If you would truly read the Apostolic Fathers, not to try to find spurious “evidence” for your misbegotten version of Christianity, but to learn what the Early Church was really like, you would become Catholic. One cannot honestly read the Early Fathers and remain Protestant. Protestantism is built on a premise antithetical to the Early Fathers: disobedience to the Bishops.

 

[AmateurPianist]

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.

 

[po18guy]

Sigh. As per the norm for Fundamentalism. Take a line, a verse, even a word out of context to try to prove a point. I neither have the time, nor the inclination, to effectively write a book to refute your ridiculous claims. If you would truly read the Apostolic Fathers, not to try to find spurious “evidence” for your misbegotten version of Christianity, but to learn what the Early Church was really like, you would become Catholic. One cannot honestly read the Early Fathers and remain Protestant. Protestantism is built on a premise antithetical to the Early Fathers: disobedience to the Bishops.

Does not such a person makes himself superior in intellect and gifts of the Spirit to such heavyweights as John Henry Cardinal Newman, Fr. Richard John Newhouse, Professor Scott Hahn et al?

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[nlm]

Good points, all. Of course, we must treat Sacred Scripture with respect and honor. But, to believe that the book has power of itself is idolatry. It has no power except through the Holy Spirit - for it is not man speaking, but God speaking to man through the Spirit. Consider: there is a bible college that has a wall mural showing Jesus presenting the bible to us. How does that serve the truth? That seems to disregard the power of the Holy Spirit - which is the very inspiration for scripture.

Today, many groups who believe in Christ live in a parallel spiritual universe as compared with the early Christians. How? The early Church had Apostles and their chosen successors; the mass which made Calvary eternally present through the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist; the Body and Blood of the Lord; scripture, authority and the deposit of faith as taught to them by Jesus. But no bible.

Contrast that with many bible communities today: No Apostles or their chosen successors; self-appointed teachers; no altar; no presence of the one eternal sacrifice; no Body and Blood of the Lord; no authority to interpret scripture. ONLY a bible. Thus, lacking Apostolic succession, an altar, the sacrifice, the Body and Blood of the Lord, the bible must then substitute for all of the foregoing, and tends to take on a life of its own. Many do not even baptize! This is upside down, and a gross deviation from the form of the Church which Christ founded.

I can only speak for our denomination .Trust me when I say that we do not believe the actual" book" has any power of itself. Living one’s life according the it’s content however is another matter.I am not in a position to know what the artist had in mind when the mural you describe was created. Could it be meant to be seem symbolically rather than to be taken literally ? We have baptism by emersion. We baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We celebrate the Lord’s Supper.God Bless. NLM

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sigh. As per the norm for Fundamentalism. Take a line, a verse, even a word out of context to try to prove a point. I neither have the time, nor the inclination, to effectively write a book to refute your ridiculous claims. If you would truly read the Apostolic Fathers, not to try to find spurious “evidence” for your misbegotten version of Christianity, but to learn what the Early Church was really like, you would become Catholic. One cannot honestly read the Early Fathers and remain Protestant. Protestantism is built on a premise antithetical to the Early Fathers: disobedience to the Bishops.

Out of context? Who exactly do you think you are talking to? Jack Chick? I KNOW the history and I know that the way people were elected changed from the 1st century. From the Catholic Encyclopedia

One of the gravest was the interference of the lay authority in the election of bishops. Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops. Undoubtedly, the Christian Roman emperors sometimes intervened in these election, but outside the imperial cities only, and generally in the case of disagreement as to the proper person.
As a rule they contented themselves with exercising an influence on the electors. But from the beginning of the sixth century, this attitude was modified. In the East the clergy and the primates, or chief citizens, nominated three candidates from whom the metropolitan chose the bishop. At a later date, the bishops of the ecclesiastical province assumed the exclusive right of nominating the candidates. In the West, the kings intervened in these elections, notably in Spain and Gaul, and sometimes assumed the right of direct nomination

You see, your view of history is a sanitized one I can guess. You bought the infomercial about how neat and tightly early Christian history is Catholic. You ignore congregational polity. You ignore bishops reacting to the first use of images in a church, not on cave walls to tell stories you understand, but in churches by ripping them down. You ignore early Christian bishops who say they have no idea what happened to Mary. She could have been martyred, died, assumed etc no one knows. You ignore that the early church did not differintiate between Peter and Paul in regards to their authority.
You did not read the history. You accepted a sanitized internet version of the truth found on pro Catholic sites. You did reject it seems like a fundamentalist background that does not examine history. You aint talking to that kind of fundie brother.