Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[jake23]

I went to college as protestant wanting to be a pastor and came out Catholic instead! I was amazed how far off protestant interpretation of the Bible was from the actualy meanings and even more baffled how these protestant pastors overlooked or disregarded this information during there siminary studies.

Most protestants have many opinions but know real educated knowledge to back that up and if I didnt know any better I would say these people believe that the poeple in Christ time and the first writings where in english!

The Catholic church existed from the beginning and not only that but the catholic bishops gave us the Bible! Protestants may think they believe in they Bible but they cannot because they do not know what the Bible really means! They know there is a God and his son our savior is Christ yet do not follow his whishes and follow the church he gave us and though they might make it to heaven, they are spiritualy inmature!

Pray that they will open there hearts in prayer and also get a real education on what they are reading instead of the Bible studies with a bunch of poeple who now how to read but do not know how to interpret and do not know biblical history, if they did they would be Catholic!

Let us pray for these lost people and let us help them home to Christ’s holy catholic church!

 

[Tanner9188]

I disagree. The Lord told Moses that the Israelites would be a “priestly kingdom” (Exodus 19:6), yet he still established a priesthood with Aaron and his sons. And while Christians are a “kingly priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), there is still an ordained priesthood that serves with Jesus the high priest. I would also point out that not only the Catholic Church, but the Orthodox Churches of the East have an ordained priesthood as well. It wasn’t until Luther’s revolt of 1517 that Christians sects rejected the priesthood.

And I did search the Word of God- it is what led me out of the division and confusion of Protestantism and into the Catholic Church that Christ founded.

Hey; if they say it okay; lets jump on the broad religious bandwagon with all of our religions baggage and ignore that little gate that admits one at a time and does not allow for all our baggage, what fun is that. After all, both are marked Heaven, so lets go together and bring all our rituals, traditions and trinkets.

Look at poor pathetic Bible Believer struggling to get through that narrow gate.

Why bother with what the NT established; rather lets look back at the OT that has a clearly established sacrificial priesthood designed by God; whereas the NT has a Chief Priest and a priesthood of individual believers that make up a body, known as His church, where He established Himself as the Head. No where did God establish the Catholic Priesthood or He did a great job of hiding it. Search the Scripture and see if you can find it; it was so evident in the OT; I guess He decided to be stealth??

May God drawl you close to His heart.

 

[Janet1983]

Hi Janet - perhaps this can/should be a different thread, but can you identify some of the teachings which pulled you away from the Catholic church? I ask, as I am a Protestant very much being drawn to the Catholic Church and I’ve spent, as you might imagine, a fair amount of time studying, praying about, and searching the scriptures relating to Catholic doctrine.

Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

Brian

Janet,

Tell me what are the major teachings of the Catholic Church that you deny?

Ufam Tobie

You are right, this would be a different thread.
If you really want to know what the issues are I suggest you look at what CARM has to say about the topic… This way we do not go off-topic and you still find your information without getting into a lengthy debate. If you are not interested, ok…
LINK to CARM…
LINK to CARM on Roman Catholicism.
That does not mean that I agree with CARM in all aspects, but on major dogmatic issues I do.

 

[Tanner9188]

Wrong again Sola Tanner. The Catholic priesthood is a participation of the priesthood of Christ, the one true Priest, living and operating in each of His ministers.

See reply to RNRobert

 

[Tanner9188]

You are right, this would be a different thread.
If you really want to know what the issues are I suggest you look at what CARM has to say about the topic… This way we do not go off-topic and you still find your information without getting into a lengthy debate. If you are not interested, ok…
LINK to CARM…
LINK to CARM on Roman Catholicism.
That does not mean that I agree with CARM in all aspects, but on major dogmatic issues I do.

**Hi Janet,

Join me in prayer for Brian; that God will open his heart to what the word of God says as he compares Scripture with Catholic doctrine. Thank you and God bless you.

Janet are you familiar with the Bible Bulletin Board? If not, send me a PM and I will give you the link for you to check out and decide if you believe Brian may benefit**.

 

[ufamtobie]

Ufamtobie,

I do believe the CC to be Christian because there are Christians in the CC.
I for my part however cannot stay a catholic with good conscience as I deny major teachings of the CC after I had been part of the CC (and an integral part of my parish) for more than 20 years. If it had not been for those teachings I would have stayed in the CC, I cannot however justify these in front of others and in front of myself.
Even though I strongly assume that there are people in the CC who are true Christians and who follow the Lord I cannot possibly be part of this church any longer.

Janet,

First of all, you don’t need to tell me, that Catholics are Christians, fact is that the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church founded on rock.

Janet, what are the teachings of the Catholic Church that sent you packing?

How often did you attend Mass, the Eucharist, Confession etc…

Yes, you are correct you would never be able to justify your leaving the Catholic Church to anyone and not even to Jesus Christ himself when you come before him.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Robbinson]

You are right, this would be a different thread.
If you really want to know what the issues are I suggest you look at what CARM has to say about the topic… This way we do not go off-topic and you still find your information without getting into a lengthy debate. If you are not interested, ok…
LINK to CARM…
LINK to CARM on Roman Catholicism.
That does not mean that I agree with CARM in all aspects, but on major dogmatic issues I do.

Hi Janet - I hope that isn’t the best you have in terms of scriptural/traditional issues with Catholic doctrine. Each of those issues (some real strawmen, others more legitimate but all ultimately resolvable) are squarely addressed by catholic apologists (e.g., keating, ray, hahn, staples to name a few) in their writings. Rather than “swap” apologists - perhaps you could identify a single doctrine in your own words, and we could discuss it if you like.

The treatment of the Eucharist, for example, on that cite is quite superficial and somewhat misleading. There are texts in scripture which suggest the “real presence” of the Eucharist (most notably John and Corinthians), but what is most interesting, perhaps, is the historical record, the writings of the earliest Church fathers who were direct disciples of the apostles. Their writings show us that the belief in the “real presence” was prevelant from the earliest years of the Church (from those taught directly by the apostles) and frankly remained prevealent until the time of the reformation. Think about that a little - its very significant dont’ you think that those who were taught by the apostles themselves held this belief?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[RNRobert]

May God drawl you close to His heart.

He did- that’s why I’m Catholic!

 

[Janet1983]

Janet,

First of all, you don’t need to tell me, that Catholics are Christians, fact is that the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church founded on rock.

Janet, what are the teachings of the Catholic Church that sent you packing?

How often did you attend Mass, the Eucharist, Confession etc…

Yes, you are correct you would never be able to justify your leaving the Catholic Church to anyone and not even to Jesus Christ himself when you come before him.

Ufam Tobie

I could not justify me being part of the CC…
If you want to know to what extend I was part of the CC read this here… I posted it some time ago.
LINK to my post.

 

[Janet1983]

Perhaps you could identify a single doctrine in your own words, and we could discuss it if you like.

Brian, while I appreciate your interest I will not go off-topic on this one. Write me a message and I will gladly respond.

 

[Tanner9188]

I could not justify me being part of the CC…
If you want to know to what extend I was part of the CC read this here… I posted it some time ago.
LINK to my post.

Janet;

I read your testimony and I’m in tears and my heart is very heavy. This is a true testimony to the power of God; he is raised and glorified by the work He has wrought in you. You were brought very low; so that in your weakness He was able to move.

It is all of Grace, by faith in Christ; not of yourself; least you should boast. But now you boast in the Lord. I thank God for your testimony; praise you Lord for opening the eyes and heart of my sister in Christ Jesus.

 

[po18guy]

Unfortunately; you are not open to the truth. I have a Bible because He used men, just like He did all the prophets and ALL the apostles to lay the foundation of the church, which Jesus builds, to make sure His Word would be known and understood by His children. God is not a respecter of persons and could have, and probably did, use both godly and ungodly men under the strict influence of the Holy Spirit.

Rather than wasting time on frivolous posts; perhaps it would be better spent reading the Word of God. I don’t know.

God bless you!

My face has been slapped. No need for you to become defensive - only pensive. Will you agree to stop privately interpreting scripture? It is the demon’s method of leading you astray. Word.

 

[guanophore]

but it is obvious here that Scripture was being ignored when the Catholic Church made celibacy for their bishops a requirement.

What is obvious is your lack of knowledge about history, including the monastic tradition, and the value of the gift of celibacy among the disciples of Christ.

When you are ready to really explore the history of your faith, you will find yourself too embarrassed to make such statements. Since you are so hostile toward Catholicism, I recommend that you begin your studies with the Orthodox. I would like to see you go to their forum, and convince them that they were ignoring scripture when they decided to choose for bishops among those called to celibacy.

Ignoring Scripture and contradicting a plain statement of it with a new rule could logically be called “re-inventing”, regardless of any excuses to defend such contradiction of Scripture.

Indeed, it could, if that is what happened. However, this invention of history is all that is contradictory here.

 

[guanophore]

Are you trying to be funny? Without the celibacy there is not way to climb up within the hierarchy of the CC...

Well, this reveals a gross misperception of the role of the clergy. They come to serve, and not to be served. They take on the role of Christ - washing the feet of the saints. They are called to pour out their lives in service to the flock. “Climbing” is a secular attitude toward leadership which Jesus strictly taught against. He said that the one who wanted to be “first” must be the servant of all.

And I got a question: What about all of those kids that are born to live without a father because their dad is a priest? Experts talk about several thousand children in Germany alone.
And what about the US… look at this:
childrenofpriests.org

What about them? The violation of one’s vows, whether to the Church or to a marriage,and the abandonment of one’s children is wrong no matter who commits the sin. Do you think these men are worse sinners than all other fathers that abandon their children?

 

[guanophore]

The entire Papal system is based on one verse of the Bible, namely Matthew 16:18.

No, Fisher. Nothing from the Catholic Church is “based on” the Bible. The CC is based upon Christ, and the Apostles as the foundation. The Church was whole and entire prior to any word of the NT being written, and the Papacy was alive and well for 400 years before the Bible was created.

In that verse it is claimed that Jesus made St. Peter the first Pope. This is called the "Primacy of Peter". Not one of the early
   Christians understood it to mean any such thing. The Council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451, totally repudiated this idea.

Clearly you have a lot to learn about the history of your faith.

1. Peter was the “minister of the circumcision” (Galatians 2:8 KJV)…minister of the Jewish brethren, not commissioned to be the beginning of a Gentile Roman Catholic Church.

Christ is the beginning of the Church. The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation. The Church is not Gentile or Jew, for Christ has broken down that dividing wall, and the two have become one.

The Catholic Church is not"Roman".

Paul was the apostle called out by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:2, 2:8), and Paul was the one who wrote to the Roman church [Book of Romans]. Jesus never started any Roman Catholic Gentile papacy

These statements are true. The Papacy is not “Roman” and it is not exclusive to “Gentiles”. The first Pope was a Galilean.

All the first Christians were Hebrews.

After Jesus supposedly commissioned Peter as a “rock” that He would build a Gentile Roman Catholic Papacy upon, He turned to Peter and called him “Satan”. (Matthew 16:23 KJV).

No, Fisher. Jesus did not build a “Gentile Roman” anything. You have invented a strawman.

Paul, the apostle Jesus called out to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles, publicly blamed Peter for teaching wrong doctrine and rebuked him. (Galatians 2:11 KJV).

No, Fisher. Paul confronted Peter for failing to comply with the right doctrine that God used him to reveal to the Church. This is an examply of hypocrisy, not wrong teaching.

Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Christian church is built upon. (1 Cor. 10:4: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”). Peter was just a “stone” (John 1:42 KJV: “…thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”).

It is unclear to me why people do not want to accept that Jesus grafted Peter into Himself and made him “rocky”. It seems to me that it is even more phenomenal, Peter being so full of frailties that he was.

 

[po18guy]

Unfortunately; you are not open to the truth.Truth? What IS truth? How do you know that your interpretation of scripture is the truth, and not the leading of a demon? A demon could be leading you without your knowledge or awareness. I am certainly open to your opinion, if that’s what you mean.

I have a Bible because He used men, just like He did all the prophets and ALL the apostles to lay the foundation of the church, which Jesus builds (built - it’s already done)

 

[po18guy]

Janet;

I read your testimony and I’m in tears and my heart is very heavy. This is a true testimony to the power of God; he is raised and glorified by the work He has wrought in you. You were brought very low; so that in your weakness He was able to move.

It is all of Grace, by faith in Christ; not of yourself; least you should boast. But now you boast in the Lord. I thank God for your testimony; praise you Lord for opening the eyes and heart of my sister in Christ Jesus.

DISCLAIMER: The following is merely my opinion, but all Eastern Orthodox and Catholics who believe in the real presence of Christ will know what I mean.

To me, this is testimony only to the power of demons, who lead the faithful stray. Janet either did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or was caused by some supernatural power to doubt it. Who would lead away from Christ? God, or a demon? Lies are made acceptable by the evil one. It is the truth that is hard to accept.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

Regarding this thread perhaps some light will be shed by explaining the key words from the Greek Manuscript(*1) of Matthew 16:18, “ kagw de soi legw oti su ei petros kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian”

Note that three words above are underlined which will be discussed later; and, as with any translation from one language to another there are individual words in the original language, which don’t have an equivalent word in the English language. Additionally given the overarching importance of this verse I don’t think that Jesus chose his words haphazardly.

(Note: there are no uppercase letters in the ancient Greek alphabet.)

(From the KJV2K) MT 16:18: “And I say also unto you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;” (Which has been “Latinized” with the use of the Latin name Peter (which has no meaning) but it sounds like the Greek noun petros which means a small rock. Thus today I believe the original meaning of the word petros has been lost.)

The literal Greek to English(*2) says:

Verse 18 “And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly"

Which still misses the mark, I’ll substitute the underlined Greek words to show why this is so.

Verse 18 “And I also say to thee, that thou art a petros, and upon this petra I will build my ekklhsian”

petros meaning a piece of a rock, isolated rocks or small stones, including flints and stones for slings. (The following is my opinion but I can’t help thinking of the parable of the mustard seed, see: MT 13:31 – 32, MK 4:31 – 32 and LK 13:19)

petra is the feminine of petros, and is predominantly used in secular Greek for a large and solid “rock”, or a stony mountain chain. It also denotes firmness and immovability. Figuratively it means and unbending character.

ekklhsian or Ecclesia as it has become today, there are possibly as many definitions as there are denominations. However, when Jesus used this word, it was a sectarian word meaning the calling together of a community or group. In this case it is a call to the faithful to meet and unite.

*1. I’ve used both the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort Critical Text (For Protestants.) Note: they are identical

*2. Young’s Literal translation.

As a final note I used the KJV2Kin the hope it will be acceptable to all, and because I’ve just moved and haven’t yet unpacked my New Jerusalem Bible.

Simeon

For anyone interest in “where I’m coming from”, this it means to me to be a servant of Jesus and a Christian:

1. MT 22:36 - 40 “Teacher, which is the great command in the Law?’ And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding-- this is a first and great command; and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*; on these–the two commands–all the law and the prophets do hang.”
2. MT 6: 37 - 38 “And judge not, and ye may not be judged; condemn not, and ye may not be condemned; release, and ye shall be released. `Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed, and shaken, and running over, they shall give into your bosom; for with that measure with which ye measure, it shall be measured to you again.” Or see MT 6:14 – 15.
   .
3. MT 6:14 – 15 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
4. 1 JO 3:14 - 19 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loves not his brother abides in death. Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his heart of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
5. Titus 3:9 “9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”

While I’m improving on loving my neighbor/brother and sister, I must admit that my dog Tobey greatly exceeds me in this.

 

[NotTooSmart]

To me, this is testimony only to the power of demons,

Oh really. Fascinating.

Per her testimony, she made a personal decision for Jesus Christ per John 3:16.

And. that is demonic.

Interesting.

You know, the same experience happened to me. That must be demonic too by your very same logic. Interesting.

You know, maybe you just don’t understand what happened to Janet. That is possible.

Now I don’t think that all Catholics have not made a personal decision for Jesus Christ, but just maybe you have not. Because if you had, I just don’t understand why you would be ascribing this to demons (read the gospels and see how Jesus reacted when other folks did it in his day).

 

[kcmekim]

The Bible establishes Peter as the head of the true Church. The Popes are the modern-day Peters. Please explain how you can deny this truth and still say you are “Bible-believing”.

That’s funny, Ephesians 5:23 says that Jesus is the head of the church, not Peter and Ephesians 5:24 says that the church is subject to the authority of Christ, not Peter.