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

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Hey Catholics! They don’t mean just you!

The term “bible believing” was designed to exclude more than Catholics. I am sure it is decades, perhaps a century or more old, and probably was designed to exclude those who do not believe in seven-day creationism, along with those who do not hold to textual literalism in general. The term is back-woodsy and smacks of anti-intellectualism. I don’t think the term was coined to refer to Catholics, except in that they, like main-line Protestants, have a more nuanced view of scripture, based on actual study of same.

Those excluded by the term include Catholics, main-line Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and probably the church down the road from the one the user of the term goes to.

 

[erikd]

It can be gleaned from scripture that Peter may have in his life been held as the primary apostle. However, scriputre nowhere teaches he had a sucessor.

20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’
Acts 1:20

If Judas had a successor, and his position considered an office (meaning that it continues even after his death) why would Peter’s position be considered as something other than an office? Remember that Jesus told the Apostles:

19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Luke 28:19-20

The Apostles were human, therefore unable to live forever. Yet, Jesus promised to be with them “to the end of age.” Even if a person cannot live forever, an office can.

17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.
St. John 21:17

St. Peter was martyred in 67AD (as prophesied by Jesus in verse 18) so is it possible that only Peter was to lead the flock? Jesus died in 31 AD, St. Peter and St. Paul in 67 AD, and the Bible not put together until 405 AD, so who led the sheep for 338 years?

 

[MrS]

Am I right in what you are saying. If you are not Cahtolic you can’t or don’t have a right to believe in the bible?

No, all should give the Bible its due place in the history, and the salvation history, of mankind.

But no one has a “right” to misuse the book of the Catholic Church, drop books from it, self interpret, and be happy with 20-30,0000 or more faith communities - many of whom think they are “Bible-believers” - who all have one thing in common…

they are NOT united to the Church through which the Bible (NT) was written, canonized, and given to the world to support the Truths of the Catholic Church.

.

 

[Bluegoat]

Since you are assuming your interpretation is correct, and completely obvious, there is really no way to answer your statement.

It’s just absurd as a statement like this from a fundementalist “Since the Bible says that the world is 4000 years old, and you don’t believe that, how can you say you believe in the Bible?”

Assuming your own argument is correct in a debate is a logical fallacy.

I hate the phrase “Bible believing.” All Christians believe something about the Bible, even if it’s odd or wrong or whatever. But the statement implies other “so-called” Christians don’t. And naming other people as “so-called” Christians is almost always very un-Christian.

 

[erikd]

I hate the phrase “Bible believing.” All Christians believe something about the Bible, even if it’s odd or wrong or whatever. But the statement implies other “so-called” Christians don’t. And naming other people as “so-called” Christians is almost always very un-Christian.

Bluegoat:

As I read your statement I couldn’t help it but to think of the 40,000 to 50,000 Christian denominations who call themselves “Bible Believing” although they all believe something a little different. Like you said, they don’t believe that others, who believe differently then they do (as many as 50,000 other denominations) are true or full Christians, so they call them “so-called” Christians. If this is not an argument for Christian unity within the Church that Jesus Christ built (St. Matthew 16:17-19, St. John 21:15-17) I don’t know what is.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Catholics! They don’t mean just you!

The term “bible believing” was designed to exclude more than Catholics. I am sure it is decades, perhaps a century or more old, and probably was designed to exclude those who do not believe in seven-day creationism, along with those who do not hold to textual literalism in general. The term is back-woodsy and smacks of anti-intellectualism. I don’t think the term was coined to refer to Catholics, except in that they, like main-line Protestants, have a more nuanced view of scripture, based on actual study of same.

Those excluded by the term include Catholics, main-line Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and probably the church down the road from the one the user of the term goes to.

Probably true, to those who have reasoned things out that far. I think many, regardless of faith tradition, have never considered what they believe vis what others do.

Jon

 

[4Squarebaby]

Bluegoat:

As I read your statement I couldn’t help it but to think of the 40,000 to 50,000 Christian denominations who call themselves “Bible Believing” although they all believe something a little different. Like you said, they don’t believe that others, who believe differently then they do (as many as 50,000 other denominations) are true or full Christians, so they call them “so-called” Christians. If this is not an argument for Christian unity within the Church that Jesus Christ built (St. Matthew 16:17-19, St. John 21:15-17) I don’t know what is.

You are taking Catholic thought that they alone have the fullness of faith and that God supernaturally protects the Pope or President/living Prophet from error, a stand which the Church shares with some other denominations like the LDS and placing it on the protestant church as a whole.

In fact using “Bible believing” we are doing the opposite, saying that the Baptist Church is equal to the Methodist Church if they do teach from the Bible. Because no one or body is held as supernaturally error free while there may be some disagreements in interpretation as a general rule the million denominations don’t see others as being less Christian or lacking in full truth or knowledge.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Hey Catholics! They don’t mean just you!

The term “bible believing” was designed to exclude more than Catholics. I am sure it is decades, perhaps a century or more old, and probably was designed to exclude those who do not believe in seven-day creationism, along with those who do not hold to textual literalism in general. The term is back-woodsy and smacks of anti-intellectualism. I don’t think the term was coined to refer to Catholics, except in that they, like main-line Protestants, have a more nuanced view of scripture, based on actual study of same.

Those excluded by the term include Catholics, main-line Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and probably the church down the road from the one the user of the term goes to.

Well-put, and it was somewhat close to what I was about to suggest myself. I’ve often found the term more than a bit off-putting, and not just when it was applied to Catholics. I was thinking of other groups that would fall outside the typical meaning of “Bible-believing”, but you summed it up better than I could.

That and the phrase always conjures the image of a hillbilly-type, Bible-thumping preacher who pronounces it “Bah-b’l b’leevin’”.

 

[SonofMonica]

You are taking Catholic thought that they alone have the fullness of faith and that God supernaturally protects the Pope or President/living Prophet from error, a stand which the Church shares with some other denominations like the LDS and placing it on the protestant church as a whole.

In fact using “Bible believing” we are doing the opposite, saying that the Baptist Church is equal to the Methodist Church if they do teach from the Bible. Because no one or body is held as supernaturally error free while there may be some disagreements in interpretation as a general rule the million denominations don’t see others as being less Christian or lacking in full truth or knowledge.

Why would you think God’s word could have different interpretations? Why do you think God would deny us absolute truth and knowledge of his will? You don’t think that God’s word has one definite interpretation? Then how is it from God?

 

[Robbinson]

Why would you think God’s word could have different interpretations? Why do you think God would deny us absolute truth and knowledge of his will? You don’t think that God’s word has one definite interpretation? Then how is it from God?

Hi SonofMonica - you can’t take this line of thinking too far, as the Catholic Church has not suggested that it has infallibly interpreted all verses of scripture - to the contrary, it has taken an infallible position on only a fraction of scripture. One might fairly say, however, that the Church has taken a view on “core doctrinal issues” and that you believe that to be the fullness of the truth based upon the doctrine of apostolic succession.

As to such position - I continue to think and pray about that.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[SonofMonica]

Hi SonofMonica - you can’t take this line of thinking too far, as the Catholic Church has not suggested that it has infallibly interpreted all verses of scripture - to the contrary, it has taken an infallible position on only a fraction of scripture. One might fairly say, however, that the Church has taken a view on “core doctrinal issues” and that you believe that to be the fullness of the truth based upon the doctrine of apostolic succession.

As to such position - I continue to think and pray about that.

Blessings,

Brian

I never said that the Church has attempted to define the meaning of every piece of scripture. I said that the Word of God has a definite meaning. Not all of it defines the faith or defines doctrine, however. There is no need for the Church to take a position about some things in scripture, because they have no practical consequences one way or the other. But this does not mean there is not an intended meaning on the part of the author. The point is, you cannot read the Bible except in the light of the Catholic faith. That’s what the Church teaches. When an individual Catholic’s proffered interpretation does not conflict with the faith, he may be wrong, but not a heretic. Where his proffered interpretation does conflict with the faith, he is both wrong and a heretic.

And for a Catholic, there are no “core doctrinal issues.” There is one Lord, one Faith and one baptism. We are not free to determine what things are essential, or the core, and what can be disregarded. The faith was once and for all delivered to the saints, as stated in Jude 3. The entire faith is essential and necessary, and we are held responsible for believing it and acting on it, to the extent we are mature enough to handle it. See Hebrews chapter 6.

Saying a prayer for you, Brian. May we both continue to grow.

 

[Robbinson]

I never said that the Church has attempted to define the meaning of every piece of scripture. I said that the Word of God has a definite meaning. Not all of it defines the faith or defines doctrine, however. There is no need for the Church to take a position about some things in scripture, because they have no practical consequences one way or the other. But this does not mean there is not an intended meaning on the part of the author. The point is, you cannot read the Bible except in the light of the Catholic faith. That’s what the Church teaches. When an individual Catholic’s proffered interpretation does not conflict with the faith, he may be wrong, but not a heretic. Where his proffered interpretation does conflict with the faith, he is both wrong and a heretic.

And for a Catholic, there are no “core doctrinal issues.” There is one Lord, one Faith and one baptism. We are not free to determine what things are essential, or the core, and what can be disregarded. The faith was once and for all delivered to the saints, as stated in Jude 3. The entire faith is essential and necessary, and we are held responsible for believing it and acting on it, to the extent we are mature enough to handle it. See Hebrews chapter 6.

Saying a prayer for you, Brian. May we both continue to grow.

Thanks - I appreciate the prayers and your post.

An example of a non-core doctrine within Catholic teaching, for example, is whether Mary died before the assumption. As I understand it, Catholics are free to believe either as scripture does not reveal this and the Church has not taken an official view on this. That, by definition, is not a “core doctrine” but one not clearly defined by the Church. On the other hand, I understand that the Assumption itself is a “core doctrine” in the Catholic Church as its been infallible defined as true by the Pope.

Core doctrines are those that affect salvation. Whether or not there is a “rapture” is not a “core doctrine” and has no bearing on salvation, for example.

Anyway - thanks for the reply and the thoughtful post. We can definiately grow together as brothers and sisters in Christ (all believers) - those in the Church and those not in the Church. My hope and prayer daily is for the day of unity within the body. Perhaps that will be reunification with the Church - that I don’t know.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[rev_kevin]

No, all should give the Bible its due place in the history, and the salvation history, of mankind.

But no one has a “right” to misuse the book of the Catholic Church, drop books from it, self interpret, and be happy with 20-30,0000 or more faith communities - many of whom think they are “Bible-believers” - who all have one thing in common…

they are NOT united to the Church through which the Bible (NT) was written, canonized, and given to the world to support the Truths of the Catholic Church.

.

ok but how many books were taken out of the original Bible. How many books did the catholic church disagree with and didn’t put it in because they didn’t believe in them or they went against their teachings. Man or the church picked what they wanted the Bible to be, and kept out what they disagreed with or went against their teachings. So you can’t say that other religions dropped books from it. The catholic church dropped the books, so they self interpreted the Bible by dropping books from the original. Yes I’m happy that there are according to you, 20 to 30,000 or more faith communities. At least they believe in God, I don’t understand why believing in God seems to be wrong to you just because they aren’t catholic. Isn’t God the God of all men Doesn’t he say if you believe in me you will have eternal life, or is that just if your catholic. What about the ones who don’t beleive in God at all. I hate to see how you feel about them if you feel this way about someone who believes in God.

 

[erikd]

You are taking Catholic thought that they alone have the fullness of faith and that God supernaturally protects the Pope or President/living Prophet from error, a stand which the Church shares with some other denominations like the LDS and placing it on the protestant church as a whole.

In fact using “Bible believing” we are doing the opposite, saying that the Baptist Church is equal to the Methodist Church if they do teach from the Bible. Because no one or body is held as supernaturally error free while there may be some disagreements in interpretation as a general rule the million denominations don’t see others as being less Christian or lacking in full truth or knowledge.

I am taking that right out of the Bible. So tell me, why can you have the interpretation of the Holy Spirit while you say the Church can be in error? Is it possible that you may be in error? Here is what Jesus said:

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
St. Matthew 16:18

The gates of hell could imply serious error, could they not? If you say yes, please explain why the Church’s interpretation of certain passages is wrong while yours is right.

 

[erikd]

ok but how many books were taken out of the original Bible. How many books did the catholic church disagree with and didn’t put it in because they didn’t believe in them or they went against their teachings. Man or the church picked what they wanted the Bible to be, and kept out what they disagreed with or went against their teachings. So you can’t say that other religions dropped books from it. The catholic church dropped the books, so they self interpreted the Bible by dropping books from the original. Yes I’m happy that there are according to you, 20 to 30,000 or more faith communities. At least they believe in God, I don’t understand why believing in God seems to be wrong to you just because they aren’t catholic. Isn’t God the God of all men Doesn’t he say if you believe in me you will have eternal life, or is that just if your catholic. What about the ones who don’t beleive in God at all. I hate to see how you feel about them if you feel this way about someone who believes in God.

Keep in mind that Jesus did build a Church. That Church was overseen by the Apostles who appointed Bishops and passed down their deposit of faith to the Bishops they had appointed. These Bishops, appointed other Bishops and passed down the same deposit of faith, and this chain kept going and going for almost 2000 years. In order to know Jesus, you have to know His Church. St. Augustine said that “there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” and his view was considered the norm, as there was no other Church for about 1000 years after Christ, and therefore people knew that to know Jesus you had to know the Church. This idea of the Bible being the only authoritative Word of God (which in itself is un-Biblical) was only started when certain reformers (who I refer to as defectors) left the Church for their own personal reasons (some of them were married to the Church and upon leaving were married to women making me question the real motives for leaving).

As far as the Books of the Bible, as Catholics we accept the teachings of the Church which mandated in 382 AD which Books were canonical and which were not. It took about 300 years from the time the last Book was written to create the canon and to put the Bible together into one collection of Books which would be appropriate to read in Church. Martin Luther, however, removed the seven Books, namely Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, as well as the additions to Daniel and Esther. He also wanted to remove the Epistles of James and Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Luther’s Antilegomena). This would have shortened all non-Catholic Bibles to just 59 Books. Thank God that even in the early Lutheran Church the supporters urged Luther not to make such a grave mistake.

 

[RNRobert]

But to the OP’s post, I too am a little irritated…maybe amused at times…by the phrase “bible believing”. It seems to be code for “anti-Tradition”. Catholics are bible believing Christians. Lutherans, Methodists, etc. are also bible believing Christians.

Mormons, JWs and certain other non-Trinitarian sects also consider themselves “Bible-Believing.”

 

[Zooey]

Hey Catholics! They don’t mean just you!

The term “bible believing” was designed to exclude more than Catholics. I am sure it is decades, perhaps a century or more old, and probably was designed to exclude those who do not believe in seven-day creationism, along with those who do not hold to textual literalism in general. The term is back-woodsy and smacks of anti-intellectualism. I don’t think the term was coined to refer to Catholics, except in that they, like main-line Protestants, have a more nuanced view of scripture, based on actual study of same.

Those excluded by the term include Catholics, main-line Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and probably the church down the road from the one the user of the term goes to.

It certainly is often meant to exclude Methodists. I speak as one who knows: I have almost developed invisible armor against the charge (by family, yet!) that I am “Christian even though still Methodist”. (I also have a cousin who is considered “Christian even though Presbyterain”, and another is “Christian even though Lutheran”.

And then there was the Baptist minister who stopped at the Methodist parsonage, and announced to the pastor that “I am here to convert you from Methodism to Christianity!”:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[RNRobert]

And then there was the Baptist minister who stopped at the Methodist parsonage, and announced to the pastor that “I am here to convert you from Methodism to Christianity!”:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Father Robert Fox tells in his book Protestant Fundamentalism and the Born Again Catholic how this fundamentalist minister visited the rectory of a Catholic Church and told them “We minister to Catholics.” I wish I could have been there- I would have replied “What a coincidence- we minister to fundamentalists!” :dancing:

 

[Janet1983]

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”.

I am a Bible-believing Christian and I will claim that till the day I die. Why? I believe what the Bible tells me.
The Bible establishes Jesus Christ as the head of the Church. Christ is the only head of the Church back then, till this day and in the future.

Wikipedia: “Bible believer (also Bible-believer, Bible-believing Christian, Bible-believing Church) is a self-description by conservative Christians to differentiate their teachings from others who see non- or extrabiblical tradition as higher or equal in authority.”

 

[erikd]

I am a Bible-believing Christian and I will claim that till the day I die. Why? I believe what the Bible tells me.
The Bible establishes Jesus Christ as the head of the Church. Christ is the only head of the Church back then, till this day and in the future.

Wikipedia: “Bible believer (also Bible-believer, Bible-believing Christian, Bible-believing Church) is a self-description by conservative Christians to differentiate their teachings from others who see non- or extrabiblical tradition as higher or equal in authority.”

Yes, the Bible established Jesus as the Head of the Church, as it is His Church. Jesus, however, was not the only shepherd in the Gospels. There was one other shepherd who Jesus asked to “feed” His sheep:

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
St. John 21:15-17