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

[benedictus2]

I agree that Janet has been very hurt, and I will pray everyday for her healing. I do not think she is here to learn about the Catholic faith, however. She has willingly embraced a great many heretical beliefs, and is very adamant about clinging to them.

That is true. I have come to the same conclusion from my discussions with her in another thread.

And when it gets too difficult she exits. I have a feeling she is afraid to face the truth because it is easier to believe the lie.

 

[benedictus2]

I am in full agreement. However, it was the corrupted persons that needed reform, not the doctrine! The Holy Scriptures should never be separated from the authority appointed by Christ to write and to teach from them.

Verywell put

 

[benedictus2]

Peter was not made into a Rock by Jesus; that is one miracle that no one witnessed. Jesus did change his name to indicate he would be a building stone laid on the foundation of the Rock, which is Christ. I am always stunned by the fact that a billions of people have come to a religion based on a single passage of Scripture. It is quite amazing; don’t you think?

Blessings

Considering the propensity of some protestant denominations to truncate whole passages to suit their own theology (completely severing the passage from its context!) , that seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

And it is not just one passage of Scripture. There is also the primacy of Peter in John 21.

 

[benedictus2]

You also overlook that the ability to loose and bind is from heaven, not earth and is given to anyone who can express the the gospel, divine revelation from God.

Au contraire. YOU **completely overlook **that JESUS (i.e. GOD HIMSELF) has GIVEN this power to Peter with the words : Whatever YOU (meaning Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU (meaning Peter) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So here we get to the heart of the title of this thread. You probably call yourself a “Bible believing” protestant and yet here it is, Christ’s own words, staring you right in the face and yet you refuse to believe Him.

So as far as you are concerned, the thread title applies.

Matthew 18 makes this clear because Jesus was speaking to a crowd. If you look at Matthew 5:29-30 and compare it to Matthew 18:8-9; you will see that Jesus is repeating to a different crowd similar teachings as that of the Sermon on the Mount; why would he just be telling this to the apostles; they already heard it at least once and probably more. Why do you think there was a child right there?

Jesus may have been speaking to a crowd in Matthew 18 and Matthew 25 but this has nothing to do wiht BINDING AND LOOSING. In fact the phrase “binding and loosing” was not evern mentioned in either of these two chapters.

So which chapter does Jesus SPECIFICALLY mention these words? Matthew 16 .

The “key” represents authority from where? Heaven; not earth. Where does that authority rest? In the Word, the message of the gospel.

So here we go back to the verse. WHO was GIVEN the keys (that is the authority to open and shut)? Peter. And this is where most protestants do most of their sidestepping. The fact that the authority was GIVEN to Peter. By himself, Peter did not have the authority. But **God CHOSE to GIVE him that authority. **

It seems to me that you have a major problem with God’s CHOICES

 

[benedictus2]

Biblical hermeneutics teach us that the Bible has both historical particularity and eternal significance. When the Bible says Scriptures, even in the OT, it should be deemed to include all of the canon of Scripture as we have it today, lest we also limit the other passages to the time and situation to which the text was written. Of course, context should be taken into account but due to its eternal significance, its application should not be so limited.

And who came up with the canon? The Catholic Church.

 

[MDK]

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”.

It’s a shame, and nothing more than arrogance and pride to say they are “Bible-believing.” All they really believe in is their own preferences for they way they think it should be. They create a god in their own image, rather than learning the truth about God as He revealed. It’s simply delusional, and not really very smart. All they need to do is look around, and see that their Protestant brethren using the same methods they are, will come up with wildly differing interpretations which cannot be reconciled which they believe to be false. Do they think that God teaches some falsehood along with some truth. It’s sadly just delusional to be Protestant.

As the Shadow Priest said, “no one ever left the Catholic Church because they were smart.”

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Bengoshi,

**You wrote: ** *On this point, I would have to agree totally with you. I didn’t know the Orthodox Church rejected the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences! *​

Yes, indeed, the Orthodox Church does not accept as its doctrine such Roman Catholic innovations as Purgatory, Limbo, and indulgences. For one thing, the Orthodox do not believe in defining as doctrine, to be accepted by all, that are dubious or poorly supported by Scripture and long and early Tradition. That is why the Eastern Orthodox do not accept even the Assumption of the B.V. Mary or her supposed immaculate conception as official doctrines, nor, of course, Papal Infallibility.

The Assumption (“Dormition”, to use Orthodox terminology), the assumption of Mary upon her death, is believed by most Orthodox, but the Orthodox Church, as what Anglo-Catholics would call a “pious opinion”, but Orthodoxy does not require belief is this doctrine.

As for Blessed Mary’s Immaculacy, that did not derive from Mary’s conception, but rather was bestowed on her at the Annunciation, when the angel proclaimed, as the Holy Scriptures themselves record, that she now was “full of grace” (i.e., immaculate) as a grace conferred upon her human condition, but one that did not occur from the moment of her conception.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are cautious about making official dogmatic dicta which
concern questionable points of doctrine, whereas the Catholic Church wants every bit of doctrine, however dubious or secondary, to be defined, often by the exercise of Scholastic reasoning (which Orthodox abhor). That’s how it is, for better or for worse, at least as well as I can understand these matters!

Jerry Parker

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Don’t make the mistake that people flock to Catholicism because of one scripture, that’s usually a Protestant MO. I think it’s amazing that people can read the same scripture and interpret it in a variety of ways. The Bible believers that I know pick and choose what scriptures they want to believe, and how to interpret them. Most will say that the Holy Spirit gives them the authority to interpret scripture. I guess that means that they receive their own special divine revelation, and are therefore infallible when they decide what a scripture means. Are your interpretations of scripture infallible as well?

That is great!

 

[GottaGo12345678]

What was Ignatius specifically about in context? It’s the Eucharist. It is real food, real flesh, real blood, of Jesus Christ spiritually re-presented…AND it is incorruptable, for eternal life.

Keep on eating the Lord; one day you will know that he does not condone the eating and drinking of raw flesh or drinking of blood; something He forbid in the OT. If Jesus meant it in the manner you practice, which He did not, then answer this question; why did He not cut His flesh and scoop up His blood at the last supper? Answer that from logic, reason & Scritpure and I will believe you.

are you referring to “spirit and life”?

John 6:60-71
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard {this} said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it? (These are the brainiacs who took Him literally, then turned away)” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 "{What} then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 (Here Jesus answers the grimblers that turned away in UNBELIEF)"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

If Jesus spoke metaphorically, why did most of His disciples leave Him over what He said? Surely intelligent people will give wiggle room to someone speaking metaphorically. Afterall, they had just benefitted the day before, from the miracle of the loaves and fish. They already knew Jesus wasn’t your average guy. Would God lead people astray? When He saw His listeners weren’t buying what He taught, and they left, did He go after them trying to clear up misconceptions? Nope! They knew exactly what Jesus was saying because they said this is a hard saying who could listen to it? And Jesus didn’t change what they were thinking.

A better quote might be

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

As I mentioned above; the people who took it literally left in unbelief; despite the fact that Jesus told them the precise manner to which He spoke and that manner accords with all of Scripture. Then, to further prove this is spiritual and not literal: “68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Another confession that is spiritual and by no means fleshy.

On your Ignatius letter; he did not mention “eating or drinking” anything. He was defending against the heresy the Jesus was not bodily raised; the resurrection. People were mocking it. Like Scripture; the context always provides better and accurate meaning.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

GottaGo12345678;5678078:

Your last paragraph on the “bishop of Rome” having a greater authority or respect among the earliest church is unfounded. If you were to say Jerusalem; at least there would some Biblical evidence to that; but not Rome. That came into effect when Emperor Constantine made Christianity, at least a form of it, the official religion of the Roman Empire. Out of that emerged the Roman Catholic Church we see today./

quote]

Did you miss an earlier post of mine referencing Clement (Bp) of Rome, 3rd successor to Peter DURING apostolic times, settling sedition among the bishops in Corinth ?

Nope I didn’t, but with that reasoning we could better show Jerusalem as the greater authority since all the apostles were there. Acts 15 “Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue…The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them,…”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise the Corinthians needed more help; Paul had a real difficult time keeping them in line with the message.

 

[jake23]

I am amazed how lacking protdestant are of christ in there hearts! the hate and sarcasim from them is a disgrace and is inapropiate. I was once protestant and went to college to become a pastor and came out Catholic instead. I assure you that you cannot have the Bible alone and truely understand the meanings! I did a test once on a protestant by giving him a swedish novel translated to english to read and after he did, he was so far off from the basic meanings of the story. This is what happens but worse with protestants! I could site verse for verse all kinds of scripure, but was mazed how far off protestant translation was from what I learned from greek, hebrew, latin language and the way poeple talked in general in biblical history. If one is truely inclined to know God with an sincere heart then they will search on there own and educate themselves thoroughly and I assure they will find the Catholic church.

 

[jake23]

sorry about the spelling! I am writing on one of these little blackberrys

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Hi. You make many assumptions in your post that you can’t prove by scripture - that’s ok, but don’t then accuse others of doing the same thing. . In my earlier post, most scholars (Protestant and Catholic) acknowledge that the original text was likely in aramaic where there was no distinction between masculine and femine. But that really is the “red herring” I noted in my prior post because as I stated there, and again now, this docrtine of authority need not turn exclusively on whether Peter was the “Rock”.

By comparision, there is no basis for the conclusion you made regarding the purpose of the reference to Peter as the “rock” as a fortelling of the coming of Christians other than pure speculation - though its a creative thought.

As to the binding and losing being spoken to layman rather than apostles - I think here you are the one being too loose with scripture and pulling out of context. If you look a tad more closely you will see that that verse immediately follows the description of a “church” with authority where disputes can be resolved. That “church” with authority was led under the authority of the apostles.

"8:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18:18
“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The context here clearly shows us that the reference to binding and losing is addressed to the apostles - the same ones who would resolve disputes as the Church.

Blessings,

Brian

Here is the primary difference between you misinterpretation and my correct interpretation; the reality of what we experience in the real world and the reality of all the people that have preached and continue to preach the gospel and those who keep rejecting are bound and those that accept become Christians, which are the building stones of the church of God. There is myth and there is reality. Won’t you see the reality and dispel the myth?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Nope. Still in Acts 2 verses 36-38
Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Therefore membership into this body is not just MERE believing. How they became part of this body is by baptism.

That is why in 1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Yes, indeed the Lord is adding to those believers, but these group are not MERE believers, these group originated with the 12 at Pentecost and grew. And how they were added was through baptism. Those who believed were then baptised.

And I already have. That is why I said the Church is indeed the Body of Christ. And you rightly pointed out Ephesians. And what you completely missed in reading Ephesians is that Paul was already talking about the living and growing Body of Christ. But to become a member of this Church, more is required than just MERE belief. That is what I was trying to point out which you missed.

So yes, as verse 16 goes “from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”
Each of us has a part to play as part of the entire Body. BUT FIRST, WE MUST BECOME A PART OF THAT BODY AND HOW THAT HAPPENS IS THROUGH BAPTISM.

You have many errors and misconceptions here; so I will briefly touch on two. 1) How many baptisms are spoken of in Scripture; not counting Jesus’ unique Baptism by John the baptist? Please answer this specific question…thank you.

2) How do you reconcile Acts 2:38 with the following? Please answer this question…thank you.
Acts 10:44-47
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47*** “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we {did,} can he?”***

1 Peter 3:18-21 [In Context]
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits {now} in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Please answer this question a total of 4 questions in this post 1 & 2 above and 3 below.
3) What does the water represent in verse 20?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

That is because you are clueless as to the nature of the Papacy. Read more about this Holy Office and why we have a Pope then we can talk.

I have; they are wrong!

Naaah. In John 21, Jesus says to Peter : feed MY sheep, feed MY lambs. So Jesus here is actually telling Peter to be guardian of HIS (Jesus’s) sheep. So while Jesus is Eternal Shepherd, He has appointed someone else (Peter) to look after His (Jesus’s) Sheep.

It is called a shepherd and there are many of them because their are many little flocks, which only the Chief Shepherd, can watch over as one flock. There is no appointment of Jesus to take the place of the Chief Shepherd; that is folly on your part.

So unless you are part of the flock that Peter and his successor is tending to, then you probably do not belong to Jesus’s flock

I’m certain I’m part of the flock of Christ.

Agreed. That is why the Catholic Church exists through to this day. Empires have come and gone but the fact that the Catholic Church continues to exist from that day on Pentecost is a testament to its Divine Nature.

That could be one of a few reasons.

Wrong. Peter is the Rock. Jesus Himself renamed Simon as Rock If you have a problem with that then it is not the Church you have a disagreement with but Jesus Himself.

This is myth and far from the reality of what we experience and witness every day and contradicts what Peter said about himself; but you have a different Peter and a different Mary as well, which both are far removed from the pages of Scripture.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Here is what Jesus said and did for Peter, in front of ALL the apostles.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102

I am fully aware and have studied extensively on this, but you have a mythological view of Peter that is far removed from Scripture and the reality of how Peter and the other apostles viewed Peter.

I do stand corrected on one thing; billions of people throughout the ages till today have a religion built on 2, not 1, passages of Scripture, at least in my opinion and observations based on experience and the Word. It has worked for many people for 1700 plus years and is quite fascinating. Cheers!

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Gottago can you give me the verses in the Bible where ALL the apostles says it is Jesus who is the head of the Church?

Same question here. Can you give me the verses where all the apostles say it is God alone who forgives sins.

I on the other hand can give you this verse: John 20:21-23 Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Actually the burden of proof is on you to show where Scripture says 1) a priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church even is mentioned once in Scripture and 2) that based on proving #1 you can also show that ability to forgive sins comes from people and not heaven.

Matthew 6 [Sermon on the Mount}
6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7 "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do (Can you think of the most popular prayer in the world is?), for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. 8 "So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
9 **"Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 **And forgive us our debts opheilēma = metaphor - offense or sin], as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Here we are told the Father forgives sin and only pray to the Father; do you adhere to Jesus? No you do not 100% of the time in this area; I do.

Eph 4:32
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as ***God in Christ also has forgiven you. ***

You are already aware of these things and do not even need a shred of proof, but in your unbelief, you purposely reject the full teaching by stepping outside the boundaries set forth by Jesus Himself.

I ask you to please answer the two questions at the beginning of the post…thank you.

 

[greggy53]

It is called a shepherd and there are many of them because their are many little flocks, which only the Chief Shepherd, can watch over as one flock. There is no appointment of Jesus to take the place of the Chief Shepherd; that is folly on your part…

The Bible speaks plainly of Jesus asking Peter to feed his sheep. How do you reconcile this not happening? Especially to the point of accusing someone of folly when they read the scripture and believe what Jesus plainly asked Peter to do 3 times no less!

It’s amazing how you “Bible believers” can completely disregard what the Bible says in order to suit your distorted view of Christianity

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Wrong again.

Here is a more detailed explanation of Matthew 16:13-19 and why Jesus went all the way to Ceasaria Philippi to rename Simon as Rock and to promise him that he will be the rock upon which Jesus will build His Church.

Background:

Caesaria Philipi is around 20 miles ( a rough two days journey up the mountains) from Galillee.

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene?

Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip.

In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high.

On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine).

To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

With that scene in mind, let us now read Matthew 16: 13-19

**When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” **
**He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” **
**Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

Comment:

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep.

Steve Ray also notes the implication of the water in the cave. He comments that when you think of Peter being the rock and the water from this Rock now waters Gods’ people.

Also, since this cave is the origin of the Jordan river where Jesus was baptized and went with His disciples when they went baptizing, you can see in this symbolism the whole salvation theology including that of baptism as a sacrament of incorporation into Christ’s Church.

Another thing, and this is very important, neither Jesus nor the Father made any teaching about Jesus’ true identity and mission. This teaching THEY caused to be pronounced through Peter.
Christ could have gone around proclaiming He is the Son of God but He didn’t. He let that be declared through Peter.

If you notice, even His apostles had no real clue as to who Jesus was. Peter cuts through all that speculation and pronounces the TRUTH about Jesus Christ. Through the ages to this very day, his successors continue to pronounce the truth about who Jesus is and what His mission is all about.

I’m familiar with all the Catholic arguments to support their religious beliefs; however it does not accord with what we see and experience in the real world and what we see in Scripture. All one has to do is read 1 Peter and 2 Peter and then they will see exactly how Peter viewed himself in regard to his associates. You rather believe the mythological Peter, which is far removed from the Holy Word of God.

That is fine; I have no problem with it because it is a personal choice on who or what you follow. The choices have consequences, but to each their own choice.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Nope Peter was not a stone. Jesus was very clear about that.

I have replied to this before but here it is again.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic for rock is Kepha. In Aramaic Matthew 16:18 would have gone like this: And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church, “. Straight English translation would have gone “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church”.

So why the Petros and petra problem? The Greek language have genders for things. Since Simon is a man, they cannot translate the Aramaic Kepha into Petra because that is a feminine name. So they gave him the male equivalent which is Petros.

Also, although there is a pebble/rock distinction in classical Greek, by the time of Jesus this distinction has gone, so petra and petros are both used to refer to rock.

In John 1:47 and elsewhere in Paul’s letter, Peter is called Cephas and Cephas means rock not stone.

Your argument, that you parrot from the apologetic ideology of Catholicism, is like a old rusty bucket that cannot hold water any longer. We were given the vast majority of the NT Scripture in the Greek for a very good reason; because of all the nuances that help us fallible humans to render or rightly divide the word of God. We do not change words to make it fit our misconceptions if one is to be honest in their understanding.

If you would like to learn some of the nounces and see for yourself just how detailed the ancient Greek is; click this link. It has been a blessing to me and I’m sure it would be for you as well.
ntgreek.org/