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

  • Thread starter Thread starter excelsus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
luckyfredsdad said:
**I find it sad, that a character who belongs to a Church that had its genesis in the formation of a Robber Council at Trent in 1564, should attack a Catholic Communion whose provenance was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem some few years after Christ’s birth!

Adulterous King is a good definition of Henry, but when we remember that at least one pope had sexual relations with his own mother, it seems to me that it isn’t a very good or profitable road for Catholics, especially Roman ones, to go down!

Further, Every bishop is a descendant of Peter and indeed of every apostle. Again I repeat the question you didn’t answer in my previous mail. Where in scripture is the history of the papacy or of the pope written? Where is the papacy in Holy Tradition?

The Apostolic College is oftimes shown in Acts and the Episcopal College is refered to when we talk about the Ecumenical Councils and the ,‘true’, synods of the Church! It is in these that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church exists.**
Click to expand...
Catholic Bishops, and the Pope are descendants of Peter, anyone else is self appointed. The Papacy is found in the book of Matthew, and your slander and lies agianst it, or the Church will not prevail. Thats in Matthew too. I don’t know what you are talking about with “robber council”, or “characters”. Sounds like just another protestant making things up as they go.
 
luckyfredsdad said:
**Further, Every bishop is a descendant of Peter and indeed of every apostle. **
Click to expand...
Just curious, how did you come to understand this?
40.png
lucky:
**Again I repeat the question you didn’t answer in my previous mail. Where in scripture is the history of the papacy or of the pope written? Where is the papacy in Holy Tradition? **
Click to expand...
Re: scripture

You’re used to seeing the quote from Matthew. Here’s another moment, where Jesus settles the issue in the upper room, in front of ALL the apostles AGAIN.

earlier as you know Salome tried to get Jesus to put her sons James and John on His right and left hand and THAT didn’t work with Jesus.

Lobbying for top position just doesn’t work either. And that is what Jesus is saying. The key is have Jesus put you there. THEN there should be no argument. That’s what we continue to see Jesus do with Peter. And since the Church will last forever so must the offices Jesus establishes.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102
 
“Sounds just like just another protestant making things up as they go on!”

**This might be true indeed! It would be easier doing that than having to study the faith which you appear not to have done with some success!

“.Protestant”?

My Church has never used the term Protestant as a theological term. It has refused ever since the reformation to compromise itself and the faith! Unlike the New Church of Trent, who so described themselves to the House of Lords in a letter dated 1791 when they used the phrase,“Protestant Catholic Dissenters.” Who would need to tell lies with the truth made so public?**

**Catholic Bishops?

John Evelyn, the 17th, Century Diarist, recorded in his pages for 1686 Jan, his comments on the ,“New Church of Trent,” meaning the Romanists at the Court of King James 11nd.
Your Church is a Catholic Sect dating from the Council of Trent.

Interestingly in the additions to the New Creed, of Pope Pius 1V, from Trent,]
which is obligatory on your Bishops and Clergy and on all ,‘who promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome,’ [note Church of Rome, not Catholic Church!] it is professed,‘nor will I ever understand or interpret it ,[Scripture,] except according to the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers.’

When you look at the standard quotes from scripture through the lenses of the Ancient Fathers, we find a whole new world with none of the distortions of the Vatican.**
 
excelsus said:
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”.
Click to expand...
Because in the Greek, the object of the sentence is the confession of faith that Peter exudes. Yes, it says, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” It does not say “upon YOU I will build my church!” Rather, Christ’s church is based on the common confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” One or two controversial verses in Scripture just seem insufficient to establish something as large and far-reaching as the Papacy.
 
Matthew 16:14-20
14 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
15 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,* the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,* because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’),* and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell* will not conquer it.19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid* on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit* on earth will be permitted in heaven.”
20 Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [NLT]

Read this in context for a moment Simon Peter said a statement of pure faith, then he mad the statements that the Roman Catholic Church claims made Peter the first Pope. But I will note shortly just three clear cases Jesus honored pure faith over any other consideration.

Jesus in Mark 10:13-16 stated clearly that one must receive the kingdom of God with the faith of a child. In two other stories He honored a woman who believed in in Him and with her faith touching His robe was healed. And the Roman Officer who believed with faith that if Jesus just commands his servant healed it will be done.

1 John 3:27 also nixes the need for teachers John said if one listens to the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth.

So Protestants simply state it was the faithful who have powerful raw simple faith will unleash the power of Jesus across the world who have that authority those Called to serve in ministry, teaching, missions or prophecy. Its perfectly reasonable.
 
The expression “Bible-believing” is often used by Protestants to distinguish themselves from other Protestants. Some simply don’t take the Bible seriously and those who do want to make it clear that they do.

Makes all the difference in the world if you spend time in those two kinds of churches.

And, since we don’t think “this rock” is Peter, but rather the faith stated by Peter, and we don’t put much stock in church tradition and ritual, the Bible is about all we have.

A Protestant church that isn’t Bible-believing is often pretty much a Buddy Jesus Social Club, so we fire-breathing Bible believers like to make the distinction.

(We aren’t thinking about Catholics at all most of the time, if that was the concern.)
 
Nominefili said:
Because in the Greek, the object of the sentence is the confession of faith that Peter exudes.
Click to expand...
No it’s Peter. Even before this moment, Jesus already told Simon his name would be Rock.
No:
Yes, it says, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” It does not say “upon YOU I will build my church!”
Click to expand...
Who received the name change? Who received the keys? Who received the power to bind and loose? It was Peter. His faith is NOT seperate from Peter. It’s a package deal.
No:
Rather, Christ’s church is based on the common confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” One or two controversial verses in Scripture just seem insufficient to establish something as large and far-reaching as the Papacy.
Click to expand...
Jesus used multiple verses to prove His point.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102
 
Libertarian_FL said:
Matthew 16:14-20
14 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
15 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,* the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,* because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’),* and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell* will not conquer it.19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid* on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit* on earth will be permitted in heaven.”
20 Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [NLT]

Read this in context for a moment Simon Peter said a statement of pure faith, then he mad the statements that the Roman Catholic Church claims made Peter the first Pope. But I will note shortly just three clear cases Jesus honored pure faith over any other consideration.

Jesus in Mark 10:13-16 stated clearly that one must receive the kingdom of God with the faith of a child. In two other stories He honored a woman who believed in in Him and with her faith touching His robe was healed. And the Roman Officer who believed with faith that if Jesus just commands his servant healed it will be done.

1 John 3:27 also nixes the need for teachers John said if one listens to the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth.

So Protestants simply state it was the faithful who have powerful raw simple faith will unleash the power of Jesus across the world who have that authority those Called to serve in ministry, teaching, missions or prophecy. Its perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102
 
luckyfredsdad said:
“Sounds just like just another protestant making things up as they go on!”
**This might be true indeed! It would be easier doing that than having to study the faith which you appear not to have done with some success!
“.Protestant”?
My Church has never used the term Protestant as a theological term. It has refused ever since the reformation to compromise itself and the faith! Unlike the New Church of Trent, who so described themselves to the House of Lords in a letter dated 1791 when they used the phrase,“Protestant Catholic Dissenters.” Who would need to tell lies with the truth made so public?****Catholic Bishops?
John Evelyn, the 17th, Century Diarist, recorded in his pages for 1686 Jan, his comments on the ,“New Church of Trent,” meaning the Romanists at the Court of King James 11nd.
Your Church is a Catholic Sect dating from the Council of Trent.
Interestingly in the additions to the New Creed, of Pope Pius 1V, from Trent,]
which is obligatory on your Bishops and Clergy and on all ,‘who promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome,’ [note Church of Rome, not Catholic Church!] it is professed,‘nor will I ever understand or interpret it ,[Scripture,] except according to the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers.’

When you look at the standard quotes from scripture through the lenses of the Ancient Fathers, we find a whole new world with none of the distortions of the Vatican.**
Click to expand...
It looks to me like you are taking a little history, and drawing conclusions based on a few statements taken out of context. Am I supposed to take it seriously that because somebody wrote in a diary “the new Church of Trent” that this is evidence of a new “sect” of the Church? Come on, give me a break.

I don’t see anything wrong with saying the “the Church of Rome” The Church has been seated in Rome for 1,700 years.

It is a good thing that scripture is not interpreted by the individual. Scripture says so…
2 Peter 1:20 "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. "
That is what was being professed. Only the Church through the Holy Spirit can properly interpret scripture. That is why only we Catholics can claim to have the correct interpretation of the scriptures. That is why you protestants are so divided. God gave the scriptures to the Church, the one, Holy Catholic and apostolic Church which is seated in Rome.
luckyfredsdad said:
When you look at the standard quotes from scripture through the lenses of the Ancient Fathers, we find a whole new world with none of the distortions of the Vatican.
Click to expand...
I don’t have the slightest clue as to what you mean when you say “lenses of the ancient fathers”…Who are you talking about??? Not the so-called reformers? They weren’t anywhere around when the Catholic Church assembled the scriptures into the cannon.
 
  • Infallible:
  • The Bible: Infallible. Who told us? The Councils of the Church
  • Who decided what should be included in the Bible? The Councils of the Church.
  • Who has ultimate interpretation of the Bible, decision on Dogma? The Councils of the Church.
  • The Councils of the Church: Infallible. Who told us? The Councils of the Church.
  • The Pope: Infallible (in morals & doctrine speaking ex cathedra) Who told us? The Councils of the Church. Who’s representative of and appointed by the Catholic Church? The Pope.
  • Who appoints the Pope? The College of cardinals.
  • The College of cardinals: Infallible
  • Who told us? The Councils of the Church
  • Who appoints members to the College of cardinals? The Pope.
  • Who told us? The Councils of the Church.
  • Who appoints members to these Councils? The Pope.
  • Incestuous affection? Unlawful desire? No.
  • Who told us? The Councils of the Church (& the Pope).
 
Libertarian_FL said:
Matthew 16:14-20
14 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
15 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,* the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,* because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’),* and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell* will not conquer it.19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid* on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit* on earth will be permitted in heaven.”
20 Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [NLT]

Read this in context for a moment Simon Peter said a statement of pure faith, then he mad the statements that the Roman Catholic Church claims made Peter the first Pope. But I will note shortly just three clear cases Jesus honored pure faith over any other consideration.

Jesus in Mark 10:13-16 stated clearly that one must receive the kingdom of God with the faith of a child. In two other stories He honored a woman who believed in in Him and with her faith touching His robe was healed. And the Roman Officer who believed with faith that if Jesus just commands his servant healed it will be done.

1 John 3:27 also nixes the need for teachers John said if one listens to the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth.

So Protestants simply state it was the faithful who have powerful raw simple faith will unleash the power of Jesus across the world who have that authority those Called to serve in ministry, teaching, missions or prophecy. Its perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
Does Jesus give the Keys of the Kindgom to any of your three examples? Does Jesus make any of your three examples the shepherd, the only shephed in the Gospels besides Himself? Does Jesus allow any of your three examples to walk on water with Him? Do any of your three examples speak as the authority figures at the Council of Jerusalem? Are any of your three examples known as “pillars” of the Church?

You’re right, context is absolutely necessary.
 
Once Protestants come into the Catholic Church, they then realize how much of Holy Scriptures is synthesized throughout our entire faith.
 
KathleenGee said:
Once Protestants come into the Catholic Church, they then realize how much of Holy Scriptures is synthesized throughout our entire faith.
Click to expand...
The argument lies not with Scripture but its interpretation, and in particular who should hold authority on interpretation.
Some critics look at the Catholic Church and hear the (Catholic) Church argument:
“Who are you?”
“I am God”
“Who told you?”
“I did.”
“Who are you?”
“I am God” (The Church states as an infallible dogma it is the ‘Mystical Body of Christ’)
Literally, stating whoever attacks the Catholic Church is an enemy of God (stated as article of faith): Whoever questions Catholic Church authority, questions the Authority of God Himself.
Chesterton’s argument: “God made man in his own image & ever since he has returned the compliment.”
*(Chesterton became a Catholic) *
 
KEVIN_WILCOX said:
Nothing of what you write negates my comments. From what you write I understand you are emotionally attached to CATHOLICISM & the wrtings of Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church is a large oasis giving sustainance to many. There is much to be admired in what you read, but Catholic theology can never (not in our minds) have Q.E.D. written after it. The mystery continuously unfolds in our lives and enfolds us in it. Pope Benedict is a very good theologian, and I restate not everything he says or writes is infallible. If you want to buy his books, read them. Dr. Wayne Grudem writes in the forward to his book, Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith, ‘The study of theology is not merely an intellectual or mental exercise…We cannot read this subject as if our hearts and lives are uninvolved!’…

‘…it is also helpful to read related sections, if any can be found in, in several systematic theology books. This provides a useful check against error and oversight, and often makes one aware of other perpectives and arguments that may cause us to modify or strengthen our position.’
Click to expand...
What’s Q.E.D.? Also, what do you mean by nothing I have written negates your comments? Comments to what? My previous post to which you replied is not connected to any issue raised in this thread but was an independent thing that I just wanted to share. Not that I am emotionally attached to CATHOLICISM and Pope Benedict, I just find it interesting for my spirirtual growth and the broadening of my understanding of Christianity as a whole. There is nothing emotional about it. I just truly enjoy the study of theology. I do try to acquire and read as much Systematic Theology books as I can. It’s just an expensive hobby though! For me, the reason why I study theology is for a deeper understanding of the mind and workings of God. No one can fully understand God of course for He is incomparable, unfathomable and infinite. 👍
 
erikd said:
Okay, now you know that that’s not true. Pope Benedict stated that if the reformers would have qualified the meaning of “faith” as including “good works” as is explained to us in James 2, than faith alone would have been correct. Faith and good works go hand in hand, and therefore true faith includes good works. In this respect, Sola Fide would have been correct. That is not, however, what the reformers taught.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with your explanation of what Pope Benedict said. The Reformers, and modern Protestants/Evangelicals for that matter, do not teach that there is no need for good works. That would be antinomianism, which is also considered as a heresy by Protestants. Reformed theology teaches that good works will not and cannot earn us our salvation. Only genuine faith in Jesus Christ. Good works are necessary as a result of and as proof of our fatih and salvation in Christ. Good works then is inherent in genuine faith, it should therefore naturally follow as we are continuosly sanctified (Phil. 1:6). So in this regard, I agree with Pope Benedict. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top