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

[brkn1]

So what you are professing here is that after the 12 died the Church was leaderless?

The Church leaders after the Apostles were not what you could call apostles anymore. They were bishops, (pastors), etc, but the successors did not possess the qualifications that Paul described for an Apostle. Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles and he explained one of his qualifications as having personally seen and been taught by the Lord Jesus. Miracles during some part of the aposleship were another proof of the qualification of an Apostle.

 

[RNRobert]

The Church leaders after the Apostles were not what you could call apostles anymore. They were bishops, (pastors), etc, but the successors did not possess the qualifications that Paul described for an Apostle. Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles and he explained one of his qualifications as having personally seen and been taught by the Lord Jesus. Miracles during some part of the aposleship were another proof of the qualification of an Apostle.

So when the last Apostle died, what happened to their authority to discipline erring members, resolve doctrinal disputes, etc.? Or did they simply leave us their writings (the NT) and say “figure it out for yourselves?”

 

[greggy53]

The Church leaders after the Apostles were not what you could call apostles anymore. They were bishops, (pastors), etc, but the successors did not possess the qualifications that Paul described for an Apostle. Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles and he explained one of his qualifications as having personally seen and been taught by the Lord Jesus. Miracles during some part of the aposleship were another proof of the qualification of an Apostle.

OK, so the early Christian church had leaders in the form of bishops, priests decons, and yes they had a Pope. If these were not the leaders of the Christian Church who then?, and where are their teachings and writings?

Let me save you some time and exasperation. We know who the early leaders of the Church were, and they taught the same Catholic doctrines that the Church teaches today. The early Church was Catholic my friend the historical evidence is very clear.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hisalone:

Please answer post #81.

Thank you.

Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).” There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

John 17:9-26 - Jesus’ prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history
John Salza

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Church leaders after the Apostles were not what you could call apostles anymore. They were bishops, (pastors), etc, but the successors did not possess the qualifications that Paul described for an Apostle. Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles and he explained one of his qualifications as having personally seen and been taught by the Lord Jesus. Miracles during some part of the aposleship were another proof of the qualification of an Apostle.

This is a weak sell. So in other words the apostles had authority but their successors were all lost sheep with no clue who wandered into these false notions of apostolic succession and having a visible church for 1500 years aimlessly shooting at a target theologically until the 1500’s when the Reformation happened? IMO the laying on of hands that we explicitely see in Acts of the Apostles, etc. is not just a sign of “you’re in charge now” but a special charism and a transmission of the entirety of the office. Modern bishops don’t need to perform miracles of bringing little girls back to life or curing cancer for me to believe they have apostolic succession.

 

[brkn1]

So when the last Apostle died, what happened to their authority to discipline erring members, resolve doctrinal disputes, etc.? Or did they simply leave us their writings (the NT) and say “figure it out for yourselves?”

Paul explained Church authority in 1 Timothy. Your Church does not follow Paul’s teachings according to 1Timothy. They forbid the marriage of a bishop, although that is one of a bishop’s required qualifications, according to Paul in God’s Word. Your Church invents their own version of the NT and adds or subtracts from the NT as they please.

 

[RNRobert]

Paul explained Church authority in 1 Timothy. Your Church does not follow Paul’s teachings according to 1Timothy. They forbid the marriage of a bishop, although that is one of a bishop’s required qualifications, according to Paul in God’s Word. Your Church invents their own version of the NT and adds or subtracts from the NT as they please.

The qualifications of one wife in 1 Timothy mean that the bishop must not have been married more than once. It does not REQUIRE the bishop to be married. Please note that the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (which broke off from Rome in the Middle Ages) allow for married priests, but chose their bishops from celibate clergy.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

The qualifications of one wife in 1 Timothy mean that the bishop must not have been married more than once. It does not REQUIRE the bishop to be married. Please note that the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (which broke off from Rome in the Middle Ages) allow for married priests, but chose their bishops from celibate clergy.

Why do you say that they broke off from Rome? They don’t see it that way. In their eyes, Rome broke off from them. Why not say that, sadly, the Church Jesus Christ established split between East and West? The Roman pretense, protested too much, that their church is the only legitimate successor of the church of the apostles does not bear the light of dispassionate historical scrutiny.

The Roman church is indeed the survival of the original church that was established in Rome, then spread to Western Europe. Protestant Europe may as well be seen as a continuum of another part of that same survival. No ecclesial entity, even the Jehovah’s Witlesses, not part of that same continuum.

I once saw a bumper-sticker that said “Othodoxy, preaching the truth since 33ad”. Would a Roman Catholic quibble with that?

 

[Norminha]

RNRobert

The Catholic Church is NOT a man-made institution, it is the Church Christ founded, and it is it that is the body of Christ, not some invisible body of believers.

Correct!!!
The One, Catholic (universal), Roman, Apostolic Church is not a man-made institution. It was founded by the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus Christ upon (Kepha) **Peter **-The Rock.
Christ is the Invisible Head of the Church with the visible head on earth, the Holy Father (successor of Peter). And us, the members.
By the way, our Lord did not say **“upon this rock I’ll build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” **but, if later you or anyone else disagrees with me and My Teachings, can walk away and start your own church as you please.

 

[RNRobert]

Why do you say that they broke off from Rome? They don’t see it that way. In their eyes, Rome broke off from them. Why not say that, sadly, the Church Jesus Christ established split between East and West? The Roman pretense, protested too much, that their church is the only legitimate successor of the church of the apostles does not bear the light of dispassionate historical scrutiny.

The Roman church is indeed the survival of the original church that was established in Rome, then spread to Western Europe. Protestant Europe may as well be seen as a continuum of another part of that same survival. No ecclesial entity, even the Jehovah’s Witlesses, not part of that same continuum.

I once saw a bumper-sticker that said “Othodoxy, preaching the truth since 33ad”. Would a Roman Catholic quibble with that?

It wasn’t my intention to cast any slurs on the Orthodox churches- I have great respect for their tradition and spirituality (it was learning about the Orthodox church that led me from Protestantism to the Catholic faith). I was trying to show to Brkn1 that the Orthodox also had a tradition of celibate bishops.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

RNRobert

Correct!!!
The One, Catholic (universal), Roman, Apostolic Church is not a man-made institution. It was founded by the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus Christ upon (Kepha) **Peter **-The Rock.
Christ is the Invisible Head of the Church with the visible head on earth, the Holy Father (successor of Peter). And us, the members.
By the way, our Lord did not say "upon this rock I’ll build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." but, if later you or anyone else disagrees with me and My Teachings, can walk away and start your own church as you please.

Since your statement is not agreed upon by all Christians, you must understand it as a “leap of faith”. Many other Christians have not chosen, and with good reason, to not make that leap. The notion that the early church is the exclusive precursor of the Roman church is part of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. It is not universally supported.

Statements like this are loudly repeated in these fora. I wonder why, if it were true and evident to all, it would be necessary to say it so often. The lady (Roman Church) doth protest too much!

And even if you choose to make that assertion, the behavior of the Roman church over the ages does not suggest that, having founded it, our Lord has not done much to keep it from behaving as unwisely as other churches have. Indeed, it is hard to imagine what the church would look like had there not been the Reformation. Can you really say the church would have been better off? If so, then perhaps you could stop singing Protestant hymns, stop reading Protestant scholars, and eliminate all but Latin liturgies. It is hard to imagine, though some would argue, that reforms of Vatican II, did not occur in reference to Protestantism. And for all those who swim the Tiber eastward, there are easily as many who swim westward.

This is not to suggest that I do not have great and abiding respect for the historical contribution of the Roman church, its continuing to act as a moral voice in the world, especially with regard to abortion, and its leadership in alleviating human suffering.

Just, please, get off the ecclesiological high horse. You might just fall off (again).

And I am sorry I discovered font changing. Mea culpa.

 

[greggy53]

Paul explained Church authority in 1 Timothy. Your Church does not follow Paul’s teachings according to 1Timothy. They forbid the marriage of a bishop, although that is one of a bishop’s required qualifications, according to Paul in God’s Word. Your Church invents their own version of the NT and adds or subtracts from the NT as they please.

Just the opposite, in his Epistle St Paul specifically recommends celibacy…What evidence do you have that the Catholic Church invents their own version of the NT? The Catholic Church organized the cannon of the NT in the year 387 AD at the council of Rome. Is that when we re-invented it? The old and new testaments that the Catholic Church first assembled then are the exactly the same today well over 1000 years later. Such rash statements on your part do not lend any credibility to your arguments.

 

[greggy53]

Since your statement is not agreed upon by all Christians, you must understand it as a “leap of faith”. Many other Christians have not chosen, and with good reason, to not make that leap. The notion that the early church is the exclusive precursor of the Roman church is part of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. It is not universally supported.

We do not understand how some who choose not accept Jesus words as they were written can subscribe to them such incredulously vague, and useless purpose;Twisting our Lords words to suit some made up dogma ignoring what he plainly spoke of.
It is not a “notion” that the early Church was Catholic. It is an historical fact, and has remained so in spite of the Heresies, and slander that accompanied the so-called reformation.

 

[irishpatrick]

I always felt that the phrase “Bible Believing” was a lousy phrase. As Christians, no matter what denom we are in, we are all believers in Jesus, we believe the words in the Bible come from God (Jesus), but the Bible itself is not God.

We might more accurately say we are “accepters of the Bible as God’s Word.” Yet to say we are Bible believers implies the Bible is a deity of some sort.

Further, the phrase “Bible believers” is also an intentional slam towards other Christians, as if somehow those “other” Christians do not accept the Bible as being Divinely Inspired and worthy of our trust. Of course in nearly all cases, that is most definitely not true and it is more certainly not true for Catholics.

 

[jfallaw]

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.

LOL! That’s true. It refers to any Christian that has the audacity to not attend their church and believe their particular brand of Protestantism- and of course, who is not giving that tithe to their preachers! The fundamentalist, ‘born again’ churches are the ones who throw the phrase “Bible believing” around. I should know, I used to be one of them. Funny thing is that you are more right than you know concerning ‘the church down the street’- in these churches, the sole authority is the owner of the church; the pastor. Many of these churches differ greatly in belief from others who claim to be the same brand. Each church’s beliefs are decided by the particular beliefs of the pastor. Period.

Funny story. At the church I used to attend (called itself ‘evangelical, spirit-filled’, ‘Word of Faith’, and also ‘non-denominational’), the pastor often printed up a prayer that was handed out to everyone in the audience (those churches are more a form of entertainment than anything else, with the rock and roll ‘praise and worship’ music and the idiotic, pathetic babbling antics of those who are ‘spirit-filled’). The prayer was called a “Prayer for Wealth”, and was exactly that. “Lord, let money rain down from your Heavenly storehouse, and fill my bank account! I speak wealth into my life, Lord!”, was the general gist. Of course, they would pray this before the offering, making sure to remind everyone that, “In order to receive your blessings, you must first sow a faith seed.” Go figure!

So anyways, long story short, I think “Bible believing” means “greedy, lying con men”.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

We do not understand how some who choose not accept Jesus words as they were written can subscribe to them such incredulously vague, and useless purpose;Twisting our Lords words to suit some made up dogma ignoring what he plainly spoke of.
It is not a “notion” that the early Church was Catholic. It is an historical fact, and has remained so in spite of the Heresies, and slander that accompanied the so-called reformation.

You have chosen, apparently, to answer someone other than me. I said, “the notion that the early church is the exclusive precursor of the Roman church is part of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. It is not universally supported.”

More precisely, the early Church was Catholic. I, and many others, do not accept the leap of faith that Catholic is the same as Roman Catholic. Nor do we accept that Jesus’ words to Peter are a justification of the Papacy.

I am fully prepared to see a Church where the Roman patriarch is first among equals, but he must be first among equals, not the person with the sole discretion of naming them. Emphasize the among equals over the “first”

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

You have chosen, apparently, to answer someone other than me. I said, “the notion that the early church is the exclusive precursor of the Roman church is part of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. It is not universally supported.”

More precisely, the early Church was Catholic. I, and many others, do not accept the leap of faith that Catholic is the same as Roman Catholic. Nor do we accept that Jesus’ words to Peter are a justification of the Papacy.

I am fully prepared to see a Church where the Roman patriarch is first among equals, but he must be first among equals, not the person with the sole discretion of naming them. Emphasize the “among equals” over the “first”

 

[greggy53]

I, and many others, do not accept the leap of faith that Catholic is the same as Roman Catholic. Nor do we accept that Jesus’ words to Peter are a justification of the Papacy.

It is not a leap of faith…like I said before it is historical fact. You do not accept that Jesus words to Peter, about Peter as a “justification” for his (Peter’s) commission ? or succession of the office? or both? Historically you cannot separate the line of succession from Peter and the Papacy. It is well documented . Any way you twist it, it is the denial of the intent and purpose of our Lords words. Deciding for yourself they mean something other than what was said, and denying the lawful authority that Jesus established.

 

[Norminha]

It is not universally supported.

Agree! And it is as part of Satan’s deception. His favorite attack, ON UNITY -go figure!

even if you choose to make that assertion, the behavior of the Roman church over the ages does not suggest that, having founded it, our Lord has not done much to keep it from behaving as unwisely as other churches have.

My friend, the truth is what it is. Our Lord himself said “you either are with Me or against Me.” Precisely, 2,000 years and the Bride of Christ stands beautiful and hopeful, awaiting for the glorious coming of Her Bridegroom. How old is yours and who founded it?

it is hard to imagine what the church would look like had there not been the Reformation.

Sad uh! Remember satan loves confusion. Only he could imagine that Christ made a mistake and His Church was in need of that kind of reformation.

Can you really say the church would have been better off?

What do you think? Of course, look the work of the enemy has done: to put the children of the same Father, against each other. Jesus is love, the enemy, division.

It is hard to imagine, though some would argue, that reforms of Vatican II, did not occur in reference to Protestantism

What do you mean **Vatican II, did not occur in reference to Protestantism?
**Have you read in its totality the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION?
It is an affirmation of the already known by all the “faithful” of the authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on.
Here again, the enemy made believe to those whose faith was wishy washy that Vat II was about “reforming” when in reality it was to re-affirm our faith in Christ, His Church and His Teachings. Those who listened to the other spirit went astray, but certainly it wasn’t Christ or His Church’s fault.

This is not to suggest that I do not have great and abiding respect for the historical contribution of the Roman church, its continuing to act as a moral voice in the world, especially with regard to abortion, and its leadership in alleviating human suffering.

I’m glad to hear your humble affirmation and fairness toward God.

Just, please, get off the ecclesiological high horse. You might just fall off (again).

I believe, it is the other way around. With God’s grace, I’ll never think my Church is deformed. To protest against the Church of Christ is to go against His Founder.
2,000 years of a non-perfect marriage (what marriage is?) but the Holy Spirit will continue guiding Her until the Bridegroom comes again in glory.

By the way, I just realized the title of this threat, …please stop using the label “Bible believing” seems vague to me. Bible believing, of course all Christians believe the Holy Scriptures since it is the Word of God. Or, it is inferring “Sola Scriptura”

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Agree! And it is as part of Satan’s deception. His favorite attack, ON UNITY -go figure!

I am sorry I touched a raw nerve. My intention is only to illustrate that all these protestations of the exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church fall on deaf ears too often. They are repeated ad nauseam.

I did not know that not believing in Roman ecclesiology comes from the promptings of Satan. Could you advise where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church I can find this?