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

[Janet1983]

When you read comments like the ones above you can tell that the debate is over. When your opponent stops discussing the issues and starts the personal attacks. This is how you know you have won the argument. Notice how these folks love to throw scripture at us, but when we counter with scripture of our own they reply with outlandish accusations, and ridicule. “Experts” I can only imagine what kind of “Experts” they are. Why don’t you respond to the scripture I quoted? It should be in your Protestant Bible.
These are Jesus words:
Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”

Is this a recommendation for celibacy or not?

You cannot make someone refrain from having a partner. If God calls them into the ministry they are doing exactly what they are told to do… if they can they stay without a spouse and if not they are husbands of one wife.
There are vast numbers of illegitimate children of priests who can only call their fathers “Dad” when nobody is listening and their mothers are being looked at strange by people because they cannot tell the name of the child’s father… If they get lucky they become the priests housekeepers and the priest will be celebrated for being so good to this woman.
It is just ridiculous… How many priests are leaving their calling because they fell in love and got married? How can this be called good in a circumstances where there is a severe lack of priests?
How is it possible to sanction something that literally drives people into sin? Celibacy might be a good thing for some, but if it leads others to sin it cannot be good.

Edit: you did read the context for your verse, did you? It is about divorce, not about celibacy…

 

[erikd]

You cannot make someone refrain from having a partner. If God calls them into the ministry they are doing exactly what they are told to do… if they can they stay without a spouse and if not they are husbands of one wife.
There are vast numbers of illegitimate children of priests who can only call their fathers “Dad” when nobody is listening and their mothers are being looked at strange by people because they cannot tell the name of the child’s father… If they get lucky they become the priests housekeepers and the priest will be celebrated for being so good to this woman.
It is just ridiculous… How many priests are leaving their calling because they fell in love and got married? How can this be called good in a circumstances where there is a severe lack of priests?
How is it possible to sanction something that literally drives people into sin? Celibacy might be a good thing for some, but if it leads others to sin it cannot be good.

Edit: you did read the context for your verse, did you? It is about divorce, not about celibacy…

Janet:

Do you have any evidence of the things you are saying? Becoming a Priest’s housekeeper if they’re lucky?

Just how many Priests are leaving because they fell in love and got married? Martin Luther did and he threw out almost 10% of the Old Testament and 10% of the New Testament. Eventually the New Testament parts were put back in but is this the kind of example you are speaking of? Can you please provide evidence to support your claims or are you shooting from the hip? Also, when will you answer post #81 so that I can figure out where you stand on the issue of Church authority?

 

[soflochristmas]

Brain, God bless you. You can see with my dialog with Janet why this appeal of your is impossible. If Catholics are not Christian then there is no unity unless they cease to be Catholic. Let us thank God that this sentiment seems to be the opinion of a small and uniformed (even if they seem to talk the loudest), minority and not found throughout all Protestant denominations.

God bless you

Put it in God’s hands…some people, like in politics, will never be reached. You have to learn to discern which is which and move on.

 

[tobinatorstark]

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 makes it sound like the Bible is God and the Bible is the religion

 

[soflochristmas]

So you have bought into the lie?

Yes all believers must have their sins forgiven and must on a continuous basis go before God and have our sins cleansed by the blood. All beleivers have been given the ministry of reconcilaition not just clergy. We are to confess our sins one to another, do you see this in Catholic practice-----NO!!!
Christ established His church on Christ He is the Rock. All that confess that Jesus is the Christ the son of the Living God are His living visiable and invisable church. Even Augustine professed and taught this.
The only unity we will have is if we stay in Christ.

but this is not biblical to say nothing about not being historically Christian.

 

[greggy53]

Edit: you did read the context for your verse, did you? It is about divorce, not about celibacy…

The only scripture I posted was the following one from Matthew

Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”

You are not trying to tell me that the scripture above is about divorce are you? Where does Jesus mention divorce in this scripture? I don’t see it, and I don’t see how anyone could make such a claim with any intellectual integrity. This is what galls me about the “Bible believing Christian”. You see only what you want to see even when the words are plainly placed in front of you. Blinded by your rebellion you become the opposite of what you claim, you become “disbelievers.”

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

It makes it sound like the Bible is God and the Bible is the religion

There is a coined term, “biblioidolator” to refer to those who worship the Bible. It is a tricky term, in that it argues that the Bible is the work of human hands. It obviously is, though an inspired work, but saying so in some circles gets one labled oh, I don’t know, all manner of un-Christian epithets.

To deny the aspect of human art in the Bible is to seriously misunderstand it.

So worship of the Bible is really idolatry, methinks.

 

[greggy53]

To Janet1983

One more consideration about Catholic celibacy: Did Jesus marry? No he did not. Why do you think he didn’t? He recommended ceilbacy and led by example. This is the reason Roman Catholic priests do not marry. To imitate Christ and follow his example.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet:

Do you have any evidence of the things you are saying? Becoming a Priest’s housekeeper if they’re lucky?

Just how many Priests are leaving because they fell in love and got married? Martin Luther did and he threw out almost 10% of the Old Testament and 10% of the New Testament. Eventually the New Testament parts were put back in but is this the kind of example you are speaking of? Can you please provide evidence to support your claims or are you shooting from the hip? Also, when will you answer post #81 so that I can figure out where you stand on the issue of Church authority?

I was actually quite interested in that a few years back, especially because I had a case in my family (some generations back… I talked to a witness of that one however.)
Well I’ve read a German book written by the child of a priest and I have read studies about the situation in Germany.
I’ve heard from and talked to witnesses of those situations, one being the nephew of a priest (and a relative of mine… the priest is not among us anymore).
In most cases these children and the relations their mothers are having with the priest are kept in secret… One case however came out into the open and the priest was relocated.
I could not give you any numbers because these numbers are (of course) not being put out in the open…
Just in case you speak German… Here is a LINK to the story of a priest who became a father in 1973… Well his housekeeper bore a son… his son.
He also says that there are no official numbers, because the authorities do not want to know these numbers… He himself is suspended since he did not want to leave the mother of his son…

I do not think that Jesus Christ wanted to force His ministers to remain celibate…
Apart from that we have God’s Word:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And it gets worse than that… (Let me emphasize that these are not my words…)

1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

And by the way… even Peter was married…

Mark 1:30
But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

 

[Tomster]

I was actually quite interested in that a few years back, especially because I had a case in my family (some generations back… I talked to a witness of that one however.)
Well I’ve read a German book written by the child of a priest and I have read studies about the situation in Germany.
I’ve heard from and talked to witnesses of those situations, one being the nephew of a priest (and a relative of mine… the priest is not among us anymore).
In most cases these children and the relations their mothers are having with the priest are kept in secret… One case however came out into the open and the priest was relocated.
I could not give you any numbers because these numbers are (of course) not being put out in the open…
Just in case you speak German… Here is a LINK to the story of a priest who became a father in 1973… Well his housekeeper bore a son… his son.
He also says that there are no official numbers, because the authorities do not want to know these numbers… He himself is suspended since he did not want to leave the mother of his son…

I do not think that Jesus Christ wanted to force His ministers to remain celibate…
Apart from that we have God’s Word:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And it gets worse than that… (Let me emphasize that these are not my words…)

1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

And by the way… even Peter was married…

Mark 1:30
But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Many freely embrace celibacy because they want to devote their energies to God and to the service of his Church. They follow Paul’s own example by making this sacrifice. Paul recommended celibacy for those called to that vocation, without deprecating marriage in any way (1 Corinthians 7:8).

“Be fertile and multiply” is a general precept for the human race; it does not bind each individual. If it did, every man and woman of marrying age would be in the state of sin by remaining single. Christ Himself would have been in violation of the commandment. If you exempt Him because of His divinity, you still have John the Baptist and most of the Apostles sinning by not marrying. Remember that even Paul, “Bible Christianity’s” favorite Apostle, was single.

 

[Janet1983]

Many freely embrace celibacy because they want to devote their energies to God and to the service of his Church. They follow Paul’s own example by making this sacrifice. Paul recommended celibacy for those called to that vocation, without deprecating marriage in any way (1 Corinthians 7:8).

“Be fertile and multiply” is a general precept for the human race; it does not bind each individual. If it did, every man and woman of marrying age would be in the state of sin by remaining single. Christ Himself would have been in violation of the commandment. If you exempt Him because of His divinity, you still have John the Baptist and most of the Apostles sinning by not marrying. Remember that even Paul, “Bible Christianity’s” favorite Apostle, was single.

That does not justify celibacy being mandatory…

 

[redhen]

Haven’t read this whole thread, but I was instantly reminded of it about 1 min into this Q&A with Dr. William Lane Craig
youtube.com/user/apologetics101#play/uploads/1/0oTq5Y0bAQk

Someone asked him an off topic question about the Nazis and German Christians. Dr. Craig said that Hitler worked with the state church (Lutheran I assume), while the “Bible believing” Christians opposed Hitler, some going to the camps.

As an impartial observer, I have to say this sounds in bad taste, leaving out the saints who died during the same time period.

Maybe Protestants don’t mean it to sound this way, maybe it’s just habit. I dunno.

 

[erikd]

I was actually quite interested in that a few years back, especially because I had a case in my family (some generations back… I talked to a witness of that one however.)
Well I’ve read a German book written by the child of a priest and I have read studies about the situation in Germany.
I’ve heard from and talked to witnesses of those situations, one being the nephew of a priest (and a relative of mine… the priest is not among us anymore).
In most cases these children and the relations their mothers are having with the priest are kept in secret… One case however came out into the open and the priest was relocated.
I could not give you any numbers because these numbers are (of course) not being put out in the open…
Just in case you speak German… Here is a LINK to the story of a priest who became a father in 1973… Well his housekeeper bore a son… his son.
He also says that there are no official numbers, because the authorities do not want to know these numbers… He himself is suspended since he did not want to leave the mother of his son…

I do not think that Jesus Christ wanted to force His ministers to remain celibate…
Apart from that we have God’s Word:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And it gets worse than that… (Let me emphasize that these are not my words…)

1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

And by the way… even Peter was married…

Mark 1:30
But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Janet:

Thank you for the link to the story of the German Priest. I actually do speak and read some German, though I’m a bit rusty. I will read this or attempt to translate it online. This is, however, the exception not the rule. There are plenty of police officers who throughout history have made bad judgements, yet to get rid of the police force would be a horrible mistake. What about teachers, have you ever heard of a teacher sleeping with an underaged student? Yet we don’t get rid of the teaching institutions. The reason is that the institution is not guilty of one man’s sin. It may be guilty of not managing the situation appropriately, but it did not create that man’s sin. As for celebacy, it was an unwritten law to the extent that at the first council of Nicaea in 325 AD Canon 3 was adopted with almost no argument, as the majority of the Bishops were already celebate and married to the Church. There are, however, married Priests although their faculties are minimized, as they cannot devote their full time to the Church and the faithful. These Priests usually come from a Pentecostal background, and can be ordained within the Catholic faith, with most of the faculties of a regular Priest.

If, however, one is to set blame on the institution for the sins of the Priest, that is a mistake. If the Priest does something that he is to be blamed for, and he does it continuously due to a mental or psychological problem, the lack of celebacy would certainly be of no assistance. St. Paul encouraged us to be like him (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

 

[erikd]

Janet:

I almost forgot. I’m really looking forward to your response to post 81. If we are to continue I want to know a little more about you and this will set the stage for me. Hope to hear from you soon.

 

[rev_kevin]

Because most of the time it is said in order to exclude certain Christians for instance Catholics. There was another poster who has heard it used to exclude Methodists
and thats what you are doing also by telling other religions to stop using it…

Don’t be silly rev.
Not being silly

“…the way the truth and the life…” No offense to you personally rev but it truly is amazing how many times I have had to correct people’s quotation of this verse. Especially to “Bible-believers”
What does it mean to you

What is to prevent us Catholics from saying that we are Bible-believing"? Because of course we are. In fact I often use the label myself, it really gets under my fundamentalist FIL’s skin when I do
and others arn’t

God bless

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Depends what Bible you choose. I recall street evangelizing (though why anyone should want to evangelize a “street” is beyond my reckoning), folks would always look at the Bible to see which version you were standing under, standing on or hitting them over the head with. Protestants often liked the King James; fundamental Catholic the Douay Rheims (and this has more than one version) and other denominations other versions. But who would argue from and with the original language or dialects? - There are over 15 !! But outside of them it’s all paraphrase.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

and thats what you are doing also by telling other religions to stop using it…

I don’t remember telling anyone to stop using it rev.

Not being silly

You are trying to make it sound like Catholics don’t believe that Protestants are Christian, that they can’t have a relationship with Christ. You are right, maybe that isn’t silly; it’s beyond silly.

What does it mean to you

What does what mean to me? The actual verse or your misquotation of it?

God bless

 

[davebennett88]

To Usbek and Hlafdige:

Sorry about all those typo’s in my lengthy post…but thank you for being just about the only ones who seemed to “get” the spirit of what I was trying to say.

The rest seem to be caught up in exactly what I was on about…“synod this and council that and decree the other…” arguing with each other fervently, calculating how many angels can dance on a pin while straining through planks at the gnats in each other’s eye. Here’s hoping we don’t stay engaged in such wastes of time for long.

Also completely missed was the point about excluding-type statements. Just as the originator is offended at the term “Bible-believing,” taking it to exclude Roman Catholics, so we have things Catholics do and say that offend us. This all makes sense. As a Protestant, I can tell you that most of us use the term simply to mean those of us who believe in the Bible we have, not extra stuff made up on the side. In other words, if you belong to a cult, sect, or denomination that made up a bunch of non-scruptural dogma, that’s probably what “non-Bible-believing” means. We don’t mean “in your face, Catholics!” But if one of us does mean that, he’s wrong. So the term “Good Catholic,” when used in the place of “Good Christian,” is logically exclusive of, and offensive to non-Roman Catholics, for it makes us feel like if we aren’t members of a monolithic organization that practices rituals we don’t understand, believe in, or think should matter, then we aren’t truly saved Christians. Who wouldn’t be offended by that? Could we all just get along?

I don’t know whether Jesus envisioned his “church” as an organization with Peter as the first of a succession of infallible Popes or not. I can understand why all the sins of said popes and their minions in succeeding centuries turned millions off, just as I cringe every time another Jimmy Swaggert comes on the air.

“Catholic” is supposed to mean universal, right? Universal means “one that covers all,” right? I understand why Catholics logically apply this definition, and consequently chafe at the thought that indulgences and evil popes from centuries ago led to a massive split, when in their minds we all need to come back under a unifying authority, but let’s get real…this isn’t going to happen. Protestants aren’t suddenly going to “see the light” and take up all the traditions I mentioned, founded in the 3rd through 16th centuries. They’ll never be convinced. And that is okay. It should be okay. As long as it’s not okay, the resulting arguments risk getting in the way of the real point–the main message Jesus came to remind us all of.

Right now, I see all the furor in this thread as evidence that such minutiae is DEFINITELY getting in the way. For, how many people who have never heard the gospel are being inspired; how many orphans are being fed; how many widows are being cared for; how many sick are being visited while Protestant televangelists clamor for money on TV to build lavish resorts, or while Catholics spend thousands on ostentatious wealth and hole up in monasteries to deliberate angels-on-pins type questions, or while each us hurls “I’m saved, but you’re a heretic” epithets at the other?

I believe that, towards the end times, not only Catholics and Protestants (which, by the way, I take to mean ‘those Christians who choose not to follow certain Roman Catholic decrees and traditions,’ and nothing else), but also Jews will find a way to come together as one. Not because some legalistic dogma requires empire-like succession and an authoritarian chain-of-command, but because Christ’s church of believers and saints has to be re-cultivated and made ready for His return. In other words, we’re all going to throw away the stupid little things that are keeping us apart and come together some day…why not start now?

Dave

 

[DOShea]

Thank you for answering the question.

Now getting back to the subject at hand. Why are so offended by other religions saying they are Bible believing. Is it because they are not catholic beleiving and if your not catholic you cant beleive in the Bible or have no rights to say you do?

Certainly not. The opening lines of my last post clearly explain what sometimes gives offense. It’s one thing to say you believe in the Bible, it’s another thing to run around calling yourself “a Bible-believing Christian” when the purpose for that statement is to imply there are other Christians who DON’T believe it and - AND - among those are Catholics. Now I happen to know many people who call themselves Christians and they don’t believe a word of the Bible except as they wildly and with no doctrine whatsoever interpret it. Honestly I don’t think they are Christians, but they consider themselves so. But Catholics DO believe in the Bible, and what that phrase is used as a backhanded swipe to indicate they don’t, it’s not only unfair and offensive to Catholics, it’s an offense against God since it breaks His commandment to not lie.

The Bible was written for all men not just the catholics.

Couldn’t agree with you more.

Yes he is the way and the truth and the light he who believes in me {God} will have eternal life, not he who believes in the catholic church will you have eternal life. Doesn’t this say that if you believe in God {ME} that you will have eternal life. I believe he is the way,{the way to heaven, the way to happiness} I believe he is the truth,{the true God, the one and only God and his word to be the truth} and I believe he is the light {the light in the darkness, if you don’t believe in him you live in darkness and when you believe in him you are in his light}. So I beleive in the Bible, I believe the Bible to be the true writtings of men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I was not denying or condemning your belief in the Bible or in Jesus whatsoever. What I was responding to was two things. First, you said Catholics “threw out” some books when they made the first canon and the Reformers didn’t. I responded by explaining it wasn’t a case of simply tossing books out they didn’t like. The ones they didn’t include were either full of heresy OR they didn’t meet the synod’s threshold level for inclusion as Scripture. Note in my other post another Bishop was using the same list that became canon more than 20 years before the council.

Seond, responding to the “Reformers didn’t” part of it, I pointed out that Luther and Calvin invented new doctrinal beliefs that were never a part of any previous Church teaching. Luther, in fact, published a Bible where he added, all on his own, the word “alone” into the Scripture to make it compatible with his doctrines of Sole Fide and Sola Gracia. It even offended his fellow Reformers so much that he was forced to republish it taking all his own “additions” out of it. He did, for a time, reject the Book of James, calling it “an Epistle of straw,” and later changed his mind when he could not get other Reformers to go along with his idea of tossing it out. No real problem, he just interpreted it to mean what he wanted it to mean.

I contend there is a major league difference between evaluating centuries of early Church Fathers’ discourse on the scriptural or heretical nature of texts and formalizing a canon, and the stuff we saw from the Reformers. They invented new doctrine because they didn’t like what they saw going on with certain members of the Catholic church, particularly with the selling of indulgences. They rejected books already IN the Bible; they were not forming a canon for the first time.

If I say I’m a Bible believing person who are you to say different, who are you to judge me and my beliefs. Judgement is God’s not yours. If I’m wrong I have to answer to him not you.

Not all judgment is God’s. If it was, it would have been pretty silly for Jesus to say, “As you judge, so shall you be judged.” Seems to me there was something out there for us to judge. And I don’t judge your beliefs; I only questioned why you didn’t seem concerned that there are so many different versions of the truth by so many Bible-believing Christians out there. It seems to me that either God intended something like Baptism to be required or He didn’t. Up until the Reformation, there was no question about it - He did. Now, outside of the Catholic faith, it depends on who you ask. It seems to me those are the folks you should be asking about “who are they to judge?”

We have to judge the colors of the clothes we wear so we don’t look like Rodney Dangerfield. We have to judge when we drive. And when some people like the doubtfully-Christian group I mentioned above try to tell me that Jesus was “an energy,” not a real died-on-the-cross for our sins Messiah, I have to judge that too. I think it’s pathetic that anyone could believe garbage like that, totally without any Scriptural or doctrinal or Traditional basis. It just feels good for them to think that because then they don’t have to think about turning away from their sins (which are just simple mistakes to them).

Please note I’m not putting you in that category, simply pointing out that there are times we are required to make sound judgements. Your faith is what it is, and you believe what you believe based on what you think is the truth (I think), with the foundation of that truth the Holy Bible. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t judge YOU for believing it. That, however, doesn’t mean I can’t question the differences and ask why such a wide diversity of beliefs seems okay.

 

[DOShea]

…thank you for being just about the only ones who seemed to “get” the spirit of what I was trying to say.

The rest seem to be caught up in exactly what I was on about…“synod this and council that and decree the other…” arguing with each other fervently, calculating how many angels can dance on a pin while straining through planks at the gnats in each other’s eye. Here’s hoping we don’t stay engaged in such wastes of time for long.

Is it wrong to attempt to clarify misinformation, or is doing so “arguing with each other fervently, calculating how many angels can dance on a pin…?” I’d be interested in hearing what value there is in allowing misinformation to go unchecked only out of some sense of cooperative spirit. What is it you expect others to cooperate with? Truth? Distortions?