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

[brkn1]

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.

(Timothy 3:2) has Paul saying that “A bishop then must be blameless’ the husband of one wife, vigilant,…”
(Timothy 3:5) also says: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”
We also know that Peter was a married man, since he had a mother-in-law.

I do not think Paul was saying that being married was an absolute requirement for a man to be a bishop, but it is obvious here that Scripture was being ignored when the Catholic Church made celibacy for their bishops a requirement. Ignoring Scripture and contradicting a plain statement of it with a new rule could logically be called “re-inventing”, regardless of any excuses to defend such contradiction of Scripture.

 

[erikd]

I guess there’s no one out there brave enough to answer the questions in post #81 except a Catholic? Thank you, Bill Pick, for answering, I’m hoping that someone who feels differently than you and I can take a stab at it. Though I’m not holding my breath.

 

[greggy53]

(Timothy 3:2) has Paul saying that “A bishop then must be blameless’ the husband of one wife, vigilant,…”
(Timothy 3:5) also says: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”
We also know that Peter was a married man, since he had a mother-in-law…

Talk about invention. Paul (a single man) certainly recommends celibacy, but does not require it. Jesus himself recommended celibacy. It is in the Catholic Bible. I know the Protestants have edited theirs, but I did not think they chopped it up that much.

I do not think Paul was saying that being married was an absolute requirement for a man to be a bishop, but it is obvious here that Scripture was being ignored when the Catholic Church made celibacy for their bishops a requirement. Ignoring Scripture and contradicting a plain statement of it with a new rule could logically be called “re-inventing”, regardless of any excuses to defend such contradiction of Scripture.

Well that is what you said. Roman Catholic clergy choose celibacy. Which is recommended by our Lord, and St Paul. Other Catholic priests from other rites are allowed a wife. .
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 have no argument my friend. This is just another example of how Protestants deny our Lords words in the scriptures.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

My dear friends,

This thread has come to the point where we are slinging Bible verses like mud. The tendentious quality of this thread must cause our Lord to weap. No one is convincing anyone.

Let us understand our differences, respect the sincerity of all who contribute, rejoice in the Lord for having given us the gift of utterance and reason, and pray for the unity of Christendom, whether that be organizational unity or unity of hearts.

A Prayer of St. John Chrysostom:

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise, that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests; Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting. Amen.

 

[Janet1983]

(Timothy 3:2) has Paul saying that “A bishop then must be blameless’ the husband of one wife, vigilant,…”
(Timothy 3:5) also says: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”
We also know that Peter was a married man, since he had a mother-in-law.

I do not think Paul was saying that being married was an absolute requirement for a man to be a bishop, but it is obvious here that Scripture was being ignored when the Catholic Church made celibacy for their bishops a requirement. Ignoring Scripture and contradicting a plain statement of it with a new rule could logically be called “re-inventing”, regardless of any excuses to defend such contradiction of Scripture.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[erikd]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Janet:

I haven’t seen you for a while, but I’m really interested in your response to post #81. In order for me to understand your stance, I have to clarify a few issues, and post #81 spells out the questions which will hopefully attain for me some clarification on your stance.

Thanks,

 

[greggy53]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Roman Catholic clergy choose celibacy. Which is recommended by our Lord, and St Paul. Other Catholic priests from other rites are allowed a wife. .
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 have no argument my friend. This is just another example of how Protestants deny our Lords words in the scriptures.

 

[Janet1983]

#1: Of the 700,000,000 worldwide non-Catholic Christians, how many (you can ballpark this number) different interpretations of the Bible exist? I.e. the rapture, real presence, Sabbath vs. the Lord’s day, etc.

There might be a difference concerning details and I assume that this is normal. These doctrines might be right or wrong just as the catholic doctrine might be right or wrong. That is not the point in being a true Christian. Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Savior and I refuse to serve or bow to anyone else.
"The word “church” comes from the Greek “ekklesia” which means “gathering” or “assembly.” Therefore, the church is the gathering of the believers who come together to participate in fellowship with one another as they worship God and hear from His Word, the Bible. The church as a whole has been equipped with people possessing different spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:5-8). The purpose of the gifts is “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ,” (Eph. 4:12-13).

The Christian church was founded by Jesus and He is its Head and Savior (Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:23). Being in the church, the Christian is subject to the Lordship of Jesus (Eph. 5:24) through the administration of the Word of God.

The Bible does not provide a detailed method of Church government. But, it does state that there are to be elders who govern in the church. These elders are appointed by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). They are to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute error (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:2).

The purpose of the church is to both glorify God and to inform the world about the work of Christ as Redeemer." (Matt Slick)

There are true Christians within the CC and within every other Christian denomination. Being part of a church does not make someone a true Christian.

This answer kind of makes your other questions unnecessary…

 

[erikd]

There might be a difference concerning details and I assume that this is normal. These doctrines might be right or wrong just as the catholic doctrine might be right or wrong. That is not the point in being a true Christian. Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Savior and I refuse to serve or bow to anyone else.
"The word “church” comes from the Greek “ekklesia” which means “gathering” or “assembly.” Therefore, the church is the gathering of the believers who come together to participate in fellowship with one another as they worship God and hear from His Word, the Bible. The church as a whole has been equipped with people possessing different spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:5-8). The purpose of the gifts is “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ,” (Eph. 4:12-13).

The Christian church was founded by Jesus and He is its Head and Savior (Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:23). Being in the church, the Christian is subject to the Lordship of Jesus (Eph. 5:24) through the administration of the Word of God.

The Bible does not provide a detailed method of Church government. But, it does state that there are to be elders who govern in the church. These elders are appointed by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). They are to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute error (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:2).

The purpose of the church is to both glorify God and to inform the world about the work of Christ as Redeemer." (Matt Slick)

There are true Christians within the CC and within every other Christian denomination. Being part of a church does not make someone a true Christian.

This answer kind of makes your other questions unnecessary…

Janet:

Could you please address the questions as I posed them? I am trying to comprehend your understanding of Church authority, which is clearly spelled out in the verses I provided. I understand that not everyone in every Church will be a true follower of Christ, but that is not the issue I raised. Thanks,

 

[Norminha]

Usbek de Perse

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.

What do you mean by raw nerve? Are you trying to say you don’t believe in the existence of satan? Well, that’s not my teaching/own interpretation, of course, but the clear teaching of Christ. It is true that satan’s work is to cause division among God’s children, but that does not justify for some of the children of the same Father refuse the Teachings left by the Master to the Church He founded on Peter, His Vicar on earth. Everyone is tempted but everyone is able to resist temptation through prayer and fasting. This is a clear teaching of Holy Mother Church.
What protestation you are alluding to? For what I see, you are the child who insists to protesting, even though your roots are Catholic, not me for I’m ROMAN CATHOLIC, faithful to the Vicar of Christ and His Teachings. You can come back Home any time; the Body of Christ is incomplete without you -we miss you.

They are repeated ad nauseam.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, **I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. **(Rev 3, 16) We need to make sure our faith in all what Jesus has taught and left in the Deposit of Faith of His Church never be lukewarm.

I did not know that not believing in Roman ecclesiology comes from the promptings of Satan.

Oh yes! But do you know something? it is not Roman ecclesiology but the Teaching of Christ Himself. Satan comes in the form of ***schism *** to refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to Him.

Could you advise where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church I can find
this?

Not only the Catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly the existence and works of the devil but also Sacred Scriptures from Genesis to Apocalypse, Old and New Testaments.
In Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

 

[Janet1983]

Roman Catholic clergy choose celibacy.

Are you trying to be funny? Without the celibacy there is not way to climb up within the hierarchy of the CC…
And I got a question: What about all of those kids that are born to live without a father because their dad is a priest? Experts talk about several thousand children in Germany alone.
And what about the US… look at this:
childrenofpriests.org

 

[Fisher]

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”.

The entire Papal system is based on one verse of the Bible, namely Matthew 16:18.
In that verse it is claimed that Jesus made St. Peter the first Pope. This is called the “Primacy of Peter”. Not one of the early
Christians understood it to mean any such thing. The Council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451, totally repudiated this idea.
The first person to make such an outlandish claim was Pope Leo I.

1. Peter was the “minister of the circumcision” (Galatians 2:8 KJV)…minister of the Jewish brethren, not commissioned to be the beginning of a Gentile Roman Catholic Church.
   Paul was the apostle called out by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:2, 2:8), and Paul was the one who wrote to the Roman church [Book of Romans]. Jesus never started any Roman Catholic Gentile papacy in Matthew 16, for Jesus said:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24 KJV), not Rome!
Rome KILLED Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and thousands of early disciples.

Peter was married. (Matthew 8:14 KJV).

After Jesus supposedly commissioned Peter as a “rock” that He would build a Gentile Roman Catholic Papacy upon, He turned to Peter and called him “Satan”. (Matthew 16:23 KJV).

Peter denied and abandoned Jesus Christ in His hour of suffering. (Matthew 26:69-75 KJV).

Peter would not let Cornelius bow down to him (Acts 10:26 KJV).

Paul, the apostle Jesus called out to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles, publicly blamed Peter for teaching wrong doctrine and rebuked him. (Galatians 2:11 KJV).

Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Christian church is built upon. (1 Cor. 10:4: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”). Peter was just a “stone” (John 1:42 KJV: “…thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”).

 

[erikd]

The entire Papal system is based on one verse of the Bible, namely Matthew 16:18.
In that verse it is claimed that Jesus made St. Peter the first Pope. This is called the “Primacy of Peter”. Not one of the early
Christians understood it to mean any such thing. The Council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451, totally repudiated this idea.
The first person to make such an outlandish claim was Pope Leo I.

1. Peter was the “minister of the circumcision” (Galatians 2:8 KJV)…minister of the Jewish brethren, not commissioned to be the beginning of a Gentile Roman Catholic Church.
   Paul was the apostle called out by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:2, 2:8), and Paul was the one who wrote to the Roman church [Book of Romans]. Jesus never started any Roman Catholic Gentile papacy in Matthew 16, for Jesus said:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24 KJV), not Rome!
Rome KILLED Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and thousands of early disciples.

Peter was married. (Matthew 8:14 KJV).

After Jesus supposedly commissioned Peter as a “rock” that He would build a Gentile Roman Catholic Papacy upon, He turned to Peter and called him “Satan”. (Matthew 16:23 KJV).

Peter denied and abandoned Jesus Christ in His hour of suffering. (Matthew 26:69-75 KJV).

Peter would not let Cornelius bow down to him (Acts 10:26 KJV).

Paul, the apostle Jesus called out to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles, publicly blamed Peter for teaching wrong doctrine and rebuked him. (Galatians 2:11 KJV).

Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Christian church is built upon. (1 Cor. 10:4: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”). Peter was just a “stone” (John 1:42 KJV: “…thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”).

Fisher:

Catholic answers has several faith tracts that may help to dispel the myths you just spoke of. First, the Father of the Church did believe in the primacy of Peter, here are two links that may help:
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
Several Church Fathers also spoke of the origin of St. Peter as the first Pope:
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
For an entire catalog of writings regarding the Primacy of Peter, the succession of the Popes, as well as other Church Father writings regarding this matter please visit the following site:
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

 

[greggy53]

Are you trying to be funny? Without the celibacy there is not way to climb up within the hierarchy of the CC…
And I got a question: What about all of those kids that are born to live without a father because their dad is a priest? Experts talk about several thousand children in Germany alone.
And what about the US… look at this:

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?

 

[brkn1]

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.

Your sarcastic question using “Experts” puts you into the very same ridicule category you accuse others of.

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?

How do you or your church make that grand assumption that Jesus was speaking about bishops having to be eunuchs as a requirement to be a bishop?
Some of the Apostles may have remained celibate, but Jesus having chosen Peter as one of the non-celibate Apostles certainly does not support your argument at all.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Greggy53,

You cut my comments and ignore what I ask. The church that has brought us Thomas Aquinas has now brought us someone who argues against propositions that were never made by me or others. It is sad.

I said simply this: “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?”

As you may know, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is numbered. Please advise what numbered section answers this, if there is an answer to it.

That is all I am asking.

I posted a prayer of St. John Chrysostom earlier, hoping that this mindless posting will cease. It wearies me and I can only think it rather un-Christian. Christ did not die on the cross for his followers to carp at each other.

Pray with me, brother.

 

[greggy53]

How do you or your church make that grand assumption that Jesus was speaking about bishops having to be eunuchs as a requirement to be a bishop?
Some of the Apostles may have remained celibate, but Jesus having chosen Peter as one of the non-celibate Apostles certainly does not support your argument at all.

You folks keep skirting the question. You maintained that celibacy is not scriptural. I point out a scripture form the very words of our Lord that clearly does support celibacy. It is hard to refute our Lords word, But yet the so-called “Bible believing Christians” regularly ignore, and refute our Lords words in the scriptures. This is just one example.
Perhaps a better name would be “Bible believing but only what we want to believe Christians.”

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.”

 

[greggy53]

Greggy53,

You cut my comments and ignore what I ask. The church that has brought us Thomas Aquinas has now brought us someone who argues against propositions that were never made by me or others. It is sad.

I cut up your comments for 2 reasons. 1) when you make multiple accustaions in one post I reserve the right to reply to the accusations I want to. 2) when you use upper case and bold letters you are shouting at us. This is very rude and I will not respond to it.

I said simply this: “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?”.

I never made any such claim, so I will let those that did defend it.

As you may know, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is numbered. Please advise what numbered section answers this, if there is an answer to it.

That is all I am asking.

I posted a prayer of St. John Chrysostom earlier, hoping that this mindless posting will cease. It wearies me and I can only think it rather un-Christian. Christ did not die on the cross for his followers to carp at each other.

Pray with me, brother.

You were using scripture to defend your arguments which is fine. But, when someone started quoting scriptures in response all of a sudden you deemed using scripture unseemly. I don’t buy that argument at all. If you can use scripure and it’s OK, then we can use scripture too, and that is OK…As my sainted mother used to say…“Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.”

 

[RNRobert]

You folks keep skirting the question. You maintained that celibacy is not scriptural. I point out a scripture form the very words of our Lord that clearly does support celibacy. It is hard to refute our Lords word, But yet the so-called “Bible believing Christians” regularly ignore, and refute our Lords words in the scriptures. This is just one example.
Perhaps a better name would be “Bible believing but only what we want to believe Christians.”

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.”

And St Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians that he thought it better not to marry as married people had to focus on pleasing their spouse while single people could focus on serving God.

I also pointed out to brkn1 that the Orthodox also have celibate bishops, which shows that the concept of celibacy isn’t unique to the Catholic Church.

 

[greggy53]

And St Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians that he thought it better not to marry as married people had to focus on pleasing their spouse while single people could focus on serving God.

I also pointed out to brkn1 that the Orthodox also have celibate bishops, which shows that the concept of celibacy isn’t unique to the Catholic Church.

Right you are. I was thinking of St Paul as well, but I can’t even get them to acknowledge Jesus own words.