R
RNRobert
Guest
Nope…:nope:
- Status
G
greggy53
Guest
From what I have read that council was held to refute certain heresies concerning the nature of Jesus. Can you elaborate a little?
This argument falls on 2 counts: 1) Mathew wrote his Gospel in Greek. The two different words for rock in Greek were masculine, and feminine forms . Mathew would not have called Peter by the feminine word Rock. He rightly used the masculine form of the word.
2) Jesus and the Hebrews of his time spoke Aramaic. Aramaic has only one word for rock…rock!
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
I think the usage of “Bible-believing” has it’s roots in the controversy between the fundamentalists and those they were attempting to correct, those who were said to be using higher criticism as a hermaneutic or whom as products of one of the “Enlightenments” basically denied the supernatural.
As such it wasn’t really aimed at Catholics.
However, seeing as how the footnotes in the NAB now are clearly of a higher critical nature and don’t use the historical grammatical hermaneutic, it probably would be accurate to use it as opposed to Catholics.
It’s the difference between saying the Bible is the word of God or the Bible contains the word of God. The latter meaning of course that parts of the Bible are not the word of God but rather of man and were socially motivated products of the times they were written or myths borrowed from surrounding cultures.
I don’t find it offensive myself to hear someone call himself Bible believing, I find it much more offensive how many people feel free to disregard the Bible and just make things up as they go, but I realize we all have our pet peeves.
As such it wasn’t really aimed at Catholics.
However, seeing as how the footnotes in the NAB now are clearly of a higher critical nature and don’t use the historical grammatical hermaneutic, it probably would be accurate to use it as opposed to Catholics.
It’s the difference between saying the Bible is the word of God or the Bible contains the word of God. The latter meaning of course that parts of the Bible are not the word of God but rather of man and were socially motivated products of the times they were written or myths borrowed from surrounding cultures.
I don’t find it offensive myself to hear someone call himself Bible believing, I find it much more offensive how many people feel free to disregard the Bible and just make things up as they go, but I realize we all have our pet peeves.
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Greggy,
You have me confused with someone else. I have never quoted scripture. I have never used upper-case letters. I asked you one simple and direct question. You resort to ad hominem attacks. This is decidedly un-Christian and not worthy of the church of Augustine and Aquinas.
This is getting very tired. What started out as a thread “Protestants: please stop using the lable ‘Bible-believing’” has turned into “Protestants: unless you tow the RC line you are deceived by Satan”.
Let us all stop for a few Hail Marys and a few recitations of the Lord’s Prayer. And take a deep breath.
G
greggy53
Guest
I apologize for saying you were quoting scripture, I confused you with others in that regard. I do believe you used upper case bold type. That is inconsequential. I’m sorry if you thought I was personally attacking you. It has been my intent to stick with the issues.
B
Bastoune
Guest
So naturally there was a successor to the traitor Judas Iscariot but NOT to the chief apostle? Doesn’t make sense, there.
Read up on Paul’s writings on laying-on of hands.
B
Bastoune
Guest
Besides that, who cares if both Jesus and Peter are the “ROCK”? – see Isaiah 22 and see Isaiah 51:1-3 (Abraham is also the “rock” from which the Hebrews were hewn).
Jesus calls Himself the “Light of the World” in John 8:12 but the Apostles are called “the light of the world” in Matthew 5:14. How can that be? Well, as Jesus states in John 9:5"While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
The Church, the Body of Christ, is an extension of the Incarnation, who continues the work of the Son of God here on Earth.
In 1 Cor. 13:11, Paul writes, “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
But does he contradict himself in Ephesians 2:19-22?
“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
There is no contradiction.
Besides, there are no credible apologists or linguists who think Jesus was NOT referring to Peter as the Rock in Matthew 16, without doing real damage to the text (even in the Greek!).
D
davebennett88
Guest
In a spirit of hopeful ecumenism, please allow me to share my viewpoint with my Catholic friends. I speak as one who has always been a Protestant (at various times, Nazarene, Free Methodist, and First Baptist), and was married to a Catholic for 11 years. Therefore I have a bit of experience on both sides of the issue.
There are a few things Catholics do that offend Protestants greatly, just as I’m sure the converse is true. One of them is using the term “good Catholic” about someone in front of a Protestant, when the term “good Christian” may be more appropriate, or other excluding gestures such as accusing Protestants of not being “Bible-believing,” as the title of this forum does. Our hackles go up immediately in a decidely un-Christian way, as you can imagine.
If you ask most Protestants, they feel they hold more closely to the scriptures than Catholics do–but again, the converse is likely true as well. Many of the traditions practiced by modern-day Catholics clearly arose through the imaginations of men, not scripture–in particular, men from the dark ages and then the Holy Roman Empire–during a time when politics, power, and religion were all dangerously mixed. Thus, things like praying to Mary, insisting on transubstantiation like you would die if you didn’t get your weekly fix of “actual flesh and blood that miraculously becomes Christ’s actual body and blood, although it would never taste like it,” telling someone they’ll go to hell if they are a Catholic or become one, and then decide to joing a different faith, calling a priest “father”–which Jesus himself said not to do, ritualistic confession, pennance, prayer beads, crucifixes, “Hail Mary’s,” “Our Father’s,” burning candles, and various rituals during mass such as ringing bells mystically at various times, swinging the incense, bowing, curtsying, kneeling, crossing onesself–whether it be with 3 fingers or 4, to the right or the left, as eastern Orthodox seem to want to argue with Catholics about, doing that thing with the hands and the mouth when you read certain scriptures, lean to the left, lean to the right, stand up, sit down, fight, fight fight (ahem, sorry)…where were we? Oh yes, things like indulgences, the Pope’s infallibility, etc., are either deduced using quantul leaps of logic or nowhere to be found in the Bible, and therefore Protestants do not believe them to be true or necessary. However, a combination of “that may be, but it’s tradition and we feel comfortable with it” or “a Priest told me to do it because he said it’s part of my FAITH” all seem to keep many, though not all, Catholics holding rigidly to such things.
I would prefer to see our Bible-believing world evolve to where we Christians stop getting caught up in nitnoid stuff that probably shouldn’t matter so much, and get with the big-picture program, such as believing in Jesus and giving our lives over to him as we die to sin, loving God, loving others more than ourselves, and being good, honest and helpful people who let their light shine before men. And by the way, having a sense of humor would definitely be a plus!
A Protestant might also point out that Jesus came and basically ripped the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees (the most pious religious leaders of His day) up one side and down the other for getting WAY too caught up in legalistic, ritualistic nonsense, and completely missing the point of His message, and what God the Father wanted out of man. Getting caught up over rites of succession is something that the Shi’a and Sunni are currently killing each other over, by the way, and so deciding to get into a squabble about what’s irretrievably done (the Protestant reformation, the succession of the Pope, whatever), or calling one side the true Christians while the other are supposedly heretics is not helpful.
Now, all that said, please indulge me further while I tell you one reason I absolutely love and admire 99% of all Catholics I know. For one thing, they are large, militaristic, and organized as a group. When I was at West Point I was surprised to see an inordinately large representation of Catholics there…around 50% of the student body; far greater than demographics of the country would indicate. Catholics fit in well with structure and discipline. By and large they are patriotic, brave, and trustworthy. Catholics can be counted on, as a group, to make important statements, clarifying for half the world in one breath that certain things are bad, such as abortion. Protestants, by virtue of the ridiculous number of different denominations and sects we’ve splintered off into, cannot hope to organize ourselves and exert influence over important world topics the way Catholics can. And that is something I appreciate about you all.
Catholics ARE Christians, as are Protestants. We all believe that Jesus was the Messiah and in the 10 commandments, plus Christ’s two golden rules. In the grand scheme of things, are the garments we wear, the traditions we CHOOSE to follow–many of which were vestiges of our pagan forebears–or the names we call ourselves really that important?
The only Catholics who rub me the wrong way, and they are in a tiny minority, are child-molesting priests and extremists like my co-worker, who proclaims her bi-polar, angry version of Catholicism at everyone, implying with most conversations that only she and folks just like her will go to heaven. As an example, “Jane” will boast with an Annie-Wilkes-like gleam in her eye that she once declinen attendance her dearest friend’s wedding because, in her opinion, the wedding should not have been “blessed” by her presence, as one of the two getting married was not a Catholic. ??
But other than these rare things, I always get excited when I meet a Catholic. They’ve probably comprised 70% of my top friends and buddies over my career, my father married one, as did I. Even though my first wife complained about my not being Catholic our entire marriage, before running off with her rich boss, thumbing her nose at our 4 sons and me by getting an annulment, and becoming a Lutheran like him, I hold nothing at all against the Catholic church for any of that.
And it’s funny, the best of both worlds, Catholics and Protestants, tends to be the people out there loving one another and making friends with each other, don’t you think? Last time I checked, pointing fingers and saying “I’m saved and you’re not” was not how to win friends, influence people, or carry out Jesus’ main message on earth.
Of course, that’s all just my opinion…I could be wrong.
Respectfully,
Dave, who’s pretty sure he’s Bible-believing
There are a few things Catholics do that offend Protestants greatly, just as I’m sure the converse is true. One of them is using the term “good Catholic” about someone in front of a Protestant, when the term “good Christian” may be more appropriate, or other excluding gestures such as accusing Protestants of not being “Bible-believing,” as the title of this forum does. Our hackles go up immediately in a decidely un-Christian way, as you can imagine.
If you ask most Protestants, they feel they hold more closely to the scriptures than Catholics do–but again, the converse is likely true as well. Many of the traditions practiced by modern-day Catholics clearly arose through the imaginations of men, not scripture–in particular, men from the dark ages and then the Holy Roman Empire–during a time when politics, power, and religion were all dangerously mixed. Thus, things like praying to Mary, insisting on transubstantiation like you would die if you didn’t get your weekly fix of “actual flesh and blood that miraculously becomes Christ’s actual body and blood, although it would never taste like it,” telling someone they’ll go to hell if they are a Catholic or become one, and then decide to joing a different faith, calling a priest “father”–which Jesus himself said not to do, ritualistic confession, pennance, prayer beads, crucifixes, “Hail Mary’s,” “Our Father’s,” burning candles, and various rituals during mass such as ringing bells mystically at various times, swinging the incense, bowing, curtsying, kneeling, crossing onesself–whether it be with 3 fingers or 4, to the right or the left, as eastern Orthodox seem to want to argue with Catholics about, doing that thing with the hands and the mouth when you read certain scriptures, lean to the left, lean to the right, stand up, sit down, fight, fight fight (ahem, sorry)…where were we? Oh yes, things like indulgences, the Pope’s infallibility, etc., are either deduced using quantul leaps of logic or nowhere to be found in the Bible, and therefore Protestants do not believe them to be true or necessary. However, a combination of “that may be, but it’s tradition and we feel comfortable with it” or “a Priest told me to do it because he said it’s part of my FAITH” all seem to keep many, though not all, Catholics holding rigidly to such things.
I would prefer to see our Bible-believing world evolve to where we Christians stop getting caught up in nitnoid stuff that probably shouldn’t matter so much, and get with the big-picture program, such as believing in Jesus and giving our lives over to him as we die to sin, loving God, loving others more than ourselves, and being good, honest and helpful people who let their light shine before men. And by the way, having a sense of humor would definitely be a plus!
A Protestant might also point out that Jesus came and basically ripped the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees (the most pious religious leaders of His day) up one side and down the other for getting WAY too caught up in legalistic, ritualistic nonsense, and completely missing the point of His message, and what God the Father wanted out of man. Getting caught up over rites of succession is something that the Shi’a and Sunni are currently killing each other over, by the way, and so deciding to get into a squabble about what’s irretrievably done (the Protestant reformation, the succession of the Pope, whatever), or calling one side the true Christians while the other are supposedly heretics is not helpful.
Now, all that said, please indulge me further while I tell you one reason I absolutely love and admire 99% of all Catholics I know. For one thing, they are large, militaristic, and organized as a group. When I was at West Point I was surprised to see an inordinately large representation of Catholics there…around 50% of the student body; far greater than demographics of the country would indicate. Catholics fit in well with structure and discipline. By and large they are patriotic, brave, and trustworthy. Catholics can be counted on, as a group, to make important statements, clarifying for half the world in one breath that certain things are bad, such as abortion. Protestants, by virtue of the ridiculous number of different denominations and sects we’ve splintered off into, cannot hope to organize ourselves and exert influence over important world topics the way Catholics can. And that is something I appreciate about you all.
Catholics ARE Christians, as are Protestants. We all believe that Jesus was the Messiah and in the 10 commandments, plus Christ’s two golden rules. In the grand scheme of things, are the garments we wear, the traditions we CHOOSE to follow–many of which were vestiges of our pagan forebears–or the names we call ourselves really that important?
The only Catholics who rub me the wrong way, and they are in a tiny minority, are child-molesting priests and extremists like my co-worker, who proclaims her bi-polar, angry version of Catholicism at everyone, implying with most conversations that only she and folks just like her will go to heaven. As an example, “Jane” will boast with an Annie-Wilkes-like gleam in her eye that she once declinen attendance her dearest friend’s wedding because, in her opinion, the wedding should not have been “blessed” by her presence, as one of the two getting married was not a Catholic. ??
But other than these rare things, I always get excited when I meet a Catholic. They’ve probably comprised 70% of my top friends and buddies over my career, my father married one, as did I. Even though my first wife complained about my not being Catholic our entire marriage, before running off with her rich boss, thumbing her nose at our 4 sons and me by getting an annulment, and becoming a Lutheran like him, I hold nothing at all against the Catholic church for any of that.
And it’s funny, the best of both worlds, Catholics and Protestants, tends to be the people out there loving one another and making friends with each other, don’t you think? Last time I checked, pointing fingers and saying “I’m saved and you’re not” was not how to win friends, influence people, or carry out Jesus’ main message on earth.
Of course, that’s all just my opinion…I could be wrong.
Respectfully,
Dave, who’s pretty sure he’s Bible-believing
D
DOShea
Guest
I would like to attempt to get back on topic and answer a question that went unanswered earlier.
As I understand the topic, it’s an appeal to certain Protestant denominations to refrain from using the term “Bible-believing” because by using it, it implies others (Catholics and others) do not believe in the Bible, which is in fact false.
Now to the question:
During this time, there were significant heretical adaptations of writings, and just because an Apostle’s name was attached to the writing does not mean that Apostle wrote it. It follows that if an Apostle’s byline was attached to a document supporting or containing any of the various heretical beliefs of that day, it would be just cause for rejecting it. Imagine, Protestants, if a document were discovered today, appearing to be authored by Johnathan Edwards, in which he soundly rejected Sole Fide. You tell me what would happen… would the Protestant churches embrace it because it had Edwards name on it, or would it be viewed very skeptically because it flies in the face of everything Edwards ever preached, taught, or wrote? That is the same position the early Catholic Church fathers were in when presented with a gospel of Thomas that was full of Gnostic ideas and beliefs. Their response, similar to what I think would happen today with my above fictitious Edwards document, was to soundly renounce the writing as put together by heretics using an Apostle’s name to lend credibility where it otherwise would not have any.
So when the Synod of Hippo met to formalize a canon, it wasn’t as though they sat in a room with a big pile of books and one by one went through them with a “yea” or “nay” vote. The vast majority of issues had been resolved over the previous 4 centuries; there was a large body of writings already in use and already universally accepted as Scriptural. These they formalized without dispute. Likewise, there were many documents they had held as useless for quite some time, and those were rejected without dispute. It was only a small number of writings that occupied any real discussion, and most of that discussion was whether they were inspired Scripture or were they simply works of an ecclesiastical nature, meaning of use in teaching about the faith but not strictly Scriptural. In my other post I used the example of a Bible commentary as such an ecclesiastical work.
So it isn’t a fair representation, rev kevin, to treat the first formal assembling of writings formed as the canon of Scripture as a simple tossing-out of what they didn’t like. Nor is it fair to compare that centuries-long process in the face of various heresies as a similar process to the Reformers who broke away out of a sense of dispute with what they saw as abuse of practices, then developed whole NEW doctrines that suited and helped justify their rebellion against what was already in place. Nothing Luther developed as doctrinal was ever before taught or endorsed by any Church Father. So it wasn’t as though something Luther or Calvin came up with was there at the Synod of Hippo and erroneously tossed in the reject pile. The two events are not the same.
You say you don’t see a problem with 20 to 30,000 denominations so long as they all worship God. I am inclined to wonder how you interpret the words of our Lord, “I am THE Truth, THE Way, and THE Light.” Are you saying there are 20 to 30,000 Truths, or 20 to 30,000 different ways of interpreting THE Truth?
If it’s the former, it places you into the ranks of relativists who believe truth is relative to the person. In such a system you have many “truths,” but you have NO Truth. In the latter, it slays the Word of God by assuming men can supersede the power and the authority of the Holy Spirit’s accomplishment as He descended upon the Apostles at the behest of Jesus Himself, revealing to them that “THE Truth.” It forces a belief that everyday is a Pentecost, and that by opening a Bible and hoping the Holy Spirit will guide you, there is to be no accounting of what words come out of a person subsequently. Well if there is such a thing as “THE Truth,” then you cannot possibly have Truth 1 in conflict with Truth 2, and if you do, it’s time to go back and reevaluate at least one of those truths, don’t you think?
As I understand the topic, it’s an appeal to certain Protestant denominations to refrain from using the term “Bible-believing” because by using it, it implies others (Catholics and others) do not believe in the Bible, which is in fact false.
Now to the question:
In another thread on here I gave a short account of how the canon of the Bible came to be. In that, I pointed out that as early as the Moratorium fragment - circa 200AD, nearly 200 years before we had a canon, there is discussion about the content of certain works that were being used in Churches and what they meant. Origen proposed a canon in 240AD that was close to what we ended up with, differing by only 5 books (+1, -4). There were at least two centuries of discussion over what is or should be canonical by the time the canon was formalized in 393AD.
During this time, there were significant heretical adaptations of writings, and just because an Apostle’s name was attached to the writing does not mean that Apostle wrote it. It follows that if an Apostle’s byline was attached to a document supporting or containing any of the various heretical beliefs of that day, it would be just cause for rejecting it. Imagine, Protestants, if a document were discovered today, appearing to be authored by Johnathan Edwards, in which he soundly rejected Sole Fide. You tell me what would happen… would the Protestant churches embrace it because it had Edwards name on it, or would it be viewed very skeptically because it flies in the face of everything Edwards ever preached, taught, or wrote? That is the same position the early Catholic Church fathers were in when presented with a gospel of Thomas that was full of Gnostic ideas and beliefs. Their response, similar to what I think would happen today with my above fictitious Edwards document, was to soundly renounce the writing as put together by heretics using an Apostle’s name to lend credibility where it otherwise would not have any.
So when the Synod of Hippo met to formalize a canon, it wasn’t as though they sat in a room with a big pile of books and one by one went through them with a “yea” or “nay” vote. The vast majority of issues had been resolved over the previous 4 centuries; there was a large body of writings already in use and already universally accepted as Scriptural. These they formalized without dispute. Likewise, there were many documents they had held as useless for quite some time, and those were rejected without dispute. It was only a small number of writings that occupied any real discussion, and most of that discussion was whether they were inspired Scripture or were they simply works of an ecclesiastical nature, meaning of use in teaching about the faith but not strictly Scriptural. In my other post I used the example of a Bible commentary as such an ecclesiastical work.
So it isn’t a fair representation, rev kevin, to treat the first formal assembling of writings formed as the canon of Scripture as a simple tossing-out of what they didn’t like. Nor is it fair to compare that centuries-long process in the face of various heresies as a similar process to the Reformers who broke away out of a sense of dispute with what they saw as abuse of practices, then developed whole NEW doctrines that suited and helped justify their rebellion against what was already in place. Nothing Luther developed as doctrinal was ever before taught or endorsed by any Church Father. So it wasn’t as though something Luther or Calvin came up with was there at the Synod of Hippo and erroneously tossed in the reject pile. The two events are not the same.
You say you don’t see a problem with 20 to 30,000 denominations so long as they all worship God. I am inclined to wonder how you interpret the words of our Lord, “I am THE Truth, THE Way, and THE Light.” Are you saying there are 20 to 30,000 Truths, or 20 to 30,000 different ways of interpreting THE Truth?
If it’s the former, it places you into the ranks of relativists who believe truth is relative to the person. In such a system you have many “truths,” but you have NO Truth. In the latter, it slays the Word of God by assuming men can supersede the power and the authority of the Holy Spirit’s accomplishment as He descended upon the Apostles at the behest of Jesus Himself, revealing to them that “THE Truth.” It forces a belief that everyday is a Pentecost, and that by opening a Bible and hoping the Holy Spirit will guide you, there is to be no accounting of what words come out of a person subsequently. Well if there is such a thing as “THE Truth,” then you cannot possibly have Truth 1 in conflict with Truth 2, and if you do, it’s time to go back and reevaluate at least one of those truths, don’t you think?
G
greggy53
Guest
The improtant thing you said I think is that we can both Protestant & Catholic stand under the banner of Christ Crucified died and risen from the dead as our savior. Amen to that.
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Dave,
At first I just saw another long post, but on reading it I think you say in a calm and non-tendentious way what many have been trying to say here. Typically, the only posts that get reactions are those that are “in your face”. Yours is refreshing. We all have a great deal to learn from one another, and infinitely more to learn from our Lord and Saviour.
Thank you!
H
Hlafdige
Guest
Protestants, please continue using the label “Bible-believing”, living up to it and steeping your minds in the Word of God. A lot of Protestant and Catholic theologians are less conversant with the Scriptures than many simple, faithful Christians who lay claim to that label. Would that Catholics who pray for their conversion would first say a prayer for their own, that they might strive for as high a standard of holiness as some Protestants, trusting in God‘s grace, set for themselves.
And I wonder how many of my fellow Catholics have any idea how hard it is for such believers to find a Protestant fellowship of like mind, where truth is honestly sought, human life consistently affirmed, marriage held sacred, boundaries drawn against the worst sort of social influences and gnostic theologies which have used manipulative marketing tactics to take over mainstream and evangelical congregations of every stripe.
And I wonder how many of my fellow Catholics have any idea how hard it is for such believers to find a Protestant fellowship of like mind, where truth is honestly sought, human life consistently affirmed, marriage held sacred, boundaries drawn against the worst sort of social influences and gnostic theologies which have used manipulative marketing tactics to take over mainstream and evangelical congregations of every stripe.
S
SanctiDominici
Guest
Amen! Amen! Protestants seem to forget it was the Catholic church in the first place who put the compilation of the books of the bible together in the first place. They wouldnt have a bible to throw in our faces constantly if the Catholics didnt put it together in the first place.
Fraternities of St Dominic
St Joseph Province
USA
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
rev kevin, Lets get it right the cathloics did not take any books from the Bible,Martin Luther toke 7 books out not the Cathloic Church. Welcome back
R
rev_kevin
Guest
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? The Bible was written for all men not just the catholics. 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. 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.
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Perhaps it is useful to point out that Protestants and Orthodox do not consider themselves to be separate from the church that formalized the canon. The divisions that came later came about for many reasons. But I certainly consider the patristic heritage to be my own, and I do not yield to Catholics who would see me as excluded from it. I attend a church that is dedicated to St. Clement of Alexandria, there are other Episcopal churches in the area that are dedicated to St. Francis, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Patrick, among many others. We certainly do not deny the importance of tradition in the church.
Let me end here by saying where we agree.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
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.
Don’t be silly rev.
“…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 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
God bless
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Awe, I’m not sure why we are in such a tither. The fact that they make a statement does not automatically infer a contrasting one with reference to anyone.
I would ignore it. Otherwise, if said folks are trying to get a response, so far they’ve gotten a string of them
.
HC
I would ignore it. Otherwise, if said folks are trying to get a response, so far they’ve gotten a string of them
.HC
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Some Protestants do. It is hard to generalize with Protestantism. I have met Protestants who honestly don’t care how the Bible came about but the Church of the 1st couple centuries of Christendom, to them, was an apostate false Christian Church. The “true” church was underground and persecuted by said apostate church. So no, not all Protestants consider themselves in union with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Or other Protestant churches for that matter.
And of course some of the Protestants that you are referring to (Anglicans, Lutherans) don’t consider themselves Protestant at all.
God bless you
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Point well taken. I am one of those who frankly choose to call myself Anglican in distinction to Protestant. I’m not sure how a Lutheran would pull that off, but you are correct that Lutherans have held more tenaciously to a Eucharistic tradition than even we Anglicans. It is interesting to note that when he was Dean of St. Patricks in Dublin, Jonathan Swift made a point of holding a weekly Eucharist. This was not usual. In fact, in the Book of Common Prayer of 1928, there are formalized announcements a priest makes to advise when he would next celebrate. I am sure that, by 1928, these were mere survivals of previous editions.
- Status