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

[Bengoshi]

Hi - I don’t know why you assume or believe that angels can’t understand or hear or prayers (and therefore why saints/believers now with Christ can’t hear our prayers). Their prayers rise to heaven per revelation - and they clearly are aware of what transpires on earth (thus their petition to God of when they will be avenged (those who were martyered) again suggesting they know what is going on). In that regard, see Psalm 91:11 (“For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways.”) - Here the angels are given charge to guard us - clearly they know what we are doing and what we are asking for?

See alos Let Jer 6:7 (For my angel is with you, and he is watching your lives.)

See also Matt 1:20 (But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit - how did the angel know what Joseph was thinking?

Look at Mat 24:31 (But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.). This suggests an understanding that the angels know more than humans (have more powers and knowledge - though even angels didn’t know this (the timing of Christ’s return).

Or Matt 28:5 (But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.) - How did the angel know this - if not knowing what they were thinking?

How did the angels know what they were thinking? God told them, they knew it because God made it kown to them. But to assume that they are omniscient is to go overboard. Angels are messengers of God, as the name itself means, therefore, they cannot tell us anything which God did not instruct them to. Hence, their knowledge comes from God. Matt. 24:31 does not say anything about angels knowing everything, they are more intelligent, yes, but they are not omniscient.

Further, to watch over our lives does not necessitate omniscience. I can watch over your life like a spy without being able to read your mind, as do bodyguards. Assuming angels can read our thoughts is going beyond Scripture.

 

[benedictus2]

Hello how are you? Nice to meet you as well

We actually met on another thread which just closed. You did not reply to my post there

I wanted to comment on what you said - that the Bible doesn’t state the church is the body of believers. If it isn’t the individual parts, each true believer, then what is the church?

Ephesians 4:11-16 -
11 And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, 12 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. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

And the question is HOW DO YOU BECOME A PART OF THIS BODY? Is it by mere believing or is something else required? To answer that, I gave the reference to Acts 2.

So, read again my entire post.

I hope that God’s Word is able to penetrate your heart to see two things, the church is the individuals who believe and trust in Jesus collectively and that Jesus is the head and not Peter.

And I hope that you will learn to correctly read God’s word so that what penetrates your heart is TRUTH not ERROR.

If you were to do a **casual **reading of 1 & 2 Peter; you would see exactly how Peter viewed himself in this regard. I encourage you to do so; both epistles are short and the reading is very enjoyable.

And if you will read 1 and 2 Peter SERIOUALLY** instead of** CASUALLY, you will see that bit that bit that says :“baptism, which now saves you”.

 

[po18guy]

Scripture expressly tells us that not everything that Jesus taught was written down (if it were, it would fill many, many books). Blessings,
Brian

Submitted for your approval:** Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34**. I am sure that there are many others telling us that scripture is incomplete.

Essentially, the bible is the “Cliffs notes” of salvation history, since religious authority existed through the history of Israel to judge and make atonement for sins.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Robbinson]

How did the angels know what they were thinking? God told them, they knew it because God made it kown to them. But to assume that they are omniscient is to go overboard. Angels are messengers of God, as the name itself means, therefore, they cannot tell us anything which God did not instruct them to. Hence, their knowledge comes from God. Matt. 24:31 does not say anything about angels knowing everything, they are more intelligent, yes, but they are not omniscient.

Further, to watch over our lives does not necessitate omniscience. I can watch over your life like a spy without being able to read your mind, as do bodyguards. Assuming angels can read our thoughts is going beyond Scripture.

Fair enough that there is no verse which expressly tells us that saints (deceased in Christ or angels) can hear our thought and non-verbal prayers - but can you show me a verse which tells us this is “NOT” the case? I can show you tradition/writings of the early Church Fathers showing this to be be a belief of Christians going back to the time of the apostles or their direct apostles - the abandonment of this belief really only occurs in earnest around 1500 years later. Is there a verse or verses of scripture which tell us that angels or saints can’t hear or prayers?

It sounds like you accept the fact that the deceased in Christ appear to know what is going on here (and scripture clearly suggests this in revelation).

As to scripture alone - can you identify a single verse in scripture that actually says “scirpture alone?” That is a rhetorical question - that verese doesn’t exist. Isnt that ironic - a doctrine which fails to pass its own standard (can’t be proven by scripture alone?) Doesn’t that give you pause to think (it did to me)

Blessings,

Brian

 

[benedictus2]

If you apply your methods; how do you account for a Pope as head of the Church as Jesus and the apostles all say it is Jesus? {/quote]
Actually it was JESUS himself who appointed Peter (the first Pope) as head of the Church: Matthew 16 and John 21.

How do you account for a priest forgiving sins when all the apostles say it is God alone? I could go on, but no point in being overwhelming or overbearing.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

And the question is HOW DO YOU BECOME A PART OF THIS BODY? Is it by mere believing or is something else required? To answer that, I gave the reference to Acts 2.

So, read again my entire post.

Acts 2:42-47
42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. 44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they {began} selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And ***the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. ***

Looks from this particular section of Scripture “that those who had believed were together”; so from that passage yeah, believe the gospel and you will justified and looks like the Lord is doing the adding of those believers. Do you see anything different? If so, what?

And I hope that you will learn to correctly read God’s word so that what penetrates your heart is TRUTH not ERROR.
And if you will read 1 and 2 Peter SERIOUALLY** instead of** CASUALLY, you will see that bit that bit that says :“baptism, which now saves you”.

GottaGo:

I wanted to comment on what you said - that the Bible doesn’t state the church is the body of believers. If it isn’t the individual parts, each true believer, then what is the church?

Ephesians 4:11-16 -
11 And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, 12 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. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

I answered you question; perhaps you might answer mine; thank you.

 

[ljubim]

And I hope that you will learn to correctly read God’s word so that what penetrates your heart is TRUTH not ERROR.

Woo hoo!

 

[GottaGo12345678]

GottaGo12345678;5675230:

If you apply your methods; how do you account for a Pope as head of the Church as Jesus and the apostles all say it is Jesus? {/quote]
Actually it was JESUS himself who appointed Peter (the first Pope) as head of the Church: Matthew 16 and John 21

.

John 20:21-23

EXACTLY!!! The Bible was not completed then. What did they have? The Catholic Church! Because the Church came first. What Jesus did was to estsblish the Church and from this Church the NT came to be written.
You have a “funny” Bible translation; mine mentions nothing about Jesus appointing a pope, much less a Pope Peter. My Bible, which must read differently than yours (I use the NASB generally) says the Jesus restored Peter from his previous 3 denials of Christ, then used him as a leader to the rest of the apsotles and minister of truth as he spread the word to his Jewish brethren.

Matthew 16 Jesus said “I will build my church”, which is continuing to do as we post. No Peter could hold such a structure as this; the real rock, that being Jesus, can and does build such a spiritual body. Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the head on earth and heaven. Isn’t that what the Bible actually teaches and confirmed by Jesus and the apostles?

Blessings

 

[soflochristmas]

P.S. Can you show me that bit in the bible were the word catholic was?

Can you show me where in the bible it says everything is in the bible?

 

[soflochristmas]

Absolutely.

Read your posts and tell me whether they the love of Jesus Christ.

Peter “defended the faith” when he cut off the ear of the soldier. Jesus didn’t think that was a particularly good idea.

God doesn’t need any of us to “defend the faith”. He can do that quite well.

He does need us to reflect a Christlike character.

quite frankly, I think your posts lack the love of Christ. And yes He does ask us to defend the Faith. He can do ALL things quite well…but we have our rolls.

 

[Bengoshi]

Can you show me where in the bible it says everything is in the bible?

“All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

It says EVERY good work. So, it follows that Scripture is sufficient for us to do everything we need to do to honor God and advance His kingdom. The Bible doesn’t need to contain everything, but only everything we need to know.

 

[po18guy]

Exactly my point. Nobody calims that Protestant reformers were infallible. They all committed some mistake in one form of another. Moreover, it is only the RCC which claims that it is ONE and UNITED, not any Protestant denomination. However, in spite of the apparent disunity in Protestantism, we still considered each other, regardless of denomination, as brethren in Christ and therefore mambers of His body. Also, I never said that “the protestant movement is no better than the Catholic in this limited regard.” In fact, what I’m trying to say is the other way around.

But, the parallel has been drawn between this and the US Presidents. Only one is genuine. The imposters do not take anything away from the true president, just as the antipopes took nothing away from the true Pope.

Did the Holy Spirit, acting through His Church, solve the problem on His own timetable? Yes.

 

[po18guy]

As to scripture alone - can you identify a single verse in scripture that actually says “scirpture alone?” That is a rhetorical question - that verese doesn’t exist. Isnt that ironic - a doctrine which fails to pass its own standard (can’t be proven by scripture alone?) Doesn’t that give you pause to think (it did to me) Blessings,
Brian

You and Scott Hahn!

 

[po18guy]

benedictus2;5675431:

You have a “funny” Bible translation; mine mentions nothing about Jesus appointing a pope, much less a Pope Peter. My Bible, which must read differently than yours (I use the NASB generally) says the Jesus restored Peter from his previous 3 denials of Christ, then used him as a leader to the rest of the apsotles and minister of truth as he spread the word to his Jewish brethren.

But you are using only the sacred Cliff’s Notes of salvation. They are not complete. Church history. Dig into history. The shape of the early Church, and its practices tells of the rightful interpretation of scripture.

Matthew 16 Jesus said “I will build my church”, which is continuing to do as we post. No Peter could hold such a structure as this; the real rock, that being Jesus, can and does build such a spiritual body. Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the head on earth and heaven. Isn’t that what the Bible actually teaches and confirmed by Jesus and the apostles?

Jesus renamed Simon into Cehpas/Kepha/Kepa/Peter. Why? IF you are interested, there is a thread in which this modern argument against Peter as the rock (Jesus remains the cornerstone - much more important) is truly and utterly destroyed by using the ancient Syriac, in which Matthew was written. Any takers?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

GottaGo12345678;5675495:

But you are using only the sacred Cliff’s Notes of salvation. They are not complete. Church history. Dig into history. The shape of the early Church, and its practices tells of the rightful interpretation of scripture.

What would add to the only known inspired Word of God? The shape and the practices gives interpretation? Is that a new methodology to interpreting the Word? What is a sacred cliff note?

Jesus renamed Simon into Cehpas/Kepha/Kepa/Peter. Why? IF you are interested, there is a thread in which this modern argument against Peter as the rock (Jesus remains the cornerstone - much more important) is truly and utterly destroyed by using the ancient Syriac, in which Matthew was written. Any takers?

He changed his name to demonstrate he was 1) correct on the revelation Jesus was the Christ, which would soon be proclaimed throughout the world (the gospel) and 2) that he was going to be used by Jesus to help lay the foundation of the church.

What are Christians? Little Christs. Christ is the rock bed foundation and we are stones, just like Peter and the other apostles and the rest of the individuals that make up the body of Christ.

Jesus
GottaGo:

Matthew 16 Jesus said “I will build my church”, which is continuing to do as we post. No Peter could hold such a structure as this; the real rock, that being Jesus, can and does build such a spiritual body. Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the head on earth and heaven. Isn’t that what the Bible actually teaches and confirmed by Jesus and the apostles?

Please take a minute or two and answer the question(s); thank you.

 

[greggy53]

“All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

It says EVERY good work. So, it follows that Scripture is sufficient for us to do everything we need to do to honor God and advance His kingdom. The Bible doesn’t need to contain everything, but only everything we need to know.

You are stretching things quite a bit here. The scripture you quoted does not say that the scriptures are *all *you need. You are reading that into it. It says that the scriptures are inspired by God, and useful for teaching etc. It says nowhere here or in any other part of the bible that the scriptures are all you need. You are assuming that ALL we need is the scripture to be “thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work”, but it doesn’t say that.

 

[guanophore]

Janet is very hurt, we need to be gentle with her, not bitter. That will only send her further away. Rather than talk to her about her lack of belief, talk to her about her actual beliefs.

Guanophore, I think you could help her because you have such a great knowledge about catholicism.

P.S. Can you show me that bit in the bible were the word catholic was?

I agree that Janet has been very hurt, and I will pray everyday for her healing. I do not think she is here to learn about the Catholic faith, however. She has willingly embraced a great many heretical beliefs, and is very adamant about clinging to them. I think she does this because accepting what the Apostles actually believed and taught about human reproduction is too painful to accept. I can understand that, now that I have read her story.

The first recorded appearance of the word catholic in relation to the faith of the Apostles appears in Acts 9:41. Luke describes “the church throughout” (kath holos). This term was in use regularly by the time of Irenaeus’ writings early in the second century. This is why we think it is so preposterous that people say the “Catholic Church was started by Constantine” and other such nonsense.

I was pondering the thread topic, and it seems to me that Protestants are “bible believing”. It is just that they believe their interpretation of what the Bible says. I understand the OP in that they do not embrace what the Apostles believed and taught which is reflected in the NT in some places. However, I would say that the vast majority of Protestants retain many of the Apostolic Teachings that are not explicit in scripture, such as the canon of the NT, worship on Sunday, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. In this way, they do accept Catholic Sacred Tradition without realizing it.

 

[guanophore]

Absolutely.

Read your posts and tell me whether they the love of Jesus Christ.

Peter “defended the faith” when he cut off the ear of the soldier. Jesus didn’t think that was a particularly good idea.

God doesn’t need any of us to “defend the faith”. He can do that quite well.

He does need us to reflect a Christlike character.

I agree that it is possible to give an answer for the hope that is within us in gentleness and reverence. It is not necessary to be caustic. That is what most of us have come here to learn. However, it is not Christlike to confirm people in error, or to watch someone who appears to be walking off a cliff and not say anything.

 

[guanophore]

Interesting thought, i completely agree with your perspective

Welcome to CAF, georgebush!

Since you did not include the quote of the person to whch you are responding, we have no way of knowing with wom you are in agreement.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Gotta Go,

**You wrote: ** * I like the way you think in terms of believing the Bible and not taking things out of context and you may have alluded to the Bible will verify itself, not contradict itself…if I’m wrong on the latter, then correct me.

If you apply your methods; how do you account for a Pope as head of the Church as Jesus and the apostles all say it is Jesus? How do you account for a priest forgiving sins when all the apostles say it is God alone? I could go on, but no point in being overwhelming or overbearing.

Concerning the comment that you don’t see how those closest to the earliest church could make mistakes. I would suggest first they are human, under persecution, did not have a completed Bibles as we do nor the study tools that we do; we are at a great advantage. Also, consider the Corinthians as one example who had the apostle Paul teaching them for a few years and yet they were allowing false teachers to corrupt the gospel and the Galatians as well. What about 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation that Jesus had warning about. So the idea that they would somehow have it perfect is very far fetched at best; don’t you think? *​

Hi, “Gotta Go”, Thanks for the friendly tone, even if inquisitive. Well, I do not try to resolve every point for myself. That is the role of the Church, and she has done so, right from the beginning. The Council of Jerusalem, described in the books of Acts, is an example, as is the work of the Apostles among the local churches. St. Paul corrected the Corinthians in their false ways and thinking. Today the Church should do the same, although timid and P.R.-driven popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI do not live up to their responsabilities (as, for example, the last great Pope, Pius XII, did live up to them unflinchingly and without undue concern to personal popularity) as many popes, alas, have not presided as uncompromisingly as they should do or have been weak or corrupt in the past for all kinds of other reasons.

Further, I have my own doubts about the Papacy’s claims, anyway, as I do about other points of doctrine where the Eastern Church differs from the Western Church (e.g. purgatory, indulgences, limbo, all of which the Orthodox Church rejects); I just put them on hold for now, which I think is the best attitude from Christian humility. I think that a truly universal Council of the reunited Church, not just one or more of exclusively Eastern or Western Councils, is needed to sort all of such matters out definitively. Time will tell if the Papacy’s claims are false, when a Pope, acting on his presumed infallible basis, stumbles so badly and irrevocably wrongly that all can discern the falsity of the Papacy’s claim. Truth to tell, I share more of the Eastern Orthodox view of authority in the Church than I do the Roman Catholic Church’s papal-centred attitude. The Church is more than the Pope’s personal fan club! So, I bide my time and keep my own council where I have doubts, but not brazenly in defiance of appointed authority.

The Church (and Jewry before that) always has had as much of the Bible as it needed at the time. God unveiled His Revelation providentially. When Revelation had attained its fulness, Scriptural Revelation ceased.

Much blessings in studyint God’s Truth, guy (or gal) who cares for Our Lord Jesus and His truth!

Jerry Parker