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

[guanophore]

I just did adore it, but I do not do so anymore. I don’t see where I should have clammed up with that in any way.
I was pretty extreme in my adoration (well for German standards) and I do not do it anymore.
I simply will not bow down to a bread that is supposed to be my Lord. I do not believe this “truth” any more. He is risen and He is seated at the right hand of the father in all of His glory.

You are right, Janet, He is risen and is seated at the right hand of the Father. This does not negate that He is present to us in His Body and Blood.

None of us is capable of judging your heart with regard to your time in front of the blessed sacrament. Maybe you were like I was, going through the motions of what seemed to be expected without ever believing it in your heart.

It seems that you, like I did, found a personal experience of God among our separated brethren. It also seems that you, like I did, embraced quite a fair amount of heretical doctrines in the process. The one you state here is very old, as we can see from the Patristic account:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

People have been claiming to embrace the faith of the Apostles and denying their Teachings from the very beginning of the Church.

It is my prayer that you will come to be at peace with all of your unresolved issues about the Catholic faith. I know you are here because you have not worked them out yet.

 

[AwGusTeen]

The Bible of the Bible-believers do not recognize the legitimacy of a priest of the Catholic order anyway. Christ did away with the priesthood in Hebrews 7-8-9 and replaced it with Himself as Our High Priest and all of His children as a royal priesthood set apart for Jesus.

A Catholic priest by his own worldly nature; proves he is not a true disciple of Christ.

Search the Word of God; it is all recorded there for anyone who is seeking the truth.

God bless you all.

Tanner9188: You sound like a King James Onlyist… Is this your position?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

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

Thanks Jerry for the insights and understanding. I am soon going to begin to look at some of these issues or doctrines in some detail by starting a new thread. i hope it will be thought provoking and charitable as we closely review what God has said.

If you would like me to send you a PM with the link to join in the discussion; it would be of great encouragement and blessing to have you join in.

Blessing…GottaGo12345678 - male

 

[guanophore]

You said that the “Church” was defined. I cannot see where the Church was defined in the passages you quoted, and most definitely not the one in Matt. 16:18. It did not say that the Church is supposed to be a juridical entity. On ther contrary, it is the body of Christ, the body of believers.

I agree that the passage quoted does not fully “define Church”. However, the Church most certainly is a juridicial entity. The Church cannot settle disputes otherwise, or bind and loose, which is a reference to legislative authority.

The Church does inlcude the body of believers, but it also includes the authority appointed by Christ. That authority is exercised by persons, not books, however holy.

 

[guanophore]

In fact, the Protestants protested in defense of Christ’s teachings which were, during the middle ages, being ostensibly violated and abused by the Roman Catholic heirarchy. They were corrupted by power and were even competing for the temporal powers held by kings and monarchs.

I am in full agreement. However, it was the corrupted persons that needed reform, not the doctrine! The Holy Scriptures should never be separated from the authority appointed by Christ to write and to teach from them.

 

[guanophore]

I think we have to make something clear here. A lot, if not most, Protestants disagree that Peter was the Rock that Jesus referred to (1 Cor. 10:4). Peter in Greek is Petros (masculine, and defined as a detached rock) while “Rock” is petra (feminine, and defined as a solid rock). The Church is therefore built on Christ and not on Peter. Moreover, Peter was not the first apostle who went to Rome, it was Paul, hence the letter to the Romans. Peter merely continued what Paul started in Rome being the “apostle to the Gentiles.”

Yes, most Protestants must disagree about Jesus making Peter into a Rock. This is the only way to justify disobedience to the successor of Peter.

However, Jesus making Peter into a Rock does not negate HImself as a Rock. Peter was grafted into Christ, who is the cornerstone. To say that Peter was “separated” from Christ or not solid in Christ is preposterous. The whole foundation is knit together in one peice.

Also, your use of the Gk. to parse the gender of the words is not helpful. Matt. was written in Aramaic, which does not have gender distinctions with words as does the Gk. Even if it did, it would be inappropriate for a male to use a feminized name.

God never gives a person a new name without grave import upon their identity and calling. If Jesus did not intend to make Peter part of the foundation of His Church, why change His name from Simon to Cephas (Rock)? If this did not have meaning to all around Peter, why did they call him Cephas for the rest of his life, including Paul?

We don’t know the date that Peter went to Jerusalem, but Paul’s reference to “building on another man’s foundation” may be a reference to Peter having been there before him. In either case, what we do know is that both of them ended up there together, preaching and teaching, and it is this strong deposit of Apostolic faith that made Rome a doctrinal center.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Can you guys PLEAAAASE lay off Janet.

I get it. To you all she is like that Muslim girl that left the Muslim faith to become Christian. And now the father says she is dead to him.

I get it.

But please. Just lay off. Call off the dogs. Please.

I don’t expect you to understand what happened to Janet. But I do. And it is fine.

Just…Just lay off. You only make yourselves look bad. You really do.

It’s beginning to sound like cyberbullying. It really is.

Yeah, and I know I will get flamed for this. It happens.

But please, just lay off.

I’ve been reading posts in this thread from the beginning. As far as I can see, no one has been disrespectful to Janet. Futher, she comes here of her own volition. Me thinks you protest too much!

 

[GottaGo12345678]

You are right, Janet, He is risen and is seated at the right hand of the Father. This does not negate that He is present to us in His Body and Blood.

None of us is capable of judging your heart with regard to your time in front of the blessed sacrament. Maybe you were like I was, going through the motions of what seemed to be expected without ever believing it in your heart.

It seems that you, like I did, found a personal experience of God among our separated brethren. It also seems that you, like I did, embraced quite a fair amount of heretical doctrines in the process. The one you state here is very old, as we can see from the Patristic account:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

People have been claiming to embrace the faith of the Apostles and denying their Teachings from the very beginning of the Church.

It is my prayer that you will come to be at peace with all of your unresolved issues about the Catholic faith. I know you are here because you have not worked them out yet.

"Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. "

Ignatius is a man about to be persecuted. Equating the bread of life, which is the flesh and desire to drink of God, His blood…then he puts it in context, “which is incorruptible love and eternal life”, is a real stretch to say he wants to literally eat his flesh. He is speaking spiritually as the latter part of his statement explicitly indicates. The only way you could ascertain your statement would be to ask him personally. Also, if he did mean what you implied, then he would be in opposition to what Jesus said John 6:63.

Furthermore, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in the first chapter he gives the full gospel and clarifies any misnomer concerning the literal versus the spiritual meaning of the flesh and blood of Christ and is consistent with Scripture.

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immovable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh,(3) and the Son of God according to the will and power(4) of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled(5) by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit(6) we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard(7) for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, **in the one body of His Church. **

 

[guanophore]

If indeed there was an uninterrupted and valid succession from the apostles, then how do you explain the time whaen there were bishops who claimed to be popes. They even excommunicated each other! All of them went through the usual election right?

This is a good question Bengoshi!

Apostasy (abandonment of the faith) does not negate the valid succession of Bishops. God is able to preserve what He created in spite of sinful men.

 

[guanophore]

There were evil men who became popes and it would be an insult to Peter and the other apostles to claim that those popes were their “infallible” successors.

I agree, but since they were not, it is not a problem.

I think you misunderstand infalliblility. It does not mean impeccability. In fact, Jesus Himself called Peter “Satan” and his personal faults and betrayal are evident in Scripture. Personal perfection is not what makes a person a valid successor of the Apostles.

It is equally an insult to Peter to claim that he was not made into a Rock by Christ, and that the Church is not built upon him, especially since scripture is clear that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles and prophets. It is scriptures like these that are denied that create questions such as the one in the OP.

 

[Robbinson]

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.

Agreed - and further to your point, as the “scriptures” referred to were in that verse were the “Hebrew scriptures”, the respondent’s contention would suggest we wouldn’t need the New Testament scriptures/cannon for every good work.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[greggy53]

Agreed - and further to your point, as the “scriptures” referred to were in that verse were the “Hebrew scriptures”, the respondent’s contention would suggest we wouldn’t need the New Testament scriptures/cannon for every good work.

Blessings,

Brian

I didn’t think of that but you are right. St Paul would have been refering to the OT. The NT not having been written. So, based on that logic all the so-called Bible believer needs is the OT?
What say you so-called Bible believers about this??

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Gotta Go,

**You wrote: ** *Thanks Jerry for the insights and understanding. I am soon going to begin to look at some of these issues or doctrines in some detail by starting a new thread. i hope it will be thought provoking and charitable as we closely review what God has said.

If you would like me to send you a PM with the link to join in the discussion; it would be of great encouragement and blessing to have you join in. *​

Thanks, and may God bless you as you reconsider Protestantism and sectarianism in the light of comparisons with Catholic truth! Good luck with your discussion; it sounds interesting, although I do not know from what you say how to access it (and I am a real, 66year old computer dummy).

Jerry Parker

 

[steve_b]

Actually - I believe the seat of moses is in fact a “tradition” that of authority of the pharasies (high priest) taking the authority derived form moses. This is reflected in the Talmud. Jesus acknowledged this “tradition” (not scripture) when telling his disciples and the Jews to do as they are told by the Pharasies who hold this position (honoring this tradition as binding) but warning them to do as they say, not as they “do” as they are hypocrites.

This “seat of moses” passage indeed is supportive of the concept of traditions (not recorded in scripture) as being reflective of binding authority.

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

Blessings,

Brian

You beat me to the response. :tiphat: Well said. I would just add, that it also shows succession of Moses authority. An authority that if anyone argued with it, we don’t see such argument after Jesus validates it. Which means it had been in force all that time since Moses died. But we don’t see that reflected anywhere in the pages of the OT. Yet it was true.

 

[po18guy]

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?

The bible amounts to Cliff’s Notes. It is a synopsis, but in no way complete. It tells us in many places that it (bible) is incomplete. (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34) Additionally, the oral teaching, the vocal proclamation of the Gospel is preferred to scripture (John 3:29, John 15:11,1 John 1:3-4, 2 John 1:12. Scripture only confirms the joy that was proclaimed by word of mouth. They did not hand out scrolls, they proclaimed the Gospel. A tiny fraction of the Gospel was written. Is that all you want?

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.

A very protestant observation. It denies the shape and function of the Apostolic Church, though. Consider that it is reverse engineering, going backward from the bible, rather than forward to the bible, as the Church actually progressed.

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

I’ll take a look, but you must realize that we speak two different languages, so you currently may not understand any responses.

 

[po18guy]

Wow, this is A LOT of reading! I need time for this, not to mention my work (I do work too you know ) Hehehe!

Yes, but it remains illuminating. Everyone here should read it.

 

[po18guy]

“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)

But it does not say “scripture is all”. That is a Lutheran invention. A man-made tradition.

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 imputing meaning that is not there. You have protestant hope in scripture alone. Christ did no such thing. The Apostles did no such thing. The Church has never done any such thing. Luther did. Luther alone.

And, it says “thoroughly” equipped. Thus, it supplements something else. Paul only wrote when he had to. He taught orally, personally. Not in impersonal, easily misinterpreted written words. Peter wrote scripture regarding the twisting of Paul’s written words.

 

[steve_b]

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?

Of course Jesus is head of the Church. But who did He put in charge?
gotta:

How do you account for a priest forgiving sins when all the apostles say it is God alone?

You meant to say I’m sure, the Pharisees said only God can forgive sins. Their comment was directed at Jesus. Obviously they didn’t think He was God. The apostles of course had no such problem.

Now you follow scripture alone…correct? How do you understand the following? And who specifically was Jesus ordaining to do this?

Jn 20:
22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23* If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
gotta:

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.

What advantage would WE have over say, someone who was taught directly by an apostle?
gotta:

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 .

Clement of Rome, successor to Peter, DURING apostolic times, (St John is still alive and hasn’t yet written the book of Revelations) settled sedition among the bishops at Corinth. You can read his letter to the Corinthians online newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
gotta:

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?

You misunderstand infallibility. BTW, no pope, when directing the Church on faith and morals, has ever*** taught*** error.

 

[po18guy]

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

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277

DO NOT READ THIS THREAD if you want to maintain your current argument. To make it easier, read only the replies by Claudius and Ronyodish from about post 133 onward. Both are linguists in their own right. They use the Ancient Syriac and other languages to utterly destroy the false big rock/little rock argument.

 

[po18guy]

Tanner9188: You sound like a King James Onlyist… Is this your position?

Too late. Elvis has left the building.