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

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Interesting sub-note:
Recently some Catholics wanted Luther pardoned and declared a Doctor of the Church, but the Church being catholic many within its ranks challenged the move (especially those of the more conservative ‘Right Wing’) and the motion was defeated.

 

[benedictus2]

Try not to confuse zeal for the Lord and the Catholic people for pride and arrogance.

A far as learning the things pertaining to the Word of God; I would never look at a religious institution. I would go directly to the source of Truth and put my faith in the Trinity and there promises; one which is the promise of the Spirit of Truth, which is the guidepost for each Christian.

Blessing on your spiritual journey and on mine.

Indeed the source of Truth is the Trinity but that Source CHOSE to reveal that Truth through His Church whom in turn came up with the Bible.

 

[benedictus2]

No I haven’t had this happen to me before. Like you, other people have made personal attacks against me when I have gotten the better of the argument, but that comes with the territory. You are the first one to accuse me of taking something out of context, and then instead of demonstrating to me how I did it you threatened and stomped your feet. You need to learn how to loose a debate more graciously. It’s the Christian thing to do. I’ll respond to anything you post if I want, and you are free to do the same to me. If you don’t respond that is fine. Not to reply, is to reply.

I agree GottaGo says God bless with one side of his mouth and tells you you are ignorant with the other side.

 

[benedictus2]

Head knowledge is a poor substitute for heart knowledge.

In some instances yes. And it is truly sad when one is lacking both don’t you think?

Is there no distinction in your mind between all the apostles being assigned to minister the proclaim the gospel versus Peter being assigned to do the same?

Is there no ability on your part to read that when Jesus was saying this He was addressing Peter directly? Yes all the bishops are shepherds but Peter was prime of all of them. That is why Jesus singles him out on several occassions.

In that verse Peter,

Aah finally he gets it.

yet it applies to all the apostles

True but Christ makes Peter His prime apostle. If you go back to Matthew 16:18 Jesus said: that the “Father” revealed it to Peter. So it is not just Jesus who had a hand in choosing Peter. The Father actually handpicked Peter by choosing him to be the one through whom Jesus’s Divine nature is to be revealed.

and all that the Spirit has called and gifted to proclaim the gospel; that is reality;

Nope. Just the apostles and their successors.

Pope Peter is fiction.

Only to the ignorant.

You did not mention Mary; I did because when I was thinking about the Catholic Peter, the Catholic Mary came to mind. You actually judge me for for guessing what you were thinking, which I did not, but you stand guilty of doing it by your own admission above…

I wasn’t judging you at all. I was merely stating a fact. You said I mentioned Mary but I didn’t. Why mention her at all when you are replying to my post? As I said before, stick to whatever you are replying to.

Actually he is a saint and is with the Lord and no one I know disputes that Jesus gave him a name that means small rock or stone, no different than Peter referring to all believers a living stones.

Big difference. It was Jesus who renamed him Rock because He (Jesus, God Himself) is building His Church upon this Rock who happens to be Peter. When God renames you, He means business.

I suggest you re-read my post regarding Ceasaria Philipi. Then perhaps you will understand that Peter as rock does not mean small rock or stone. Cephas is not small rock or stone. Peter is simply rock.

I think you are clinging to your blindness here in spite of the many clear explanations of the passage because you find the Truth frightening.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Again; I’m sorry for ribbing you about the source; we all eventually will forget anyway with the best of intentions; so my apologies again to you.

I have the links for the ECF’s, thanks for the offer. What I meant was since, in my opinion based on historical evidence and obvious distractions from the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church that we see today emerged out of Emperor Constantin’s forced marriage of Christianity with Roman paganism. Why do you think there are saints, and dozens of them, that exist by myth or legend. One of the most popular was and still is St Christopher; traveling mercy. He is a total myth and was the Roman god named Mercury. You can compare your saints with the Greek and Roman gods and you can find matches.

The reason for this was to get the pagans on board to give up their gods; so instead of praying and worshiping false gods, they prayed and worshiped false saints, not all were false. This all occurs around 312 AD; so I do not put much stock into things written from about 300 AD to the present that your Church presents. It wasn’t till 1965 or 1969 when the magisterium reviewed all the saints on the calendar and removed quite a few including St. Christopher.

The question is why not remove the saint status altogether and quit selling trinkets of saints they know do not exist? What would Jesus do? What would Peter do?

Do you know know most of those saints got there in the first place? Popular vote of the people; not based on facts obviously.

After this 312 AD date is where we see the emergence of the primacy and the actual use of the term Pope and the invention of the vicar of Christ emerging from the Holy Spirit and eventually to the office of the Pope. What would Jesus have to say?

There are many other things that emerged, but you have enough and I do not want to be overwhelming.

God bless you friend

It may surprise you to learn Jesus can be favourably compared to other Gods (Read ‘The story of **Christian origin’, Martin A. Larson)
Why are you quoting Scripture and then denying saints? Read St Paul.
Do you think it Wisdom to condemn an institution and then build another from the rubble using your interpretation as blue-print.
As to the Pope you ask: “What would Jesus say?” You are an avid reader of Scripture, you tell us. Is there something 2,000 years and millions of people have missed?

 

[benedictus2]

Try to get it in your head who actually and really has the ability to forgive sins; hint is is not of human origin?

Try to get it into your head that God GAVE that authority to his disciples when in John 20:21-23 "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Or is it that your version of the Bible is so corrupted you do not have this in your book of John.

You are so terrified of this passage which happens to be in the Bible you claim to love. You are so afraid of what Jesus is saying here that rather than try to give an explanation of this verses (which you seem increasingly unable to do) you keep going back instead to your tired ways of evasion, avoidance and slip sliding away.

Why does the truth of the Bible scare you so much?

Do you understand that God alone forgives sins (you said it yourself above) and the apostles and every one who proclaims the “Good News” , then then embrace it; their sins are forgiven or loosed from them?

And do you not understand that you keep avoiding John 20:21-23. Aaah fear. Pray that you be set free from it.

Those words in John 20:21-23 are actually UTTERED BY JESUS HIMSELF. Repeat UTTTERED BY JESUS. **Why are you trying to muzzle Him? **

Who else do you pray to & through besides God, the Father? You presume to know how much I pray? Humility is noble in God’s sight; not pride.

And where in the above quote is the pride? It is a simple fact that the Mass is so much more than any single prayer any person can pray. So it is not pride but a mere factual statement.
Who else do we pray to? Well apart from God the Father, we pray to God the Son and also to God the Holy Spirit.

We agree on the operative word and the Lords Prayer is not what came to mind; think of mother Angelica.

What about Mother Angelica? What does Mother Angelica have to do with this?

It is repetitive and totally outside the bounds of prayer written on the pages of Scripture.

Repitition is only pointless when it is MEANINGLESS. You said above that you agree that that is the operative word but it seems you don’t understand what you are agreeing to.

You may or may not realize, while it is okay to repeat the Lord’s prayer verbatum, and I do at times, but it really is more a blue print for how we are to pray.

Nope. Jesus said this is how you SHOULD pray. Another example of GottaGo refusing to follow Jesus’s command. You must be following a different Jesus.

See above and on other posts; no reason to avoid anything written in Scripture. I guess you have depending on how one defines a “answer”.

See above???!! There was nothing to see!! You did not make one teeny, insy, winsy bit of comment regarding your understanding of John 20:21-23.

 

[benedictus2]

Careful the standard you apply to others; it will come back at you.

What will come back to me. All I am asking is if you are going to be throwing verses and books of the Bible left, right and centre, you better be prepared to put forth an exegesis which in many instances you have failed to do.

I’m only speaking of free will.

So was I. What I was trying to get at is that though you may have free will, you are only really free to choose Truth as any other choice impaires your free will.

Christ appointed Himself to follow. For there is no other Name given among men which we can be saved; is there?

True. But the way to follow Him is through His Church which He specifically built. As I keep trying to tell you, Jesus Christ did not do anything writing. But what He did do is build a church and this He did so that we will know that we are following the real Jesus and not some modified Jesus of our own construct.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

There’s a story of someone giving a speech in Ireland on his atheism. A lady from the audience called out, “And which God don’t you believe in. The Protestant or the Catholic one?”
(An atheist is a person who has no invisible means of support)

 

[benedictus2]

We already discussed this and no one disagrees that Peter was named a stone or small rock by the Lord Jesus; where we disagree is on the Primacy issue.

Cephas is not small rock or stone. Cephas is Rock. Read my post about Ceasaria Philipi and you might actually learn something about this important event in Church history.

Peter is prime apostle for the simple reason that God theFather and Jesus Christ chose him to be the rock upon which God’s Church will be built.

The Father and the Son did not choose Andrew, James ro John or any other apostle. The Father and the Son CHOSE Peter.

 

[benedictus2]

The Bible justifies itself; yes it is circular, but it is also the very voice of God.

And how do you know that for a fact?

Do you believe the truth of the Word of God?

But how do you know that the Bible is indeed the Word of God?

Sola ekklesia would be the worst imaginable form of circular reasoning because in and of itself; it cannot interpret Scripture because Scripture say how God id to be understood on and through an individual believer.

But Scripture did not write itself. The Church through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the Scripture. The Church through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit decided on which books are to form the canon of Scripture.

The Church came before the Bible and because of this the Church alone can properly interpret the Bible.

If you are an artist and you made a painting, you are the best interpreter of that painting.

Similarly with the Church. Since the Bible came from the Church, she is the one who can best interpret her own writing.

 

[benedictus2]

Interesting sub-note:
Recently some Catholics wanted Luther pardoned and declared a Doctor of the Church, but the Church being catholic many within its ranks challenged the move (especially those of the more conservative ‘Right Wing’) and the motion was defeated.

How can he be considered doctor of the church when what he has proposed is actually error?

A certain monk by the name of Dom Bruno Webb wrote that had Luther been more humble he would indeed have been a force for reform. As it is, one his pride took over that was the beginning of the fall. The sad thing though is he took many souls with him.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

How can he be considered doctor of the church when what he has proposed is actually error?

A certain monk by the name of Dom Bruno Webb wrote that had Luther been more humble he would indeed have been a force for reform. As it is, one his pride took over that was the beginning of the fall. The sad thing though is he took many souls with him.

How could Martin Luther be considered a Doctor of the Church?
Good question.
An indication of how ‘catholic’ (as in universal, all-embracing) the Church has become post-Vatican 2.
Needless for me to say Martin Luther is not a Doctor of the Church, nor forgiven for heresy. Heresy that by some modern day Catholics is considered sound doctrine.
As to him ‘taking souls with him’ it is debatable in that this is suggestive of the absence of a soul’s free will.

 

[benedictus2]

How could Martin Luther be considered a Doctor of the Church?
Good question.
An indication of how ‘catholic’ (as in universal, all-embracing) the Church has become post-Vatican 2.
Needless for me to say Martin Luther is not a Doctor of the Church, nor forgiven for heresy.** Heresy that by some modern day** Catholics is considered sound doctrine.

Modern day Catholics that do not know what sound doctrine is at all?
As to him ‘taking souls with him’ it is debatable in that this is suggestive of the absence of a soul’s free will.
True. But he has been the evil one’s instrument in spreading it’s lies. And everyone follows what one perceives to be the truth.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Cephas is not small rock or stone. Cephas is Rock. Read my post about Ceasaria Philipi and you might actually learn something about this important event in Church history.

Peter is prime apostle for the simple reason that God theFather and Jesus Christ chose him to be the rock upon which God’s Church will be built.

The Father and the Son did not choose Andrew, James ro John or any other apostle. The Father and the Son CHOSE Peter.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Are these noble examples of the Line of Peter, even if many Popes were good and just. They still had supported the Crusades, Inquisition, Burned Heretics, Burned Witches and must I mention supporting the Spanish in the greatest American geneocide of native peoples in History in the Name of God through your Church.

Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.

Pope John XII (955 - 964) is described in the Catholic encyclopedia as a coarse, immoral man. The Catholic collection of the lives of the Popes, the “Liber Pontificalis” said: “He spent his entire life in adultery.” Catholic bishop Luitprand states that “he had no respect for single girls, married woman or widows - they were sure to be defiled by him.”

Pope John XV (985 - 996) split the churches finances among his relatives and was described as “covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts.”

Pope Benedict IX (1033 - 1045) committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims, and was regarded as a hideous criminal. The people drove him out of Rome: The Catholic encyclopedia says, “He was a disgrace to the chair of Peter.”

Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) promoted the Inquisition, surpassing all his predecessors.

Pope Alexander VI (1492 - 1503) committed incest with his two sisters and daughter. On October 31, 1501 he conducted the worst ever sex orgy in the Vatican.

Pope Stephen VI (896 - 897) brought the dead body of former Pope Formosus (891 - 897) to trial, hacked off his decaying finger and had him dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

So I would say by these examples these are hardly worthy successors to the way of Jesus. Many of the heretics seemed to be far more moral than your Church, you know the ones your Popes persecuted and burned on fires.

 

[greggy53]

Are these noble examples of the Line of Peter, even if many Popes were good and just. They still had supported the Crusades, Inquisition, Burned Heretics, Burned Witches and must I mention supporting the Spanish in the greatest American geneocide of native peoples in History in the Name of God through your Church.

Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.

Pope John XII (955 - 964) is described in the Catholic encyclopedia as a coarse, immoral man. The Catholic collection of the lives of the Popes, the “Liber Pontificalis” said: “He spent his entire life in adultery.” Catholic bishop Luitprand states that “he had no respect for single girls, married woman or widows - they were sure to be defiled by him.”

Pope John XV (985 - 996) split the churches finances among his relatives and was described as “covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts.”

Pope Benedict IX (1033 - 1045) committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims, and was regarded as a hideous criminal. The people drove him out of Rome: The Catholic encyclopedia says, “He was a disgrace to the chair of Peter.”

Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) promoted the Inquisition, surpassing all his predecessors.

Pope Alexander VI (1492 - 1503) committed incest with his two sisters and daughter. On October 31, 1501 he conducted the worst ever sex orgy in the Vatican.

Pope Stephen VI (896 - 897) brought the dead body of former Pope Formosus (891 - 897) to trial, hacked off his decaying finger and had him dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

So I would say by these examples these are hardly worthy successors to the way of Jesus. Many of the heretics seemed to be far more moral than your Church, you know the ones your Popes persecuted and burned on fires.

Your so-called reformers are no less quity of persecutions, tortures and murder.
One of the great leaders of your “reformation” chopped off the heads of Catholics who dared to disagree with him. You see he wanted to commit adultry, but the Pope said no so he started his own church and made everbody agree to it or they lost their heads on the chopping block…So be careful when you throw stones

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Modern day Catholics that do not know what sound doctrine is at all?

True. But he has been the evil one’s instrument in spreading it’s lies. And everyone follows what one perceives to be the truth.

We are now entering the subject headed: 'How free is free will?'

*“Everyone follows what one perceives to be the truth.” * Please explain. Please conjugate the sentence for clarity; what you have written here is open to variety of interpretation.(The words ‘everyone’ and ‘one’ - are they grammatically correct in your sentence structuring?)
Sad to say, many Catholics have too heavily relied upon others to dig the trenches of dogma: I recall attending Holy Mass wherein Sctripture about the Love of God was read. The celebrating priest instructed us on theolgy of Holy Mass. Preferring to hear a sermon on the Love of God, I voiced my disappointment to a nun, the spiritual co-ordinator of the Parish, she informed me possibly many in attendance knew little theology of what we were celebrating.
The Catholic Church is a precious gift, many take it for granted.

 

[steve_b]

Nope; you should not presume so much.

Did you try clicking your link?
Oops! This link appears to be broken.

---

Not sure why that happens

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102
gotta:

doesn’t matter anyway I’m just ribbing you a little; I apologize.

Accepted

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

So I would say by these examples these are hardly worthy successors to the way of Jesus.

Worthy? Is anyone worthy of anything when it comes to Christ? Was Peter worthy of his position, after denying Christ three times? Was Paul worthy after persecuting the Church, or in fact, persecuting Christ Himself?

And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Acts 9:4

Not one of us is worthy.

God bless you

 

[steve_b]

Again; I’m sorry for ribbing you about the source; we all eventually will forget anyway with the best of intentions; so my apologies again to you.

I have the links for the ECF’s, thanks for the offer. What I meant was since, in my opinion based on historical evidence and obvious distractions from the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church that we see today emerged out of Emperor Constantin’s forced marriage of Christianity with Roman paganism.

“Roman” as a qualifier began as a polemic by Anglicans.
newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

The title of the Church, is the Catholic Church. It is headquartered in Rome. And NO it didn’t start in Constantine’s day. That’s why EC F’s quotes have been given over and over and over, DURING apostolic times and after to refute your comment…
gotta:

Why do you think there are saints, and dozens of them, that exist by myth or legend. One of the most popular was and still is St Christopher; traveling mercy. He is a total myth and was the Roman god named Mercury. You can compare your saints with the Greek and Roman gods and you can find matches.

As for St Christopher
newadvent.org/cathen/03728a.htm

As to your other comments you’ll have to be more specific. And please show your sources
gotta:

The reason for this was to get the pagans on board to give up their gods; so instead of praying and worshiping false gods, they prayed and worshiped false saints,

Who’s feeding you this stuff
gotta:

This all occurs around 312 AD; so I do not put much stock into things written from about 300 AD to the present that your Church presents.

your litmus is based on misinformation. Therefore if you’re going to be consistant, you’d have to toss out the canon of scripture also.
gotta:

It wasn’t till 1965 or 1969 when the magisterium reviewed all the saints on the calendar and removed quite a few including St. Christopher.

The question is why not remove the saint status altogether and quit selling trinkets of saints they know do not exist? What would Jesus do? What would Peter do?

Do you know know most of those saints got there in the first place? Popular vote of the people; not based on facts obviously.

You labor under many misconceptions. Maybe this Q & A will help correct this
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/St.%20Christopher
gotta:

After this 312 AD date is where we see the emergence of the primacy and the actual use of the term Pope and the invention of the vicar of Christ emerging from the Holy Spirit and eventually to the office of the Pope. What would Jesus have to say?

He would say, stop giving parking space in your head to all the antiCatholic junk you’ve learned.

Peter’s office as head apostle, and leader of the Church, was established by God. THAT’S what Jesus would say. And it didn’t die with Peter. And It didn’t start after 312. It wasn’t invented by man. All that stuff got started by heretics trying to justify their own disobedience to the faith delivered once to the saints.
gotta:

There are many other things that emerged, but you have enough and I do not want to be overwhelming.

God bless you friend

What’s overshelming is the amount of evidence supporting the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the blessing. Same in return