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

[guanophore]

A certain poster (I forgot who) commented that contraception is the same as abortion. Contraception per se is not abortion, as the term itself suggests.

Ok, we seem to be completly off topic now.

Even those methods of contraception that do not cause abortions are against the will of God. If you realy are interested in understanding the Apostolic Teaching on this, I recommend Theology of the Body, by John Paul 2

 

[guanophore]

Are you serious?! I guess you better start studying your church history more! Not all Catholic churches are Roman! The eastern and orthodox churches are also Catholic by faith and doctrine but are not under the authority of the pope in Rome.

There are 22 Eastern Catholic Rites that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Thanks for noticing us, at least. IT is a start.

 

[Bengoshi]

Ok, we seem to be completly off topic now.

Even those methods of contraception that do not cause abortions are against the will of God. If you realy are interested in understanding the Apostolic Teaching on this, I recommend Theology of the Body, by John Paul 2

Yeah, we are off-topic! Who started this discussion on contraception anyway?! Hehehe! By the way, I appreciate papal writings but as an Evangelical Christian, I do not treat them as infallible nor comparable to Sacred Scripture.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

That doesn’t equate to head of the Church.

True, but that’s different from king or queen or emperor trying make themselves head of the Church. They can’t do it. They have no authority to do it.

**Not in a spiritual sense we agree on that, but the Church in England [as I told you previously,] clarified the point by adding, only,‘as far as the law of Christ allows.’
The Church is under the law of the land, is it not? Is it not being prosecuted in the USA and Canada at this minute? Do you think it should be saved from prosecution? That the Church should be under the law, is essential to Christianity, in my opinion.
**

EVERYBODY in the Church knew about papal claims. It’s when you got people trying to go against the teachings of the Church that you see and read from Councils or Church fathers writing against this or that heresy or heretic(s) that bore the heresy. You should familiarize yourself with their writings.

**You have a funny idea of papal claims friend! There had been complaints amonst Catholic Clergy for some several hundred years in England alone, regarding papal claims.Regularly the state complained and threatened to take action, if the Pope did not reign in his pretensions. [Council of Clarendon. Henry 11nd.] For a hundred years the Continent had been rife with calls for Councils to depose popes and regulate the papacy. At least four Councils were called and each time they failed simply because they had no muscle, to enforce their canons. But, they deposed two popes and appointed their own, who when he was out of their reach reneged on his committments!! Even S.Thomas More,[again I repeat,] believed the Pope was responsible to a Council.

As for going against the teachings of the Church? What Rome was teaching was not tthe Catholic Faith, but medievalism. The faith as I have repeatedly told you is Received from Christ by Revelation, recorded in scripture and interpreted by the fathers in council! Do not sneer against the Ecumenical Councils friend, they are the Holy ghost working through the College of Bishops. You do yourself no favours.**

You’re mixing apples and turnips

Time will tell!.

Henry broke from the pope. Catholics said no. Catholics remained united to the pope and remained Catholic. The rest broke away from the Church with Henry as THEIR head. At that point they were no longer Catholics.

**B]Of course Henry broke from the Pope, why not? The pope was only the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West! A primacy of honour! In the real world Henry lived in,the Pope was just another Bishop! Mind you if you ever decide to follow the subject up from any other source but new Advent, you’ll find that very few people bothered at the loss.
**again his powers had been limited by the Ecumenical councils.

The authority of the Church and the pope does NOT come from the state. It comes from God.

**First of all you are accusing me of sayings things that I have never stated! At no time did I say the authority of the Church comes from the state! At the very least you are careless in your utterances and or,poor in comprehension! What I did say and quite often at that is, that the Papacy has no recognition in Scripture, neither has it any authority from the Holy Trinity. It gains its authority , prestige and power from its relationship with the City of Rome and the fact that Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire, thus making the pope the Emperor’s parish priest!
Initially, the only authority the Bishop of Rome had was that he was given the charge of the suburbicarian bishops , that is southern Italy, that came from the Emperors. Later the arrangment was altered at the Roman Emperors will and whim! **

From the 1st century to the 4th century, read about the pope and his authority in the Church… all the while being persecuted by the state. Most of those popes were martyred. Are you even familiar with the Early Church fathers? Those that wrote DURING The severe persecutions of the Church BY the state? Church and state were water and oil. And in many cases still is.

****There’s a lot of dispute about the early martyrdoms, I wasn’t there so I don’t know! Won’t judge. But the first eight popes were not Roman but Orthodox in that they came from the East! Greek was the language of the Roman Church in its early days.How-and-ever, when you deny the powers given by the Emperors to the Bishop, you reveal how little reading you have done if this fact hasn’t impressed it self on you! Who was it that brought S.Hilary over the Alps in Mid Winter? S.Leo! Do you think he personally fetched him?
The co-ercive power of the pope was given him by the Rescript of Gratian and the two Emperors Valentinian.
You will really have to open your reading to a much wider and deeper scene. It was only in the fourth Century that the Popes,[Leo,] began to make their more outrageous claims. Some 350 yrs after the death of Our Lord! It wasn’t until much later that the claims were developed!

Once Constantine converted however, he was the last of the line of Caesars that persecuted the Church. Once the state was converted from paganism to Catholicism, the persecution of Catholics ended

English Catholics remained Catholic by staying united with t he pope. All those who broke from the pope are no longer Catholic**

English Catholics who went in to schism at the behest of the pope in 1570, became at that time Roman Catholics! They had become part of a catholic Sect, that had reared its head at the Council of Trent. It was here , that the bishops of Europe abandoned their responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome. That is when they went in to heresy! According to my Funk and Wagner, a Sect, is a break from a Religious body on a narrow principle. In this case the principle was the claims to authority, both civil and spiritual of the Bishop of Rome! The Roman Church as we know it today is the child of Trent!**

 

[erikd]

Hi Erik,

Thank you for your concern, I appreciate it! By God’s grace, our house and family were spared. Unfortunately, I couldn’t say the same for some of my officemates and friends whose houses were inundated well above human level. A lot of people as I’m sure you’ve seen in the news are already on their roofs in order to escape from the flood and have not eaten for days. We have been gathering relief goods since Sunday in our church and also here in our office (I work for a school). The good thing is that not that many lives were lost in this calamity, although billions worth of property were destroyed and lost. Again thank you and Godbless!

Bengoshi, I’m happy to hear that you’re safe. I will continue to pray for the victims of this calamity. Stay safe and God Bless.

 

[erikd]

Yeah, we are off-topic! Who started this discussion on contraception anyway?! Hehehe! By the way, I appreciate papal writings but as an Evangelical Christian, I do not treat them as infallible nor comparable to Sacred Scripture.

Did you know that 1 and 2 Peter are Papal writings? Furthermore, did you know that the letter of Clement to the Corinthians was discussed at the Council of Rome as a serious contender for canonicity as it used to be read in many Churches until the fifth century when the Canon was finalized?

 

[erikd]

None of the points are valid resons to claim that contraception is not legal accoding to the Bible.
Onan did willingly and knowingly defy God. It was not that he did not want to accept the duty as next of kin. In the example of Ruth this was not an issue either and someone else was found. He did accept it and then tried to prevent it from happening. He was in defiance in that he did not give this woman a fair chance to give birth to a son for his deceased brother.

Janet, with all due respect, you’re dodging the question. The penalty for death was not prescribed for defying the law in question. It was public humiliation. In order to believe that Onan was killed for disobeying the law, not for onanism, you would have to subscribe to one of the three points in post 794. Which of the three do you subscribe to and why?

 

[Bengoshi]

Did you know that 1 and 2 Peter are Papal writings? Furthermore, did you know that the letter of Clement to the Corinthians was discussed at the Council of Rome as a serious contender for canonicity as it used to be read in many Churches until the fifth century when the Canon was finalized?

On the issue of Peter being the first pope, such Catholic teaching is rejected not only by protestants but also by eastern Catholic churches. So the claim that the epistles of Peter were papal writings is highly debatable. However, that is not the topic of this thread either. With regard to Clements letter, the fact that ultimately it did not make it to the canon of Scripture makes it a mere human work and hence not inerrant and infallible. I enjoy reading Pope Benedict’s writings though and I admire him as a theologian.

 

[Zundrah]

You might want to begin considering whether the early Church Fathers agree with you:

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

The early church fathers were catholic.

 

[steve_b]

The reason why Onan spilled his semen on the ground as because he knew that the offspring would not be his.

Yeah that’s usually the way intercourse works. Bottomline, he wanted sex without the responsibility.

ben:

He enjoyed his dead brother’s wife without fulfilling his duty to produce offspring for him, and that was wicked in the Lord’s sight, not he act of spilling his semen on the ground per se.

What do you mean by per se?

You’re trying to make this an either this /or that so you’ll pick the one that suits you rather than see that it is ALL wrong and God took his life as well as He took his brother’s life too.

ben:

If *coitus interruptus *was indeed forbidden bu God, then He would have said so directly just like in the other commandments and not make us guess on what He means. Do not add to what Scripture does not teach expressly or impliedly.

:doh2:unbelievable!!! God takes Onans life because he spills his seed rather than be open to life and you don’t connect the dots?

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Bengoshi, I’m happy to hear that you’re safe. I will continue to pray for the victims of this calamity. Stay safe and God Bless.

**Bengoshi!

Ben I’m sorry for the misfortunes of your neighbours and your family!
Please note that you are in our prayers and will be mentioned at Mass on Sunday!

Luckyfredsdad.**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Bengoshi, I’m happy to hear that you’re safe. I will continue to pray for the victims of this calamity. Stay safe and God Bless.

**Bengoshi!

Ben I’m sorry for the misfortunes of your neighbours and your family!
Please note that you are in our prayers and will be mentioned at Mass on Sunday!

Luckyfredsdad.**

 

[FCEGM]

The early church fathers were catholic.

Precisely.

 

[Zundrah]

Precisely.

Heresy!

 

[guanophore]

On the issue of Peter being the first pope, such Catholic teaching is rejected not only by protestants but also by eastern Catholic churches.

No, Bengoshi, this is a false statement. The Eastern Catholic Churches are so BECAUSE they accept this teaching. Protestants are so because they REJECT this teaching. The Eastern Catholic Churches do not reject this Apostolic Teaching as Protestants do.

 So the claim that the epistles of Peter were papal writings is highly debatable. However, that is not the topic of this thread either. :D

Well, you can debate all you want, it does not change the fact that they are Papal encyclicals, a fact that is relevant to the topic to the extent that it is important to read and believe what scripture says from the point of view of those who wrote it.

With regard to Clements letter, the fact that ultimately it did not make it to the canon of Scripture makes it a mere human work and hence not inerrant and infallible. I enjoy reading Pope Benedict's writings though and I admire him as a theologian.

No, Bengoshi. Sacred Writings that did not make it into the canon are not necessarily “mere human work”. There are plenty of HS inspired writings that are not in scripture.

The NT canon is not the only residence of written work inspired by God. God has never confined Himself to a canon.

 

[guanophore]

Heresy!

Zundrah, this type of trolling is not conducive to productive discussion.

 

[guanophore]

It would really help those of us who are trying to follow your posts if you could learn to use the quote feature. You are bolding, but that gets lost in the reply window.

Not in a spiritual sense we agree on that, but the Church in England [as I told you previously,] clarified the point by adding, only,‘as far as the law of Christ allows.’
The Church is under the law of the land, is it not? Is it not being prosecuted in the USA and Canada at this minute? Do you think it should be saved from prosecution? That the Church should be under the law, is essential to Christianity, in my opinion.

This does not make any sense to me. It seems clear in the NT that, when the secular government, or even “religious” government acts in a way that is contrary to the Faith, the Church is compelled to disobey, even if it means martyrdom.

As for going against the teachings of the Church? What Rome was teaching was not tthe Catholic Faith, but medievalism. The faith as I have repeatedly told you is Received from Christ by Revelation, recorded in scripture and interpreted by the fathers in council! Do not sneer against the Ecumenical Councils friend, they are the Holy ghost working through the College of Bishops. You do yourself no favours.

I think you are mixing up the base behavior of some persons with the Teaching of the Church. The sinful actions of these men do not change the Teachings of the Church.

  **Of course Henry broke from the Pope, why not? The pope was only the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West! A primacy of honour!**

This does not make any sense either. The Bishop of Rome is the symbol of unity everywhere in the Church. All the other Patriarchies are in unity with him because he is the successor of Peter, and is the representation of unity in doctrine. To “break from the Pope” is the same as breaking from the unity of the One, HOly, CAtholic and Apostolic Church. What do you mean, “why not”? You have pointed out yourself why not! Why did Henry spurn the Patriarch of the West?
luckyfredsdad;5756364:

In the real world Henry lived in,the Pope was just another Bishop!

If this were true, then there would be no need for Henry to “split” with him, would there?

If this were true, the splitting would not have caused region wide separation and division.

you’ll find that very few people bothered at the loss.
again his powers had been limited by the Ecumenical councils.

The powers of the Pope are limited by God, and papal participation in matters of secular government is problematic.
luckyfredsdad;5756364:

the Papacy has no recognition in Scripture, neither has it any authority from the Holy Trinity. It gains its authority , prestige and power from its relationship with the City of Rome and the fact that Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire, thus making the pope the Emperor’s parish priest!

SUch a statement reflects a misunderstanding of Scripture. The role given by Christ to Peter is quite plain.

Basically you are saying that the Papacy recieves power from the State.

Initially, the only authority the Bishop of Rome had was that he was given the charge of the suburbicarian bishops , that is southern Italy, that came from the Emperors. Later the arrangment was altered at the Roman Emperors will and whim!

No, lucky. YOu re mixing up the spiritual and temporal powers. JEsus gave authority to Peter, and he to his successor. When Christ placed Peter in charge of feeding and caring for the flock, Peter had not even been to Rome. When Jesus commanded him to strengthen his brethren, they did not even yet need to be strenghtened. None of this came from any Emperors.

There’s a lot of dispute about the early martyrdoms, I wasn’t there so I don’t know! Won’t judge.

Ahh, but you HAVE judged. You have accused that the first successors of Peter got their authority from roman emperors.

But the first eight popes were not Roman but Orthodox in that they came from the East! Greek was the language of the Roman Church in its early days.

I agree. It is testimony that the Catholic Church is not Roman.

How-and-ever, when you deny the powers given by the Emperors to the Bishop, you reveal how little reading you have done if this fact hasn’t impressed it self on you!

I agree, but by conflating spiritual powers with temporal (politica) you also reveal how little you have read.

The co-ercive power of the pope was given him by the Rescript of Gratian and the two Emperors Valentinian.

No, the power of one person to co-erce another was given to mankind by God. It is part of our nature to be able to take authority and leadership. When men use this God given ability wrongfully, then it is the result of sin. However, I will not deny that the encouragement of other sinful persons does play a part. The Pontiff could have chosen to use the authority given to him for good, instead of evil.

the Popes,[Leo,] began to make their more outrageous claims. Some 350 yrs after the death of Our Lord! It wasn’t until much later that the claims were developed!

This is true. It was not possible before that time to make or enforce such claims, since the Church was under persecution, and claimants were martyred. It is also true that the need of the Church for governance grew as the faith spread, and by 350, the need for a unifying figure such as the successor of Peter was much more prominent.

 

[guanophore]

English Catholics remained Catholic by staying united with t he pope. All those who broke from the pope are no longer Catholic

I can’t tell if you wrote this, or not . Suffice to say it is a true statement.

English Catholics who went in to schism at the behest of the pope in 1570, became at that time Roman Catholics!

This statement makes no sense to me. The Pope does nto promote Schism.

Catholics who lived in England were already Roman catholics.

No one becomes Catholic by creating schism.

They had become part of a catholic Sect, that had reared its head at the Council of Trent. It was here , that the bishops of Europe abandoned their responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome. That is when they went in to heresy

I cannot follow this statement at all. I must be missing something!

The bishops at Trent created heresy?

According to my Funk and Wagner, a Sect, is a break from a Religious body on a narrow principle. In this case the principle was the claims to authority, both civil and spiritual of the Bishop of Rome! The Roman Church as we know it today is the child of Trent!

I disagree with your conclusion, but even if it were true, it does not account for the Catholics if the 22 other non-Latin Rites that remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Any theory such as you propose would have to account for these Catholics.

 

[steve_b]

Not in a spiritual sense we agree on that, but the Church in England [as I told you previously,] clarified the point by adding, only,‘as far as the law of Christ allows.’
The Church is under the law of the land, is it not? Is it not being prosecuted in the USA and Canada at this minute? Do you think it should be saved from prosecution? That the Church should be under the law, is essential to Christianity, in my opinion.

Again, apples and turnips.

The Catholic Church converted England. The Church has the pope as it’s primary leadeship, not any secular king or queen etc… We’re talking about in your case a king breaking with the pope, and taking the Catholic Church in England and making it his. And he took the property of the Church as well. Everyone who broke with Henry are no longer Catholic by definition.

lucky:

You have a funny idea of papal claims friend! There had been complaints amonst Catholic Clergy for some several hundred years in England alone, regarding papal claims.

Judas had problems with authority too. And he was an apostle hand picked by Jesus. You gonna defend him because he had problems with the way things were set up?

I added links below to further the point

lucky:

Regularly the state complained and threatened to take action, if the Pope did not reign in his pretensions. [Council of Clarendon. Henry 11nd.] For a hundred years the Continent had been rife with calls for Councils to depose popes and regulate the papacy.

again, seems you mix apples and turnips

lucky:

At least four Councils were called and each time they failed simply because they had no muscle, to enforce their canons. But, they deposed two popes and appointed their own, who when he was out of their reach reneged on his committments!! Even S.Thomas More,[again I repeat,] believed the Pope was responsible to a Council.

which council? What popes?, what work from S Thomas More?

lucky:

The faith as I have repeatedly told you is Received from Christ by Revelation, recorded in scripture and interpreted by the fathers in council! Do not sneer against the Ecumenical Councils friend, they are the Holy ghost working through the College of Bishops. You do yourself no favours.

Quote the scripture that permits schism

lucky:

Of course Henry broke from the Pope, why not?

Now with regards to why not, We KNOW why Henry broke from the pope.

lucky:

The pope was only the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West! A primacy of honour! In the real world Henry lived in,the Pope was just another Bishop! Mind you if you ever decide to follow the subject up from any other source but new Advent, you’ll find that very few people bothered at the loss.

:coffeeread: I think you’re letting your emotions rather than reason, run your game.

Insurrection, schism, etc is condemned by scripture. Not only the act but the person who is involved unless they repent and return. Hence the topic of this thread, "Protestants please stop using the label “bible-believing” because unless you’re willing to acknowledge ALL of scripture, and NOT just the pieces you like, and ignore what you don’t want to acknowledge, you really can’t use the label.

lucky:

What I did say and quite often at that is, that the Papacy has no recognition in Scripture, neither has it any authority from the Holy Trinity. It gains its authority , prestige and power from its relationship with the City of Rome and the fact that Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire, thus making the pope the Emperor’s parish priest!

Peter is the Father’s choice to lead the Church. Here are the links I mentioned above addressing this. The papacy is MORE than exemplified in these scriptures

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

lucky:

Initially, the only authority the Bishop of Rome had was that he was given the charge of the suburbicarian bishops , that is southern Italy, that came from the Emperors. Later the arrangment was altered at the Roman Emperors will and whim!

Defend that statement with proof properly referenced.

lucky:

But the first eight popes were not Roman but Orthodox

your source?

The “Roman” qualifier for Catholic, got it’s sneer factor from the Anglican Protestants newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

lucky:

in that they came from the East! Greek was the language of the Roman Church in its early days.How-and-ever, when you deny the powers given by the Emperors to the Bishop, you reveal how little reading you have done if this fact hasn’t impressed it self on you!

What 3 languages were on the Cross over Jesus head? Those are the languages the Church spoke.

BTW, Irenaeus, came from the East. He was a disciple of Polycarp also from the East. Polycarp was a disciple of John the apostle. That makes Irenaeus 1 man away from an apostle. Irenaeus wrote ~180 a.d. Have you read his works “Against heresies”?

may I suggest you read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and “against heresies” by Irenaeus

The 3rd pope from Peter is Clement. He’s written a letter also to the Corinthians about their sedition. It’s a short read but valuable for understanding what REALLY went on.

lucky:

Who was it that brought S.Hilary over the Alps in Mid Winter? S.Leo! Do you think he personally fetched him?
The co-ercive power of the pope was given him by the Rescript of Gratian and the two Emperors Valentinian.
You will really have to open your reading to a much wider and deeper scene. It was only in the fourth Century that the Popes,[Leo,] began to make their more outrageous claims. Some 350 yrs after the death of Our Lord! It wasn’t until much later that the claims were developed!

What power did Valentinian and Gratian give the pope? Show your sources.

Read Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus “against heresies”. Their work can be read online.

lucky:

English Catholics who went in to schism at the behest of the pope in 1570, became at that time Roman Catholics!

:dts:the poor fellow has a clogged chimney.

 

[Bengoshi]

**Bengoshi!

Ben I’m sorry for the misfortunes of your neighbours and your family!
Please note that you are in our prayers and will be mentioned at Mass on Sunday!

Luckyfredsdad.**

Thank you! I truly appreciate that! My family is fine, it’s some of my officemates who are inundated.