The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

Hmmm, that doesn’t really seem like a “prophecy” for in Luke 1:28 the angel had previously told Mary that she was “blessed,” and Elizabeth, in vs. 42 told Mary she was 'blessed," so with Mary repeating this AFTER being told twice, it cannot be seen as a true prophecy.

There are many others in the Bible called “blessed,” even way back in Gen.30:13, where Leah said she was called “blessed.”

The Catholic “interpretation” of the Bible is the only thing that is Catholic; and Roman Catholic at that, but the Bible certainly is neither. The Bible itself declares that the Scriptures were in existence well before a Roman Catholic Church was on the scene.

So far I have seen little real proof by protestants for the bible not being Catholic. Just indignant protests that the Bible is authored by God and the Holy Spirit etc…

Declaring that the “Bible says” that the “Scriptures” were in existance well before the Roman Catholic Church proves nothing since the Bible is not a “book” but rather a collection of previously known works. So you are only stating what is obvious. It’s like saying all the information in a college textbook existed before the textbook did.
Now deciding what is considered Scripture is something a bit different. Taking it a step further, declaring what is to be considered as pure and innerrant Scripture is a huge undertaking. This website lists many many texts from the pre-canon period, and these are just the ones that are known to have survived. There may well have been others that the Church fathers had to consider. While some may have been obviously spurious, not all could be easily dismissed. Some of the documents included in the NT were not used by parts of the Church while some books left out were used and loved in various parts of the Church.

The gathering, reviewing, deciding, and codifying of these books was carried out by men. Why? Because it was to be a volume used by men. These men were the acknowledged leaders of THE Christian Church at the time; bishops from all across the Church. The One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. They gathered in prayerful deliberation and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to debate, deliberate and make the selections. This same group of Bishops then returned to their respective flocks and implemented the decisions made at council.
The One Holy and Apostolic Church has, since then, been producing, teaching, protecting, defending, and interpreting this volume called the Bible ever since. God may be the author, but he gave publishing rights to His Church on earth.

No other church can make this claim validly. They can only declare that, somehow, somewhere, sometime the origional church fell into error and that many years/decades/centuries later someone else “fixed” it.

For Protestants the Bible is the Be all and end all yet, in many cases, they do not know it’s history. In fact, and I have heard this from protestant converts, many have been deliberately decieved about the history of the Bible. Many others are just not told anything about where the Bible came from, how it got into their hands, who fought for it, who codified it, etc.
Nor are they taught that later, their venerable hero Martin Luther changed it by removing books, and would have removed more except for opposition from other protestant leaders. One of the most amazing things to thinnk about today is that ML wanted to remove the book of Revelation from the Bible calling it, “unintelligable”, among other things. Can any of us imagine an evangelical protestant world without the book of Revelation?

As much as the Protestants would like to believe that the Bible just fell from heaven and landed, full blown in their hands written in the Prose of the KJV, such is not the case.

Whether one ultimately chooses to accept Catholicism or not, it is only fair and honest to your own faith and belief to recognize and accept the historical record of how you came to possess this beautiful book.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

“Facts” preserved by those who benefit from them tend to be suspect. I have no doubt that the early church leaders tried to keep things going, but without new apostles and prophets to lead the church (and without them also the authority) the church could not survive as was established in the first place. If (really big if) the original church survived it would have kept the same doctrines as was in the NT. Such has clearly not happened.

So, you are saying that the Catholic Church preserved the letters of Ignatius because it benefits Catholics to do so?

There is nothing in the doctrine of the Catholic church that contradicts anything in the Bible. Both strands of divine revelation emanate from the same Source, and that is why they are consistent with each other.

My “assumption” about the need for apostles is very correct. Or did Luke just make up the meeting to select a new apostle?

No, but if you read the requirements for selection, it is plain to see that, after the apostolic age, no one else would be able to meet those requirements.

Perhaps you know of a place in the Bible where it says God will not call more prophets or apostles? People keep telling me it’s there, but time after time I can’t find it.

The Apostolic ministry, as shown in the NT, was passed on to the Bishops.

It’s not that I’m ignorant of your view on history its just that I don’t think God would have major doctrines changed by people who are not prophets or apostles. I study the Bible and I find many doctrines taught clearly and many patterns in God’s dealings with his children. So its really hard for me to accept that God had a massive change in nature personality and operating procedure round about 100 AD.

I agree. However, I don’t seen any change or discontinuation of doctrine and authority as you seem to see. I wonder why that is?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hmmm, that doesn’t really seem like a “prophecy” for in Luke 1:28 the angel had previously told Mary that she was “blessed,” and Elizabeth, in vs. 42 told Mary she was 'blessed," so with Mary repeating this AFTER being told twice, it cannot be seen as a true prophecy.

There are many others in the Bible called “blessed,” even way back in Gen.30:13, where Leah said she was called “blessed.”

The Catholic “interpretation” of the Bible is the only thing that is Catholic; and Roman Catholic at that, but the Bible certainly is neither. The Bible itself declares that the Scriptures were in existence well before a Roman Catholic Church was on the scene.

did you read the Letter of St Paul to the Romans? that is the catholic Church in Rome already.

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ***

 

[wisdomseeker]

So far I have seen little real proof by protestants for the bible not being Catholic. Just indignant protests that the Bible is authored by God and the Holy Spirit etc…

Declaring that the “Bible says” that the “Scriptures” were in existance well before the Roman Catholic Church proves nothing since the Bible is not a “book” but rather a collection of previously known works. So you are only stating what is obvious. It’s like saying all the information in a college textbook existed before the textbook did.
Now deciding what is considered Scripture is something a bit different. Taking it a step further, declaring what is to be considered as pure and innerrant Scripture is a huge undertaking. This website lists many many texts from the pre-canon period, and these are just the ones that are known to have survived. There may well have been others that the Church fathers had to consider. While some may have been obviously spurious, not all could be easily dismissed. Some of the documents included in the NT were not used by parts of the Church while some books left out were used and loved in various parts of the Church.

The gathering, reviewing, deciding, and codifying of these books was carried out by men. Why? Because it was to be a volume used by men. These men were the acknowledged leaders of THE Christian Church at the time; bishops from all across the Church. The One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. They gathered in prayerful deliberation and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to debate, deliberate and make the selections. This same group of Bishops then returned to their respective flocks and implemented the decisions made at council.
The One Holy and Apostolic Church has, since then, been producing, teaching, protecting, defending, and interpreting this volume called the Bible ever since. God may be the author, but he gave publishing rights to His Church on earth.

No other church can make this claim validly. They can only declare that, somehow, somewhere, sometime the origional church fell into error and that many years/decades/centuries later someone else “fixed” it.

For Protestants the Bible is the Be all and end all yet, in many cases, they do not know it’s history. In fact, and I have heard this from protestant converts, many have been deliberately decieved about the history of the Bible. Many others are just not told anything about where the Bible came from, how it got into their hands, who fought for it, who codified it, etc.
Nor are they taught that later, their venerable hero Martin Luther changed it by removing books, and would have removed more except for opposition from other protestant leaders. One of the most amazing things to thinnk about today is that ML wanted to remove the book of Revelation from the Bible calling it, “unintelligable”, among other things. Can any of us imagine an evangelical protestant world without the book of Revelation?

As much as the Protestants would like to believe that the Bible just fell from heaven and landed, full blown in their hands written in the Prose of the KJV, such is not the case.

Whether one ultimately chooses to accept Catholicism or not, it is only fair and honest to your own faith and belief to recognize and accept the historical record of how you came to possess this beautiful book.

Peace
James

Have anyone ever realize this?
protestant downplay Jesus Church the CC.
they downplay the Mother of God our Mother.
they downplay the Sacraments.
they downplay the Commandments of God.
they downplay the good works we do for Our God.
they downplaly the suffers we have to endure for Our Lord.
they downplay hte Saints of our Church.
they discard the true history of our Church.
they downplay all that Jesus has accomplished. yet they say they believe Him.
they downplay the authority of St Peter.
even though the CC in rome is in hte Bible; they still deny the CC.
they deny the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ.
there are much more they deny.

these things are hidden from them. for outside the CC noone will be able to be true christians. for there is One Church, One Lord, One Faith, One Spirit. for that Jesus intended it to be. Praise to Our Lord for He does what He wills. Amen.

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ***

 

[guanophore]

Eph 2: 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

oops my bad. I’ll let Paul know he was wrong.

Yes, I have to go with you on this one. The chief cornerstone is Christ, and the foundation is built into Him. What I don’t understand is why you think Jesus pulled Himself out of the foundation. When,and how did the foundation crumble?

 

[Protestant101]

What you are basically doing is calling Jesus a Liar, and the HS the author of confusion. You are saying that Jesus did not keep his promise to remain with them until the end of the age (or maybe He is not a liar but a weakling?). He was unable or unwilling to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against His Church. You are asserting that the HS does not have the power to lead fallible men into all Truth.

Nice apologetics here; to accuse someone of calling Jesus such things; but absolutely nothing to do with reality or truth. The promises you are claiming were not specific to one denomination; (eg., Catholics) especially considering the first or early church was never Catholic; it was Protestant.

 

[guanophore]

2 thess
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It’s quite possible that there was to be some confusion and oh my a “falling away”

It is 100% possible for a bunch of people to get together and without the direction of the Holy Spirit (though I’ll not rule out some help from him) and stack a bunch of letters and books together. I believe that most if not all who helped to assemble the Bible meant well, but that does not make it error free.

If there are people falling away, then there has to be something solid from which they fall. Otherwise, how could they be determined to fall?

Indeed, this is one of the reasons there are factions:

" For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 1 Cor 11:17-19

The same is true for the Holy Writings. There were forgeries, but this was so that the Divinely Inspired writings could be recognized.

 

[Protestant101]

If there are people falling away, then there has to be something solid from which they fall. Otherwise, how could they be determined to fall?

Indeed, this is one of the reasons there are factions:

" For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 1 Cor 11:17-19

The same is true for the Holy Writings. There were forgeries, but this was so that the Divinely Inspired writings could be recognized.

Well; there’s no need for me to “argue” with every post here, and this is one of those times. This is a very good application of the text in 1 Cor.11:17-19. What you say is quite true. God is allowing false writings for His own good reasons. LOL, if I continue, I might have to add an argument to this post. Maybe next time.

 

[JRKH]

Nice apologetics here; to accuse someone of calling Jesus such things; but absolutely nothing to do with reality or truth. The promises you are claiming were not specific to one denomination; (eg., Catholics) especially considering the first or early church was never Catholic; it was Protestant.

Would you listen to yourself? Look at what you are writing here and please seriously reflect on it.
When Christ Ascended into heaven there was no such thing as a Denomination. There was One Church. Jesus declared it to be so.
“Upon this Rock I will biuld my CHURCH” - Singular!!
“If your Brother sins against you take it to THE CHURCH” - Singular!!

Show me “denominations” in the Bible.

The Root word of Protestant is PROTEST!!! How could the origional Church Be PROTESTING Anything.

Please my friend - We may disagree but please, at least, open your eyes and recognize the truth of history

Peace
James

 

[Protestant101]

Would you listen to yourself? Look at what you are writing here and please seriously reflect on it.
When Christ Ascended into heaven there was no such thing as a Denomination. There was One Church. Jesus declared it to be so.
“Upon this Rock I will biuld my CHURCH” - Singular!!
“If your Brother sins against you take it to THE CHURCH” - Singular!!

Show me “denominations” in the Bible.

The Root word of Protestant is PROTEST!!! How could the origional Church Be PROTESTING Anything.

Please my friend - We may disagree but please, at least, open your eyes and recognize the truth of history

Peace
James

Thanks for the nice scolding. You are very kind.

The only problem is that “Church” in the singular, as referenced in the Bible does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. It just isn’t there.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the nice scolding. You are very kind.

The only problem is that “Church” in the singular, as referenced in the Bible does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. It just isn’t there.

But you see, you are infering the “Roman” part here, my origional posting says that the Bible is Catholic, I didn’t specify which Rite because at the end of the 4th century the split between east and west had not occurred. The Church was simply the Catholic, meaning universal, Church as demonstrated as early as 107 AD in the writings of St Ignatius which I quoted earlier.

I can understand your bringing the RCC into play since Protestantism, by it’s very definition, is an offshoot of the RCC. Also, since the RCC is the Largest of the Churches and I myself am Roman Catholic the discussion tends to move in this direction. However, as a point of “Law” so to speak I will not declare the Bible Roman Catholic becasue at least a couple of other Catholic Rites trace legitimate lineage back to the councils and to the Apostles.

So, if we remove the “Roman” part from the equation we can see that the Bible was canonized by the ONLY Christian Church at the time which was called Catholic, Greek for Universal. That Church was not so far removed from the Apostles that they could not trace their roots in a very short time both to the Apostles, and thus to Christ.
Thus, at the time of the Councils just prior to 400 AD, the Bishops of Christ’s One United Universal (Catholic) Church met and codified the Books to be included in the Bible. The Bible which we use today. (For now I am ignoring the difference between us in the number books in the OT.)

Can you trace the Bible you hold and revere in any other way?
To any other root?
To any other Church body?
Regardless of how you feel about the RCC today, this is the origion of the Bible we both hold so dear.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Have anyone ever realize this?
protestant downplay Jesus Church the CC.
they downplay the Mother of God our Mother.
they downplay the Sacraments.
they downplay the Commandments of God.
they downplay the good works we do for Our God.
they downplaly the suffers we have to endure for Our Lord.
they downplay hte Saints of our Church.
they discard the true history of our Church.
they downplay all that Jesus has accomplished. yet they say they believe Him.
they downplay the authority of St Peter.
even though the CC in rome is in hte Bible; they still deny the CC.
they deny the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ.
there are much more they deny.

these things are hidden from them. for outside the CC noone will be able to be true christians. for there is One Church, One Lord, One Faith, One Spirit. for that Jesus intended it to be. Praise to Our Lord for He does what He wills. Amen.

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ***

Nicely stated.
I have noted many points brought up here that our protestant brothers have chosen to simply ignore. I pray that, when realizing that they have no real answer for these things, they will begin an honest search for the Truth of the Church teachings so they can honestly, either submit or dismiss her.

Any person who picks up the Volume called the Bible and plans to declare to others that it is the true and innerant word of God, had better be able to explain to me or to another how they know that.
How can they prove this outside of the Volume itself?
Simply quoting Scripture is insufficient because anyone can create a book that supports itself.
The only way to demonstrate that this, written, translated, printed and bound volume is the true word of God is by it’s history; by how it came to be; by who put it together, and by what and who’s authority it was done? If one can accept that authority, one have a leg to stand on, if not, then one undercuts their own credibility in evangelizing anyone to base their faith on this Volume.

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

So, you are saying that the Catholic Church preserved the letters of Ignatius because it benefits Catholics to do so?

There is nothing in the doctrine of the Catholic church that contradicts anything in the Bible. Both strands of divine revelation emanate from the same Source, and that is why they are consistent with each other.

No, but if you read the requirements for selection, it is plain to see that, after the apostolic age, no one else would be able to meet those requirements.

The Apostolic ministry, as shown in the NT, was passed on to the Bishops.

I agree. However, I don’t seen any change or discontinuation of doctrine and authority as you seem to see. I wonder why that is?

So help me out how was it that Paul become an apostle? He was not a big fan of Christ during his life and clearly would not have been along for most of the major events. Yet the Bible is vary clear that he was an Apostle.

Why would a major change apostle for bishops be made and not recorded by someone who was an apostle?

As to doctrine the word Trinity nor any significant pointer to it are in the Bible.

Neither was the baptism of infants and many other practices and traditions which while the CC is more than welcome to have they are not Biblical.

 

[JRKH]

So help me out how was it that Paul become an apostle? He was not a big fan of Christ during his life and clearly would not have been along for most of the major events. Yet the Bible is vary clear that he was an Apostle.

Apostle is from the Greek for one given a Mission so this can be one source of the term since Paul clearly had a mssion from Christ.
Second would be the Idea that He recieved His revelation directly From Christ rather than from one of the origional twelve. Although even given this fact Paul was still told to go and wait until Jesus sent someone to him to confirm him ni his commision.

Why would a major change apostle for bishops be made and not recorded by someone who was an apostle?

The fact that the change in terminaology has not survived in written form proves nothing.
Not everything the Apostles taught was recorded. The vast majority of Apostolic teaching was oral, and thus is part of the deposit of faith we call Oral Tradition. The Bible is not and was never intended to be a “Church Manual.”
In addition many documents from the early days of the Church have been lost to time and the efforts of the persecutors.

As to doctrine the word Trinity nor any significant pointer to it are in the Bible.

There are many words that we use today that are not in the Bible. However, as to the Trinity in the Bible,
John Chapter 1 clearly declares that The Word IS God and also that the Word became Flesh.
For the Holy Spirit I found the Following at this website.

I. The Holy Spirit is God
Job 33:4 - “The Spirit of God made me and the breath of the Almighty has given me life.” Only God is the creator of life.

Matt. 12:31; Luke 12:10 - Jesus says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Only God can be blasphemed.

John 4:24 - God is a spirit (the Holy Spirit) and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Only God is worshiped.

John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7 - the Father and the Son send the Counselor, the Holy Spirit - Isaiah 9:6 - the Counselor is Mighty God.

Acts 5:3-4,9 - Peter tells Ananias that he lied to the Holy Spirit, and that he has not lied to men, but to God (the Holy Spirit).

Acts 28:25-27 - the Holy Spirit said “Go to this people and say…” - Isaiah 6:8-10 - the Lord said “Go to this people and say…”

Rom. 8:11 - the Spirit that raised Jesus up from the dead - Gal. 1:1 - God the Father raised Jesus from the dead

There are further references If you would like to check the website.

Neither was the baptism of infants and many other practices and traditions which while the CC is more than welcome to have they are not Biblical.

You are looking at what the Bible expressly “Allows” or “References”. This is the very narrowest view. The larger and more realistic view is to determine the permissability of something based on various lessons and references in the Bible. Again, the Bible is not a Textbook.
In so far as Infant Baptism is concerned there are, I believe, several accounts of “entire households” being recieved and Baptized into the Church. Are we to assume that there were no small children or infants?
We cannot assume that. It just doesn’t say. So How can you assume that infant baptism is “Not Bilblical”.

Peace
James

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

So help me out how was it that Paul become an apostle? He was not a big fan of Christ during his life and clearly would not have been along for most of the major events. Yet the Bible is vary clear that he was an Apostle.

Paul was an apostle(meaning “one who is sent”) by the approval of Peter, John, and James. (Gal 2:9)

Why would a major change apostle for bishops be made and not recorded by someone who was an apostle?[/qoute]

It was. Have you read the bible?
teancum79;3664687:

As to doctrine the word Trinity nor any significant pointer to it are in the Bible.

Neither was the baptism of infants and many other practices and traditions which while the CC is more than welcome to have they are not Biblical.

Can you show me where it says that everything that is needed to be a Christian is IN the bible?

Can you show me in the bible where it explicitly says:

That you are saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

That contraception is acceptable?

That we are to have “Altar Calls”?

The Sinner’s Prayer?

That we are to meet on Wednesday nights?

That we are saved by Faith Alone?

That the Bible is the sole rule of faith?

That we are NOT to baptize infants?

That the Eucharist is the symbol of the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

That the full revelation of Jesus Christ will be buried on a hill in Manchester, Vermont and be found by Joseph Smith in the 1800’s?

The fact is that none of the above are in the bible. They are traditions, some of them are beautiful traditions, but they are traditions nonetheless.

 

[teancum79]

Apostle is from the Greek for one given a Mission so this can be one source of the term since Paul clearly had a mssion from Christ.
Second would be the Idea that He recieved His revelation directly From Christ rather than from one of the origional twelve. Although even given this fact Paul was still told to go and wait until Jesus sent someone to him to confirm him ni his commision.

The fact that the change in terminaology has not survived in written form proves nothing.
Not everything the Apostles taught was recorded. The vast majority of Apostolic teaching was oral, and thus is part of the deposit of faith we call Oral Tradition. The Bible is not and was never intended to be a “Church Manual.”
In addition many documents from the early days of the Church have been lost to time and the efforts of the persecutors.

There are many words that we use today that are not in the Bible. However, as to the Trinity in the Bible,
John Chapter 1 clearly declares that The Word IS God and also that the Word became Flesh.
For the Holy Spirit I found the Following at this website.

There are further references If you would like to check the website.

You are looking at what the Bible expressly “Allows” or “References”. This is the very narrowest view. The larger and more realistic view is to determine the permissability of something based on various lessons and references in the Bible. Again, the Bible is not a Textbook.
In so far as Infant Baptism is concerned there are, I believe, several accounts of “entire households” being recieved and Baptized into the Church. Are we to assume that there were no small children or infants?
We cannot assume that. It just doesn’t say. So How can you assume that infant baptism is “Not Bilblical”.

Peace
James

To assume that a major change was made in how the church was run and that the CC happened to guess it right, but there is no documentation is way out there. I do agree with you that a lot of what the apostles taught was not recorded. Which leads one towards the value of a living prophet.

So if the Bible is not 100% express you can do whatever you want . That starting to sound like a Wiccan concept.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So help me out how was it that Paul become an apostle? He was not a big fan of Christ during his life and clearly would not have been along for most of the major events. Yet the Bible is vary clear that he was an Apostle.

Why would a major change apostle for bishops be made and not recorded by someone who was an apostle?

As to doctrine the word Trinity nor any significant pointer to it are in the Bible.

Neither was the baptism of infants and many other practices and traditions which while the CC is more than welcome to have they are not Biblical.

that is why Jesus built a Church and gave all authority.

if you go back to OT you will see that circuncision started with the adults. after that all babies were to be circunsized by the eighth of being borne. you see the CC being from the root of Judaism cannot invent anything. everything within the CC teaching doctrines all comes from Christ Himself. when Jesus said I will send you the HS who will lead you into all truths.

this probably does not mean nothing to you, for it is not you fault you cannot see. for you are not allowed to see the Truth. you are outside the Divine Church.

remember this, only the apostles were allowed to understand Jesus teachings. the others were blind to it. why? because just like you; they refused to believe.

[SIGN]“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [/SIGN]

 

[teancum79]

Paul was an apostle(meaning “one who is sent”) by the approval of Peter, John, and James. (Gal 2:9)
teancum79;3664687:

Why would a major change apostle for bishops be made and not recorded by someone who was an apostle?[/qoute]

It was. Have you read the bible?

Can you show me where it says that everything that is needed to be a Christian is IN the bible?

Can you show me in the bible where it explicitly says:

That you are saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

That contraception is acceptable?

That we are to have “Altar Calls”?

The Sinner’s Prayer?

That we are to meet on Wednesday nights?

That we are saved by Faith Alone?

That the Bible is the sole rule of faith?

That we are NOT to baptize infants?

That the Eucharist is the symbol of the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

That the full revelation of Jesus Christ will be buried on a hill in Manchester, Vermont and be found by Joseph Smith in the 1800’s?

The fact is that none of the above are in the bible. They are traditions, some of them are beautiful traditions, but they are traditions nonetheless.

Yes I’ll confess I’m rusty on some of the less interesting chuncks of the OT, but have and do read the NT quite a bit. I’m not saying everything has to be in the Bible, but when a practice is very different from what is in the Bible one has to wonder where it came from.

 

[po18guy]

The promises you are claiming were not specific to one denomination; (eg., Catholics) especially considering the first or early church was never Catholic; it was Protestant.

Ahem! Not even my SDA chaplain claims that! All “denominations” are, by definition, illegitimate. Christ did not form denominations. He formed one church. If you really look, the church was called universal as early as 107, and probably earlier.

Rhetorical question: which serves Christ better? One universal church, or thousands of unallied denominations that will never agree?

Christ’s peace.

 

[Ronald_E]

Nice apologetics here; to accuse someone of calling Jesus such things; but absolutely nothing to do with reality or truth. The promises you are claiming were not specific to one denomination; (eg., Catholics) especially considering the first or early church was never Catholic; it was Protestant.

The protestant church did not start until the 16th century.