To the Protestants

[Armyof1Faith]

I’m having a hard time understanding Protestantism, bear with me. It is through my understanding that Protestant denominations refuse any Christian practice that is not in the bible, and that they do not have priests, bishops, deacons and obviously popes. So my question is, why then, would you refuse those titles that are used in the Catholic Church when they are in fact written in the bible?

And this was found in a King James Version so, not a “Catholic” bible.

Philippians 1:1
Acts 1:20
1 Timothy 3:1-2
Titus 1:5-7
1 Peter 2:25

each of these contain the evidence that the apostles were, and ordained (and continued to ordain even down to the present) priests and bishops, *and *that they even had deacons back then. I also find it interesting that Protestants as well as Eastern Orthodox Catholics reject the authority of the pope when it was even prophesized in Isaiah 22: 20-22 that one would be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven Matt 16:18-19 (Simon aka St. Peter) and that Jesus built His church (singular) on Peter and that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”. (note. the word Pope was given to the high priest, it means father in Greek and Latin, which is used in the bible)

So, why then, would you choose a manmade religion over the Church that Jesus Christ specifically said would not fall to the power of evil and was the foundation of the bible itself (seeing as how the Church existed without the written word for some time)?

And why would you read a bible that is missing several books based on the opinion of a man (Martin Luther) or any man?
If the argument is that the Jews didn’t have those books in their bible (the Old Testament), why wouldn’t you be inclined to wonder why not?
A: Because that was the Palestanian Canon, from the Jews who refused Christianity [Jesus’s teachings] and anything written in Greek. And at the same time, there was the Septuagint (from the Greek septuaginta kai duo or seventy two - for the 72 Jewish translators who translated the Jewish bible into Greek for the growing number of Greek speaking Jews due to the Greek customs forced upon the inhabitants) which was aka the Alexandrian Canon, the one which EVERY Christian bible is formatted after (in terms of book organization) and includes those “missing” aka “apocrypha (Greek for hidden)” books!

I pray that you be graced with understanding, and come to find your way back home!

 

[O.S.Luke]

I’m having a hard time understanding Protestantism, bear with me. It is through my understanding that Protestant denominations refuse any Christian practice that is not in the bible, and that they do not have priests, bishops, deacons and obviously popes.

You are already assuming some incorrect information.

Methodists and Anglicans place great value on tradition, and always have. We also have deacons, priests/presbyters, and bishops.

O+

 

[b_justb]

There’s the Presbyterians too

 

[Armyof1Faith]

You are already assuming some incorrect information.

Methodists and Anglicans place great value on tradition, and always have. We also have deacons, priests/presbyters, and bishops.

O+

then I needed to be more specific. I do know how close Anglicans are to Catholicism and that hundreds turn back to Catholicim, but I guess, the protestants furthest from their roots.

 

[Armyof1Faith]

nevermind. it doesn’t matter. they still do not accept authority of the pope.

 

[nsper7]

I’m having a hard time understanding Protestantism, bear with me. It is through my understanding that Protestant denominations refuse any Christian practice that is not in the bible, and that they do not have priests, bishops, deacons and obviously popes. So my question is, why then, would you refuse those titles that are used in the Catholic Church when they are in fact written in the bible?

I think that the problem is that you’re attempting to lump all non-Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox under the title ‘Protestantism’, when in fact, Protestantism is made up of extremely diverse denominations, each with their own views on Scripture and other key (and not so key) issues.

Yes, certain Protestants (mostly the Restorationist-types and Radical Reformer-types) claim to refuse any Christian practice not in the Bible (which I believe is virtually impossible to truly do) and refuse to use certain titles; however, having attended a Restorationist (technically Independent Christian Church) Church, they have a certain way of doing things and order of service (usually worship, announcements, communion [recognized as memorialism, but still very important], sermon). To paraphrase a book I was reading awhile back, to try and eliminate extraneous non-Biblical ritual is, itself, a non-Biblical ritual.

Personally, although I can respect these Restorationist-type movements, I am involved in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, which is noted for several things:

1. Recognition of “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”
2. Recognition of the Nicenean Creed
3. Use of High Church (similar to Roman Catholic-style) Eucharistic service by many individual Episcopal Churches
4. Church hierarchy with Apostolic Succession
5. Respect for named Saints (although all Believers are recognized as Saints, the Anglican Church respect the traditional Saints’ Days) and Church seasons/calendar (i.e. Advent, etc.)
6. Use of Lectionary and Book of Common Prayer
7. Idea of the Via Media (Middle Way) between Roman Catholicism and the Reformed Churches
8. Recognition of the importance of Church Fathers, Church history and the Magisterium, esp. in Scriptural interpretation
9. Recognition of the importance of sound human logic in Scriptural interpretation (thus, individuals have a right and responsibility to interpret, study and discuss Scripture with each other)
10. Recognition of two Sacraments “ordained by Christ”: Baptism and Eucharist, but allowance for the use of five “commonly called Sacraments but not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel” (Confession, Holy Matrimony, Cofirmation, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick). As someone I knew put it regarding to Sacramental Confession, “All can, some do, none must.” Thus, Anglcan-Catholics (those with strong Roman Catholic leanings) are permitted to use 2+5, while Low Church/Reform Anglicans are required only to adhere to Baptism and Eucharist.

What I truly like about the Anglican Church is that there is that recognition of of One True Church, but that there will be differences in views and tradition and even some doctrine. In the end, who is a member of the True Church is up to God. I was thinking about it yesterday and in some ways you could compare it to an earthly family: a person can be my brother or sister although I may, for whatever reason, refuse to recognize him or her as such and certainly have different opinions and views than they do, but that does not diminish the fact that we are brothers or sisters, especially if we come from the same parentage.

((cont’d))

 

[nsper7]

((cont’d from above due to posting length restrictions))

It could be the same with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic (HCA) Church: many Reform/Radical Protestants refuse to recognize the brotherhood of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, Lutheran, etc. Chruches and may have strong disagreements with them (and of course, it goes the other way around as well), but, if we all truly have Christ as the Head of the Church and are the ‘adopted by grace and faith’ Children of God, then I have to believe that regardless of denomination one claims, the question is are we members of the One HCA Church? It is the general view in Anglicanism that One HCA Church goes beyond denominations.

As I have read the articles on this site about Roman Catholicism, I’ve realized that I, and many other ‘Protestants’, know very little about Roman Catholicism. Further, some Protestants, esp. the Restorationist branches, have fallen into what, as an apologist affiliated with the Southern Baptist Church put it, Sola Scriptura Extremis (SSE), where one is, instead of recognizing the sufficiency of Scripture, is claiming that anything not mentioned is Scripture is Anti-Scriptural and that someone can propely interpret Scripture without the use of external aides (looking at linguistics, cultural context, earlier interpretations, etc.).

Thus, while Roman Catholic tradition and ritual may, to many, be technically extra-Scriptural or derived from Scripture indirectly, it is not Anti-Scriptural. This idea seems lost on some Protestants. Personally, I am coming to realize SSE is a very dangerous theology to adopt and leads to theological pride (i.e. Landmarkism) and unnecessary divisiveness and dissension.

 

[HannahLisa]

Many Protestants have no idea why the Apocrypha isn’t considered part of the Bible, much less that Luther took it out because the Jews didn’t consider it part of their canon.

Also, some Protestant denominations DO have priests, deacons, etc. Those that don’t invariably have a pastor of some kind.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m having a hard time understanding Protestantism, bear with me. It is through my understanding that Protestant denominations refuse any Christian practice that is not in the bible, and that they do not have priests, bishops, deacons and obviously popes.

This is not so:​

• There are different strata of Protestantism - this is overlooked all the time. Not all strata of Protestantism are non-theological; far from it. Nothing but harm can come from assimilating all Protestantism to the model of the US Fundamentalist Evangelical, which is what you seem to be describing.
• One of the changes made by the Reformers was to return to the threefold ministry of episcopos, presbyter, & deacon; instand of the sevenfold ministry which was that of the RCC until very recently. (Episcopos & presbyter are notoriously loaded terms, so it seems better to avoid translating them. The Pope is a bishop, & so, a member of the episcopal body; the Papal office is not a sacrament distinct from that of the episcopal degree of the sacrament of Order.)

So my question is, why then, would you refuse those titles that are used in the Catholic Church when they are in fact written in the bible?

The Papacy is not in the Bible. What we do find in the NT is the Petrine function in the Church - which is not the same thing. The Papacy is a particular form of the Petrine function in the Church; Peter was not a Pope, but exercised a function of which the Papal office is a later development. And it is not clear from the NT that the Petrine function is to last for the whole of the Church’s life. It is not the case (most regrettably) that all Popes have even been models of Christian living, as bishops ought to be. So it is perfectly conceivable that the Papacy can become a means of fighting the Will of Christ, rather than of serving it. And if it does that, obedience to Christ may require resistance to it, for the preservation of the Gospel of which the Church is meant to be the servant.​

Catholicism tends to treat the form of the Church as being a guarantee of its content - Protestantism treats the content as more important, the form being secondary. They have different priorities, but authority is important for both.

That is partly why.

And this was found in a King James Version so, not a “Catholic” bible.

Philippians 1:1
Acts 1:20
1 Timothy 3:1-2
Titus 1:5-7
1 Peter 2:25

each of these contain the evidence that the apostles were, and ordained (and continued to ordain even down to the present) priests and bishops, *and *that they even had deacons back then.

As to the principle involved here: that X is done, is not proof that it is desirable. Even when good, it can still be limited to a culture or age. The threefold ministry was a good thing - that does not of itself show that it was meant by God to be permanent. Nor is it clear that it is necessary for all time: the NT evidence is not as precise as that.​

I also find it interesting that Protestants as well as Eastern Orthodox Catholics reject the authority of the pope when it was even prophesized in Isaiah 22: 20-22 that one would be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven Matt 16:18-19 (Simon aka St. Peter) and that Jesus built His church (singular) on Peter and that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”. (note. the word Pope was given to the high priest, it means father in Greek and Latin, which is used in the bible)

Isaiah 22 does contain a prophecy - but not of the commission of the keys to Peter.​

The Church is One - Protestants know this; it does not follow that the CC’s notion of its unity is correct or even alone correct. Unity in Christ can be real without being a unity in discipline & dogma. It’s very important to try not to read our own presuppositions & theologies into the Biblical texts, otherwise we are in danger of finding there only what we have put there.

For some, the use of the pre-Christian Roman title Pontifex Maximus by a Christian, is not a recommendation of it.

…more…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So, why then, would you choose a manmade religion over the Church that Jesus Christ specifically said would not fall to the power of evil and was the foundation of the bible itself (seeing as how the Church existed without the written word for some time)?

He was not specific. There is nothing in the NT incompatible with the possibility that Rome may fall away from Christ. He said “My Church” - without specifying ahead of time which body, existing or defunct, that might be. Had He specified which one, His words would have been meaningless to His hearers.​

As for His promise - it is compatible with every evil except that of losing the war. Nothing is said to show His Church would win all her battles before then

And why would you read a bible that is missing several books based on the opinion of a man (Martin Luther) or any man?
If the argument is that the Jews didn’t have those books in their bible (the Old Testament), why wouldn’t you be inclined to wonder why not?
A: Because that was the Palestanian Canon, from the Jews who refused Christianity [Jesus’s teachings] and anything written in Greek. And at the same time, there was the Septuagint (from the Greek septuaginta kai duo or seventy two - for the 72 Jewish translators who translated the Jewish bible into Greek for the growing number of Greek speaking Jews due to the Greek customs forced upon the inhabitants) which was aka the Alexandrian Canon, the one which EVERY Christian bible is formatted after (in terms of book organization) and includes those “missing” aka “apocrypha (Greek for hidden)” books!

Every RC Bible omits three of them​

I pray that you be graced with understanding, and come to find your way back home!

I’ll leave the rest of this for our Protestant brethren​

Hope that helps - it is some time since I was a Protestant, so I hope our Protestant brethren will correct whatever in these posts may need it