R
reteeks21
Guest
He founded a Church that he built on a rock, and Scriptural exegesis proves that rock was Peter.
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
False! Even today there exists many cultures and civilizations with little to no education,thus they cannot read. Many people today still cannot afford to buy any Bible. So the notion the ‘true way’ to get to what GOD requires through HIS Word-Scripture is bogus.
And universal does not include various doctrines and why? Different interpretations.
Your belief about Catholicism is false. The RCC has NEVER taught Mary is another Gospel,because the only Gospel is Jesus. False again.The RCC has ALWAYS Jesus is the HEAD,the pope is an earthly head due to the fact he left 12 men as the earthly heads.
A
Araninski
Guest
Ok so the Authority of Faith is God, but then comes the Catholic Church right? not the bible?
So Catholics can use the Bible to say they alone are the Church of Christ, but others can’t use it to say they (Catholic Church) aren’t?
So here are Catholics using the Bible instead of the Catholic Church as authority of faith?
Yeah this so makes sense. Like all of the other churches which claim the same thing, the Catholic Church has a big historic record, but at the end it claims the same thing, with the Bible. So the Bible is the one declaring the sole rule of faith? I do think someone must first see the bible and then the humans. It is a more trust-able source than a human being. So here Catholics use first the bible and then the “Authority”.
The Apostles didn’t use the NT to study , they used the OT. And from the OT they thought everything they knew. Everything the Holy Spirit thought them and continues teaching is in the OT. To proof the NT early Christians used the OT.
Catholics say Peter is the stone , because they have the authority given to interpret the scriptures “perfectly” and they use the verse in Matt. 16: 18, which doesn’t mean Peter is the rock but again, they interpret it like that. "The bible is not the authority of faith, the Catholic Church its is, because the bible says this… and we have the authority to interpret it correctly, but the bible is not the authority of faith which declare us the authority of faith… "No one has the authority to deny what the bibles says. You want to belief Peter is the rock , and don’t want to accept the real rock, ok, but don’t teach man made commandments as doctrines of God.
Even if Jesus did built the Church on the “rock” Peter,even if that wacky interpretation is correct God gave us this:
The history of the men of God happened so that we would learn from them, do you know who could also trace a line back to Moses/Aaron? The Levites and the Sadducees (Catholic and Orthodox
). And you know what? Both of them could claim they could trace a line back to Moses/Aaron,because it was true, but at the end their earthly heritage/succession didn’t worked for them, because Jesus thought the world that they couldn’t add or subtract from what God told Moses, so their Authority is under the Word of God, which God (Yahweh) himself said to Moses. So as Jesus did we have the permission of God to teach the real commandment and sound doctrine. First God, then man. And the bible is the Word of God so first God and then man. Jesus picked the guys that didn’t had earthly heritage/succession to preach His word. Heresy? No.
And again the statement of sola scripture doesn’t mean everyone is going to think the same and therefore be only one , the statement says that the essentials are clear, and that we are going to agree on the essentials, nothing else, so again to answer the OP question yes it makes sense there are a lot of denominations. All of this denominations exists because of small differences. Obviously not everyone think alike, our God made us all different, He did this so that despite of our differences we could still love one another with our differences but have a common believe on what is essential.
Shalom (peace). Yahweh bless.
So Catholics can use the Bible to say they alone are the Church of Christ, but others can’t use it to say they (Catholic Church) aren’t?
So here are Catholics using the Bible instead of the Catholic Church as authority of faith?
Yeah this so makes sense. Like all of the other churches which claim the same thing, the Catholic Church has a big historic record, but at the end it claims the same thing, with the Bible. So the Bible is the one declaring the sole rule of faith? I do think someone must first see the bible and then the humans. It is a more trust-able source than a human being. So here Catholics use first the bible and then the “Authority”.
The Apostles didn’t use the NT to study , they used the OT. And from the OT they thought everything they knew. Everything the Holy Spirit thought them and continues teaching is in the OT. To proof the NT early Christians used the OT.
The rock is Jesus, in what I can read. Even Peter himself said it. We are all spiritual rocks, but Jesus is THE chief cornerstone, precious rock, he that believed on Him, shall not be confounded not the Apostle and Prophets. The Apostles and Prophets made the foundation. So if I believe on Jesus, I can’t be confounded, If believe in what the Prophets said, and what the Apostles taught I am in the foundation. And therefore part of the Church. Which is He’s Church.
Catholics say Peter is the stone , because they have the authority given to interpret the scriptures “perfectly” and they use the verse in Matt. 16: 18, which doesn’t mean Peter is the rock but again, they interpret it like that. "The bible is not the authority of faith, the Catholic Church its is, because the bible says this… and we have the authority to interpret it correctly, but the bible is not the authority of faith which declare us the authority of faith… "No one has the authority to deny what the bibles says. You want to belief Peter is the rock , and don’t want to accept the real rock, ok, but don’t teach man made commandments as doctrines of God.
Doctrine is a commandment, you can’t teach for doctrine a commandment of men, primacy of Peter, Marian Doctrines, Purgatory; this are teachings not doctrines or commandments, don’t teach them as doctrines, this aren’t even important/essential.
Even if Jesus did built the Church on the “rock” Peter,even if that wacky interpretation is correct God gave us this:
The history of the men of God happened so that we would learn from them, do you know who could also trace a line back to Moses/Aaron? The Levites and the Sadducees (Catholic and Orthodox
). And you know what? Both of them could claim they could trace a line back to Moses/Aaron,because it was true, but at the end their earthly heritage/succession didn’t worked for them, because Jesus thought the world that they couldn’t add or subtract from what God told Moses, so their Authority is under the Word of God, which God (Yahweh) himself said to Moses. So as Jesus did we have the permission of God to teach the real commandment and sound doctrine. First God, then man. And the bible is the Word of God so first God and then man. Jesus picked the guys that didn’t had earthly heritage/succession to preach His word. Heresy? No.And again the statement of sola scripture doesn’t mean everyone is going to think the same and therefore be only one , the statement says that the essentials are clear, and that we are going to agree on the essentials, nothing else, so again to answer the OP question yes it makes sense there are a lot of denominations. All of this denominations exists because of small differences. Obviously not everyone think alike, our God made us all different, He did this so that despite of our differences we could still love one another with our differences but have a common believe on what is essential.
Shalom (peace). Yahweh bless.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Well said.Conclusion
This is what Protestants believe:
I hope this helps.
- If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
- If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
- If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it
Thank you.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Was it possible that Paul spoke prophetically about his own writings? He was pretty clear about following him and doing as he said or wrote in his letters.
D
Dokimas
Guest
How about this one?
1Th 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thanks for your opinion.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I love the way catholics quote early protestants when they want to show us we are wrong about things like infant baptism but they don’t quote all of what they say. Sounds familiar???
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Ginger2,Conclusion
This is what Protestants believe:
I hope this helps.
- If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
- If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
- If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it
I believe that this is a somewhat naive and an over simplistic view of what “Protestants believe”. Not that you are naive but that comments like these seem naive. Obviously, there are some Protestants who follow Calvin’s’ beliefs and some who follow Luther’s, general speaking… So, you can’t speak for all Protestants, because they do not all share the same beliefs, right?
For example, some say, “If the bible doesn’t say we can’t, then we can”… and others say that 'If the bible doesn’t say that we can, then we can’t". Do you understand? Moreover, many Protestants believe in predestination and many do not. Some believe that homosexual marriage is ok and most do not. Some believe baptism is necessary and some do not. Some believe in OSAS and some do not… Some reject all traditions and do not partake any of the Sacraments and some do not. Some profess the Creed and some do not and so on and so forth… I don’t believe that it is as simple as you have suggested here. If your comments were true and it is that simple, then how do you explain the division found in Protestantism and the thousands of Protestant denominations and sub-sects, all of whom have different beliefs?
Your conclusion here is based on what it means to “believe” and what it is that we are suppose believe and how should the Bible be interpreted? So, there actually exists, thousands of different definitions of what “Protestants believe”, not just yours. …right?
Thank you for your post.
G
Ginger2
Guest
No, thank you for your post. You brought up good points.Hello Ginger2,
… So, you can’t speak for all Protestants, because they do not all share the same beliefs, right? we are truly Christians, we all accept and believe the same essential doctrines written in Scriptures. For instance if you follow the Koran, you are obviously not Christian. If you follow a “prophet” who teaches something contrary to Holy Scriptures, you are not following the teachings of Christ. But if you believe all that Jesus taught about himself, then you believe the doctrines found in Scriptures because the Old Testament and New Testament show he is the Christ, the promised one of God.
Jimmy B;7117231:
I understand what you are saying. But let me use your example to explain why it doesn’t fit:
Those who say “If the bible doesn’t say we can’t, then we can” are not disciples of Christ as they use this line of logic to justify themselves, rather than to please God.
Homosexuals claim the Bible doesn’t say anything about homosexuality, yet it is clearly written that it is forbidden. They focus on a word that didn’t exist at the time.
The word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until just over 100- 150 years ago (or at least not until more recently in history) You can’t find a word in writings that were written before that word existed.
And so do some Catholics. Some Catholics believe and use birth control. etc.
You are not succeeding with this point.
It is not so widespread as you think. Someone else, in this thread or another, pointed out how freely Protestants can and do move to different churches - even tho it may not be the same denomination they came from. The reason we can do that without hesitation is because we all share the same essential doctrines.
One of the pastors from a former church I attended even talked about people moving a straightout said don’t choose a church because it is Methodist. You don’t have to attend a Methodist Church, you need to find a good Bible church that preaches the Word of God, faithfully…or something to that effect.
My answer to this is to share my experience on two different Catholic forums (I’ve only been on 2
On both forums I have been accused of posing as more than one person, more than once. The last time I was accused of being ban and coming back under a new name. LOL
It has been said that we sound like “clones”… that we must all get our information from the same source and that we are really only one person.
If we have so many varying doctrines, how is it that we all say the same thing?
There are several pseudo “churches”, but it is not confined to twisting Protestant beliefs. There are many “churches” that have twisted Catholic dotrines as well and consider themselves true Catholics.
What I’m trying to say is that distortions will always extist. They were there in Paul’s day and even before AND the problem is across the board, not just confined within the Protestant community.
Now I need to break away from here or I won’t finish my work before the weekend.
Ginger
S
StTommyMore
Guest
How often does the this hersy need to be discussed. When the Early Church was not Sola Scriptura, and Jesus was not Sola Scriptura, why should modern Christianity be Sola Scriptura.
G
Ginger2
Guest
The problem is Catholics adhere to a false definition of Sola Scriptura. There is not one I have ever met except for Catholics who think it means all knowledge is contained in the Bible and /or the Bible is the source of salvation.
Jesus is the source of life and our salvation!
2 Timothy 3:
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
The Word of God was written down for a reason. It is a means for us to know God
“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29).
We cannot deviate from what is written by adding or taking away from it.
“You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.”
It is all we need as an Earthly source, guided by the Holy Spirit, lead us to God who is our salvation"
1 Corinthians 4:6
“…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another”
It is all we need as an Earthly source, guided by the Holy Spirit, to carry out the Great Commission:
2Ti 3:
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
It is all we need as an Earthly source, guided by the Holy Spirit, to defend ourselves against the enemy:
Matthew 4:
Jesus resisted Satan three times saying, “It is written”
The written Word of God is not just a book.
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
We don’t need the Bible. We need Jesus. The Bible is a tool God gave us. Within it’s pages are the Words of Life. When we read we can hear God speak to us.
A single verse can reveal more information each time it is read. In a church filled with the faithful one passage can be applied in the hearts of many to encourage them in their individual lives…one’s suffering can be eased, another can receive hope and still another can be convicted to repentance - all by the exact same Words because they hear the voice of God in those Words.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Araninski,
Cordial greetings.
Your above remarks are fallacious and based on faulty reasoning.
First, how do we know that Sacred Scripture itself is inspired and a trustworthy rule of faith? Clearly, if the bible is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and morals, as Protestants assert, then it must prove itself to be so. However, if we seek to prove the inspiration and authority of the bible from the bible then we are guitly of the logical error of petitio principii, or begging the question, for we take for granted the very fact which we are proposing to validate. In any event it would not matter if every single book in the entire canon was prefaced with the words, “the following book is inspired”; The Koran, The Book of Mormon and the divers holy books of the Eastern religions, all lay claim to inspiration. Thus any books mere claim of inspiration is inadaquate to ascertain that books bona fides.
The circular argument of Protestants usually takes the following line of defective reasoning:
Protestant: "2 Timothy 3: 16 states, “All scripture is inspired by God…”.
Catholic: “But how does one establish that that text itself is an inspired statement?”.
Protestant: “Because that text is in the bible and the bible is God’s inspired word”.
Catholic: “Alright. Why is it inspired?”.
Protestant: “Because it is inspired”.
Catholic: “Yes, but why do you believe it is inspired?”.
Protestant: “Because the bible states that it is inspired and we believe the bible is God’s word which is true”.
This is a classic case of logical tail-chasing or circular reasoning and will not satisfy any man who desires a sure and certain intellectual basis for his faith.
Second, It is manifestly obvious then that Sacred Scripture requires another authority to validate and verify its authenticity and inspiration. It is insufficient to simply say that one believes that the bible is inspired because the bible says its inspired. This is why the Church, the Church founded by Christ upon St. Peter (BTW, our Lord only established one Church), is so indispensable for validating the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. Rather than employ an unsound circular argument to support the inspiration of the bible, the Catholic Church correctly uses a spiral argument, which truly satisfies the intellect, but more importantly is historically true.
To be continued…/
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Do not paint with a broad brush. I have said on other threads that there are MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS. Yours is not a universal defection, but it is still a heretical teaching. We are not free to reject what is not explicitly in Scripture, as Scripture is not the only avenue of the transmission of Revelation.
G
Ginger2
Guest
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. ARANINSKI
The following is a summary of the Catholic line of argument:
Portrait
Pax
The following is a summary of the Catholic line of argument:
- The Church appeals, in the first instance, to the writings of the New Testament, using them, not as inspired books, but as genuine works of contemporary writers, much in the same way that it appeals to say Tacitus or Seneca, or any other trustworthy authorities. In this way it is established, by purely historical evidence first, that there was such a person as Jesus Christ; that He founded a Society, which received the names of the Christian and the Catholic Church; that this Society has continued to exist through successive generations to the present day, and that the Catholic Church alone is this Society.
- Continuing, for the moment, to use the N.T. documents only as secular historical records, the Church establishes the fact of the miracles of Christ and the miracle par excellence, the Resurrection. From this she infers that Christ is God. In confirmation of His Deity and the truth of His mission, it appeals to the manner in which His prophecies concerning the Church and the Jewish nation have been fulfilled; to the wonderful dissemination of the Gospel; to the constancy of the blessed martyrs; to the great change for good that the proclamation of the Gospel has wrought in our sinful world; and to the testimony which the Church itself has bourne, through the vissisitudes of time, to the belief which has been held in the truth of His miracles.
- Now having evinced that Christ is truly God, His words must obviously be Divine and hence infallibly true. However, it is on record that he uttered these words: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will bulid my Church…” (St. Matt. 16: 18); “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (St. John 20: 21); “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…and behold I am with you always, to the close of the age” (St. Matt. 28: 19,20). These being then God’s words, the Church, to which they relate, is a Divine institution, and alone has authority from God to teach and command obedience from men.
- This Church, founded by God, with a mission from God to teach the nations of the world, and equiped with a Divine promise that God will be with it to the consummation of the world, cannot teach erroneously or have multiple interpretations of Sacred scripture; we affirm then that by God’s own appointment it is infallible. Thus if this Divine Society declares that the bible is inspired and that the Church alone is the authoritative interpreter of the same, then the faithful have no reason whatsoever to challenge or doubt that fact.
Portrait
Pax
4
4thelamb
Guest
Absolutely…The Bible is THE tool God gave us through the Spirit, as the standard of measurement and guide for a christian life and their walk with the Lord. All things can, and should be, pitted up against the Bible to know for sure if they are from God or not. The Lord will never ask us to do anything that’s not in perfect harmony with Scripture. God will never advocate a teaching that’s a contrary message to what’s taught in scripture and he’ll never send a contradicting revelation or vision. As Christians we are required to test everything, all teaching, and all spirits, by Scripture, which is the one and only Word that comes directly from God the Father. (2 TIM 3:16)
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I hate to break it to you, bu ththe Bible is not the source of Divine Revelation, but is a conduit of Revelation
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Ginger2,
Cordial greetings and thankyou for taking the time to comment on my post.
Sorry, but you are still appealing to the bible itself to verify its inspiration and authority. Your opening remarks, “The bible verifies itself”…“The bible… bears witness to which books are truly inspired” and later, “Inspired means it was written by men under God’s inspiration, so the contents are not from men’s imaginations”, you then cite 2 Peter 1: 21(a common Protestant “proof-text”) in support of this. This illustrates the very sort of circular reasoning of which I have been speaking, for you are attempting to argue from the inspiration of bible to its authority, and from the authority back to its inspiration. However, as I have stated previously, many sacred books claim inspiration (we almost expect them to do so) and thier devotees would argue as passionately as you do for the bible for their inspiration and authority. So what irrefragible evidence do we have that the Christian Scriptures are authentic and inspired? Only the Catholic line reasoning offers compelling and intellectually satisfying evidence which is rational and holds up to serious scrutiny.
Catholics contend that the bible is inspired not merely because of a few “proof-texts” but because the Scriptures emerged from and are the product of the Spirit-filled Church that was founded by Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh. Thus the inspiration of the bible is part of a much bigger work of God’s inspiration through His church. Catholics do not believe we must follow either the Church or the bible; we follow both. According to St. Paul the foundation of the truth is the inspired Community of faith, “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth” (I Tim 3: 15). In other words then it is through the Church that we learn the truth about Jesus - not just the bible. You will observe that St. Paul refers to the Church as the “pillar and bulwark of truth”; *it is the Church *that is the basis and the foundation for the truth of Sacred Scripture. It was the Church which gave us the bible. and the Church that establishes and vaidates its inspiration. Historically speaking, without the Church we would not have a bible at all. Through the power of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures and the Church developed together. Indeed, this relationship between Church and Scripture is living and dynamic today.
Of course there are secondary evidences, which may be appealed to, and they are indeed of great service in corroborating the primary witness of the Catholic Church to the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. However, apart from the Church’s own testimony they wholly insufficient, since they could be deemed a matter of subjective and biased opinion. So we could mention the following: the marvellous unity of sentiment and design which pervades God’s Word; the singular preservation of the records; the innate force of the language of the bible; the inexhaustible fertility of the mine - the more it is worked, the more it gives; the clamness and impartiality with which the writers narrate events and the adaptation of the Scriptures to the deepest wants of human nature. All very good and wonderful, but without the testimony of the Divine Church as to their inspiration and authority, woefully insufficient. It all boils down to the proposition that, apart from the existence of the Church, one could not know for certain that Sacred Scripture was inspired. As St. Augustine said, “I would not believe in the gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so”.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear 4thelamb,
Cordial greetings,
Sacred Scripture has been given to us by the Church, it therefore follows that the interpretation of the Scriptures has been entrusted to the Magisterium, not privately to the individual Christian.
The written word and mass literacy have been widespread only since the invention of the movable-type printing press (c. 1440). Thus, the Scriptures could not have been the primary conveyer of the Gospel for at least fourteen centuries. Christians before the time of the Reformation learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and its year-long calendar, Christian holy days, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected biblical themes. For all of these Christians, *sola scriptura *would have appeared an absurd abstraction and indeed a practical impossibility. Moreover, if the “bible alone” theory is true, then all Christians prior to the Reformation were in gross error as to the source of their faith, until God sent Mr. Luther to put everyone right! This means that, for all those centuries, Christ failed to keep His promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles to the whole truth and would be with them forever, and that he would be with them to the end of the world. As a result, the sola scriptura theory destroys belief in Christ and the bible.
The practical proof of the insufficiency of the bible as the sole rule of faith is the sheer diversity of belief among Protestants; every extravagance of doctrine being supposedly based on some man’s (and probably some women’s also) interpretation of the sacred text - plus no agreed authority to settle disputes even over fundamental issues of faith and morals. Is that really the sort of “church” that Christ envisioned?
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
- Status