Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

Paul's missionary journey to Corinth is talked about in Acts 18. His letter to Corinth is after his missionary journey. Paul also went first to the Jews in any town that he visited. Later he went to the Gentiles. According to Acts, many were baptized.

However, Corinthians states something different. A contradiction? No, Paul is being humble and is pointing out the the peoples alligance should be to God and not the one who baptized or initiated them to the Christian Community.

ACTS
18:1
After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;

18:2
And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

18:3
And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

18:5
And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

18:6
And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

18:7
And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

18:8
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

18:9
Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

18:10
For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

18:11
And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

 

DHK:

Back up a couple of verses and you will find out why Paul made the statement in Vs. 17. It looks like that there was a problem in Corinth.

Looks like some were adopting, so to speak, the baptizer’s name as a religious appellation; see again Verses 12-13. I don’t believe that Paul was dissociating baptism from the gospel, but Paul did not want any special adoration to be attached to him for baptizing them.

 

Jesus showed what Baptism is by His own Baptism where God the Father declares Him His Son and it's witnessed by the Holy Spirit. He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. When we are baptized we die to ourselves and are made a new creation. The Father becomes our Father. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism according to Holy Scripture. Jesus didn't just get wet and neither do we.

 

Certainly there were problems in Corinth. That is why Paul wrote the letter--to address those problems. They requested him to write in response to the problems they were having:

1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:.."

In 1Cor.1:17, Paul clearly states his purpose, to preach the gospel, not to baptize. The church was factious to be sure. One of the reasons that Paul did not baptize is that he left the work of baptism to the pastor (Apollos in this case) who followed him. Paul was the missionary/church planter/evangelist. He was the one that appointed the pastor who in turn took over the fledging church and discipled many, baptizing them, and teaching them as Christ had commanded.

He spells out the gospel clearly in 1Cor.15:1-4. In those verses there is no mention of baptism--just the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In those verses he declares that it is by this gospel that they were saved. It is clearly apparent that baptism does not save.
DHK

 

What are you implying here Kathryn:
That Jesus was a created being??
OR
That Jesus needed salvation??

 

Nope. As I said here, He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. His baptism is our baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism.

 

I can quote clearly from your catechism whereby it is through the grace of baptism that one is saved. True? Consequently, you are inferring that Jesus needed salvation. His baptism is not our baptism. Else we would not need to be baptized. That is a very contradictory statement.
DHK

 

Nope, not inferring or implying that Jesus needed salvation. Nothing contradictory, as I said, Jesus Christ submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. Read the dialog between Jesus and John. Jesus didn't need this. Jesus submitted for us. His baptism is our baptism. Scripture tells us that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism "

Jesus showed that baptism was much more than just getting wet. We are washed clean because we have sin. God declares us his sons and daughters. There is no contradiction with the Catechism. This is Grace. This is the Gospel. This is the one baptism Holy Scripture both commands and promises us.

Jesus' baptism wasn't about John dunking Jesus in the Jordan, as a statement of faith. It was about what God does. He was teaching us who God is (the Trinity) and what the one baptism is.

 

Jesus did NOT submit for us. Nowhere does the Bible say this or teach this. You are entitiled to your theories and opinions but they are clearly wrong. This is not what the Bible says.

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
--The purpose of his baptism--to fulfill all righteousness. The baptism was purely symbolic. It symbolized the beginning of his ministry, but it symbolized much more than that. It symbolized
"the way Christ would fulfill all the righteous claims of God against man's sin. His immersion typified His baptism in the waters of God's judgment at Calkvary. His emergence from the water foreshadowed His resurrectiojn. By death, burial, and resurrectrion, He would satisfy the demands of divine justice and provide a righteous basis by which sinners could be justified." (MacDonald's Believer's Commentary)

His baptism in not our baptism. That is ridiculous. Paul was not referring to the baptism of Christ in Ephesians. The baptism of Christ was to fulfill all righteousness. Can you do that??
Christian baptism is done in obedience to Christ after one is saved. There is a big difference.

Nonsense! Heresy! And totally unsupportable by Scripture. Jesus baptism was entirely symbolic, as the Bible says it was--"to fulfill all righteousness." Our baptism is the same--purely symbolic, symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and rising again to a new life in Christ. It is purely symbolic. It does nothing to you but get you wet. A symbol has no power. Baptism is a step of obedience after salvation and has nothing to do with salvation, cannot wash away sins. What washes away sin?

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If you are not born again by trusting Christ as your Saviour (baptism not included), that is, by trusting Christ and him alone, by faith and faith alone, then you are not one of his children.

The evangelical definition of the new birth and the Catholic definition are as far apart as the east is from the west. The Catholic Church has no proper concept of what the true gospel of the Bible really is.

"It was about what God does." What did God do in the heart of Jesus at his baptism? Are you implying that God the Father saved God the son, at the time of his baptism? "What God does!!?? Christ got wet. He was baptized by John. He was baptized at the beginning of his ministry to fulfill all righteousness. I suggest you read your Bible.
DHK

 

DHK
"if that is true, then things have changed since I have been there."
"
For my thesis in churchhistory I studied the origen of the canisius Bible (translated into Dutch from the original languages and published between 1906 and 1939). Promoting Biblereading among lay Catholics was one of the reasons to make this translation.
It's not that the movement within the RCC to promote Biblereading hasn't been around for some time, it's that it hasn't always been all that popular both among the hierarchy (allthough that has changed in the past few decades) and bulk of it's members (both priests and layfolk).

 

DHK, if "the Bible interprets itself", then explain why there are divisions amongst the SS adherents between eg: Calvinists and Arminians, cessationists and charismatics, paedobaptists and believers' Baptists, covenanters and dispensationalists, pre-millenialists a-millenialists and post-millenialists etc etc. Wake up and smell the coffee - SS DOESN'T WORK!!

I can't comment on the state of Catholicism in the US but suffice it to say that the picture you paint of it both in terms of your upbringing and your family today is radically different from the situation I have encountered over here. I've already said I was encouraged to read the Bible at my Catholic private school. My late grandmother, a devout Catholic, had a Jerusalem Bible by her bedside, and another Bible in her front room; her late sister had one also. My uncles, who are both priests, have several Bibles plus volumes of commentaries on each of the books of the Bible that would make a Baptist pastor jealous. The Catechism is shot through with Scripture quotes. Yes, much needs to be done: my uncles bemoan the fact that so many of their flock know Catholic doctrine, but not enough Scripture, and they have made it a key point of their ministries to redress that balance by encouraging their congregations to do daily Bible studies; they have also set up and encouraged the growth of housegroups in their parishes to do the same.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

It just amazes me when Catholics attempt this silly little diversionary attempt to discredit evangelicalism by bringing up sola scripturas so called "doctrinal chaos".

Romans 14 and other passages make clear that regarding non-foundational views we have freedom, and that we are to not judge our brother. Contend with them in spirited debate? Of course, that is healthy. Its actually an exceedingly healthy thing. The scriptures tell us that "iron sharpens iron" for the good of all.

If there are contradictory views brought up regarding foundational teachings, we have no problem whatsoever identifying it as false...with no hiearchy doing our thinking for us.

And to be completly honest, Catholics criticising us for some error is somewhat comical. If the error in evangelical circles is a 3 and a 1-10 scale, the Catholic error would register about a 200 on that 1-10 scale.

Here is some interesting information regarding Catholicism...

"As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter's confession of Christ's deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: ".. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter's own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ....'

History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.


Furthermore, the long-held claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only church which never changed is not supported by church history not even Roman Catholic history. How sad to realize that this false claim influenced so many to join or to stay in this false church which actually is the product of centuries of changes. Most of these changes came as a result of yielding to heathen customs and practices which were subsequently incorporated into Roman Catholic teachings and worship. The following is a partial list of heathen, unscriptural practices which became a part of Roman Catholic dogma over a period of seventeen centuries. Some of the dates given are approximate. In many cases, these heresies were even debated for years before being given the status of required beliefs:

1. Prayers for the dead...300 A.D.

2. Making the sign of the cross...300 A.D.

3. Veneration of angels & dead saints...375 A.D.

4. Use of images in worship...375 A.D.

5. The Mass as a daily celebration...394 A.D.

6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus...431 A.D.

7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)...526 A.D.

8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1...593 A.D..

9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints...600 A.D.

0. Worship of cross, images & relics...786 A.D.

11 Canonization of dead saints...995 A.D.

12. Celibacy of priesthood...1079 A.D.

13. The Rosary...1090 A.D.

14. Indulgences...1190 A.D.

15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III...1215 A.D.

16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest...1215 A.D.

17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)...1220 A.D.

18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion...1414 A.D.

19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma...1439 A.D.

20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed...1439 A.D.

21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent...1545 A.D.

22. Apocryphal books added to Bible...1546 A.D.

23. Immaculate Conception of Mary...1854 A.D.

24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council... 1870 A.D.

25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death)...1950 A.D.

26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church...1965 A.D.

Although some of the preceding Roman Catholic heresies are now being questioned by many, both inside and outside the church, none have been officially repudiated and all continue to be practiced by millions of Catholics around the world. The urgent need today is for Roman Catholics; yes, and all who claim to be Christians, to examine their own beliefs and the teachings of their churches by the only sure standard-the Bible. Whatever contradicts, adds to or subtracts from the sixty-six books of the Old and the New Testaments, is error no matter how many may cling to it.
Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Note carefully the following warnings given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the religious leaders of His day concerning vain worship, vain tradition and vain repetitions. All of these are particularly applicable to Roman Catholicism today."

click here

Sadly,

Mike

 

Mike, it's not exactly a 'diversion', is it? Come on! I have lost count of the number of times on this Board alone when I have come across SS-adherents who mutually anathematise (hardly trivial issues then; I would say those are foundational) each other on the doctrines referred to in my last post. Just try starting a thread on spiritual gifts and see what DHK has to say about charismatics.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I have used this example before, and I don''t think Tam minds. She believes in speaking in tongues. I don't. There are two principles at work here. One is sola scriptura, and the other is soul liberty--two scriptural premises that the Catholic Church hates. She has the perfect right to believe what she sees fit that the Bible teaches. On the essentials of salvation, Christ, his deity, and most other doctrines we agree. We come to agreement solely by sola scriptura. Does the matter of the difference of belief in spiritual gifts separate our fellowship as brothers and sisters in the Lord. NO!
On the contrary, the very fact that Catholics believe in a works salvation, bap;tismal regeneration, deny the essentals of the faith, leaves absolutely no room for spiritual fellowship. What fellowship hath light with darkness?
Tam and I have much more in common, both of us being evangelicals, than I and any Catholic would. Our "commonality" comes from the Scripture. Our difference comes as a result of soul liberty, which has been pointed out to you is a sciptural principle in Romans 14. I believe it is wrong, and that she is in error regarding this point. But I don't believe that it affects her salvation, which is the major point of fellowship.
DHK

 

Matt,

I've never conversed with DHK regarding that topic. Does he say that all charismatics are doomed and bound for hell? Or does he disagree with some teachings in the charismatic world?

I tend to think that he just disagrees with some of their teachings. And if thats so, it is a very very healthy thing. All of us turning to the scriptures is Gods "checks and balances" system. God knows that some groups will interpret some scriptures differently, and of course thats no problem whatsoever. He told us about it in the scriptures (Romans 14 and others) and told us what attitude to have regarding those differences.(Romans 14 and others) It only becomes a problem when we exclude, condemn, or become self rightious and sectarian regarding those differences. (1 Cor 1: 10-17)

The arminians keep the calvinists from becoming too extreme, and the calvinists serve the same function regarding the arminians. The fundamentalists keep the charismatics from becoming to extreme and the charismatics do the same for the fundmentalists.

Its a beautiful thing...I just wish we could be more loving regarding how we debate sometimes.

But in contrast to evangelicalism, the Catholic Church has rejected Gods "checks and balances" system, and the result is twofold...

1) Millions are held compliantly in the CC's clutches, being forbidden to consult the truth that can set them free.

2) Chaos and heresy leading to more chaos and heresy leading to even more chaos and heresy leading to an exceedingly excessive overflow of chaos and heresy, etc etc etc.

Its a 1700 year old tragedy that is still playing out today.

God bless,

Mike

 

DHK,

I said...

We were formulating our posts at the same time and I hadnt seen yours until after posting mine.

I'm not surprised that I pretty much had your view regarding differences nailed.

God bless,

Mike

 

Wow...sounds like the ever multiplying schisms of Protestantism.

 

Fortunetly it isnt. Thank God His "checks and balances" system works.

What a mess the Catholic Church is. 1700 years of false teaching upon more false teaching upon more false teaching.

And it all goes unchecked.

Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormons
Catholic Church.

They all employ identical tactics...with identical results. All of them tell their people...

"YOU have no buisness interpreting the scriptures. ONLY WE can do that. YOU must believe everything WE tell you the scriptures teach."

The sadness of it is overwhelming.

Mike

 

What "checks and balances"? I don't see anything (least of all, sola Scriptura) that has prevented the Western Church from fracturing into countless multiplying contradictory schisms since the "Reformation". The Protestants, in revolting against the widespread abuses of the medieval Roman church, threw out the baby with the bath water, and now relativism prevails to a great extent. It is truly and overwhelmingly sad.

(So much for all of us being one so that the world may believe in Christ--John 17:21)

 

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

What do you suppose Paul means in this verse, when he says that it is good that there are "heresies" among the Corinthian church. He says: "there must be heresies among you. Why?
The reason has much to do with sola scriptura. In this way the Corinthian believers would be forced to study their Bibles and see who was "approved" that they would in turn "be made manifest among you." People holding to wrong doctrine would be weeded out. People with right doctrine would rise to the top as leaders to be followed. It was necessary for them to study their Bibles and come to their own conclusions. This was sola scriptura in the first century at work. In this way truth would be manifest; error would be cast out.

John also alludes to the same thing.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they didn't belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have continued with us. But they left, that they might be revealed that none of them belong to us.

Those who left the church that John was writing to held false doctrine, and may not have been saved. They did not agree with the truth being taught. Not only was the truth made manifest, but so was their false professions in Christ. For had they been true believers they would have continued in the truth. But they did not continue. They left because they could not bear those who held to the truth of the Word of God.

There is sweet fellowship among God's people who fellowship around the truth of God's Word. That truth almost always comes from "sola scriptura."
DHK