Are Protestant claims regarding Scripture superior?

I started to write a whole dissertation on people who seperated Baptist scripture or Protestant scripture from any other Christian denomination's Scripture - even Catholics was not understanding why the various denominations broke away.

The Protestants never said Catholic Bible is a pile halfbaked loonie bird droppings - they said they're interpretation and implentation was what caused milk to form cheese. That came later as a desire to seperate themselves from Catholocism grew stronger

 

I find myself agreeing with Carson!

The question is, how can we trust that the NT is inspired by God? Only because the Church, by the Spirit, decided what was canonical. What did Jesus promise? "I will be with you always, even til the end of the age." I happen to take Jesus at His word here. Joseph Smith did not. Sadly, many Protestants don't believe Him either...

 

BTW, I'm not Roman Catholic either. I'm Anglican.

 

I don't think the protestant claims are superior. They're just based on faith. At one point, ya gotta take a leap of faith. I do so with my copy of the Bible.

I'm not gonna say the other writing aren't, but, since Jesus said you can't serve two masters, I'm going to let the Biblical writings be my master.

I don't think anyone has to believe like me. I'm simply saying I think what I believe fits best with what my understanding of God's plan for salvation is. I can't prove it. I can only believe it. If anyone else wants to believe it, I'll be happy to stop my bandwagon enough for you to get on

 

If you are not intellectually convinced of your position, then your house is built on shifting sand. 'Faith' is not something 'illogical'. It must be based on sure and certain facts/revelation.

 

Hi Johnv,

You wrote, "I don't think the protestant claims are superior. They're just based on faith. At one point, ya gotta take a leap of faith. I do so with my copy of the Bible ... I don't think anyone has to believe like me. I'm simply saying I think what I believe fits best with what my understanding of God's plan for salvation is. I can't prove it. I can only believe it. If anyone else wants to believe it, I'll be happy to stop my bandwagon enough for you to get on"

That's precisely the Protestant way, and that's the source of division in Christianity.

I believe this, and I can't prove that my belief is better than yours. If you would like, you can jump on my wagon and join my sect. Since we all are individuals and have individual beliefs from this one Bible, we'll have as many wagons as there are takes on the Bible.

Is this how Jesus structured his Church? Or did he appoint 12 apostles?

Blessings,

Carson

 

Is this how Jesus structured his Church? Or did he appoint 12 apostles?
I don't necesserily believe that Jesus was setting out to establish a physical institution of organized religion. The church he esteblishes was one that existed in the heart. But we humans need to express our faith in this manner, and we do it to the best of our imperfect human ability. Jesus did indeed appoint the 12. And they did speak to the early churches. But were they churches with buildings with a sign that said "first christian church of corinth", or were they bands of followers who had varying backgrounds? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the RCC is bad, because in my viewm, it's not (please, don't bother rebutting my comments, anyone). I'm also not saying that Martin Luther and John Calvin were bad guys, not at all. The RCC no longer suited their spiritual needs. But the RCC did and still continues to feed the needs of a great many of God's people in the world.

I'm not one for condemning the denominations of the world. Most do at least an adequate job of being faithful. But I also think many in denominations take an us vs them approach, which in no way encourages Christian unity. This is not what Jesus intended. I can't tell you how often I see the "my Christinity is better than your Christianity" game played our amongst our pews. We pat ourselves on the back for our positive christianity, yet blame negative christianity on the institutions. How disappointed the Heavenly Father must be in us sometimes.

If you would like, you can jump on my wagon and join my sect. Since we all are individuals and have individual beliefs from this one Bible, we'll have as many wagons as there are takes on the Bible.
Carson, how's about we hitch our wagons together and help each other take the same ride? And wagons that are hitched together often help make the trip easier.

Since the road we're on is the same, does it really matter if my wagon is red and yours is blue?

[ October 22, 2002, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

If you are not intellectually convinced of your position, then your house is built on shifting sand. 'Faith' is not something 'illogical'. It must be based on sure and certain facts/revelation.

Faith is not about logic. Faith, as the bible puts it, it the evidence of things that are not seen. Jesus says, that those who believe without seeing are blessed.

One does not need to see the wind to feel it. I don't need an interment box of Jesus' brother, a burial shroud of Jesus, the remains of an ark, or pieces from the cross of Christ to have faith. Sure, they'd be nice, but they're by no means required.

 

Hi John,

By the way, I remember you clearly as one who posts with great charity and clarity; thank you for your presence on this board.

I don't necesserily believe that Jesus was setting out to establish a physical institution of organized religion.

Jesus gathered twelve men around him, teaching them as a rabbi with his disciples, and then commissioned them to administer the sacraments and teach everything that he had commanded them.

That is the nature of the Catholic Church: the bishops, successors to the apostles, exist in order to (1) give this new life by way of the sacraments assuredly and (2) administer the truths of the faith infallibly.

The church he esteblishes was one that existed in the heart.

Wouldn't the "soul of Christ" serve as a better way of expressing the Church than "body of Christ" if the church is invisible?

Also, if the Church is invisible, then why does Jesus go to such lengths in parables to show that the weeds will grow alongside the wheat in the Kingdom (Matthew 13)?

Jesus did indeed appoint the 12. And they did speak to the early churches. But were they churches with buildings with a sign that said "first christian church of corinth", or were they bands of followers who had varying backgrounds?

Whether or not Churches have signs is superfluous. The Catholic Church is not a conglomeration of buildings. Every basilica, cathedral, and rural parish building could be destroyed, and the Catholic Church would still exist par excellence as the living community, household, and family of believers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the RCC is bad, because in my viewm, it's not (please, don't bother rebutting my comments, anyone).

And for this reason, John, you are a breath of fresh air.

I'm also not saying that Martin Luther and John Calvin were bad guys, not at all. The RCC no longer suited their spiritual needs. But the RCC did and still continues to feed the needs of a great many of God's people in the world.

Luther & Calvin left the Church not merely because of spiritual tastes, but because of serious doctrinal issues and disagreements. We shouldn't underemphasize the heavy polemic the Reformers engaged in. Luther sincerely believed, as did Calvin, that the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ. Luther believed that he was living in the end times, that the Whore of Babylon is equivalent to the Catholic Church.

I'm not one for condemning the denominations of the world. Most do at least an adequate job of being faithful. But I also think many in denominations take an us vs them approach, which in no way encourages Christian unity. This is not what Jesus intended.

The Catholic Church is the self-same one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church that Jesus Christ founded. The Body of Christ is still one, and the church is not divided. What Jesus intended resides within the Church, and it is his will that all men be reconciled to the one household and live/worship in his one covenantal family - thus, become Catholic.

I can't tell you how often I see the "my Christinity is better than your Christianity" game played our amongst our pews. We pat ourselves on the back for our positive christianity, yet blame negative christianity on the institutions. How disappointed the Heavenly Father must be in us sometimes.

I would say that he's crying.

Carson, how's about we hitch our wagons together and help each other take the same ride? And wagons that are hitched together often help make the trip easier.

Because I am not an advocate of religious pluralism. I believe that there is only one wagon with the fullness of grace and truth, and to leave my brothers and sisters on seriously deficient wagons would be uncharitable (even a sort of false charity) on my part.

Since the road we're on is the same, does it really matter if my wagon is red and yours is blue?

I do not see the differences between my wagon and yours as reducible to exterior preference of color. The differences are profound, in substance. The wheels are designed differently. One wagon's wheels are square; the other's are round. One wagon's structure is composed of straw whereas the other wagon's body is built of hickory.

Yes, it does matter. And, I hope you can sense my charitable honesty in this post - not my arrogant chiding.

God bless,

Carson

 

Quote:

" The Catholic Church is the self-same one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church that Jesus
Christ founded. The Body of Christ is still one, and the church is not divided. What Jesus intended resides within the Church, and it is his will that all men be reconciled to the one
household and live/worship in his one covenantal family - thus, become Catholic."

If this is true, take the word "church" from any entry in the bible and replace it with "Catholic Church" for laughs.

 

Haven't you already been down this road before, Jim?

Without much success, I might add.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001080;p=1

 

"...for Protestants to aver that the deutero-canonical books contain unscriptural material is decidedly a case of unwarranted dogmatism. This conclusion was reached simply because the so-called Reformers , who were clearly antagnonistic toward the Catholic Church, approached the Bible with an a priori notion that it teaches 'Reformed' doctrine. They discarded the deuterocanonical books because in certain instances these books contain decidedly Catholic doctrine, as in the case of 2 Macc. 12.42-46, which clearly supports the doctrine of prayers for the dead and hence of Purgatory: 'It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.' (2 Macc.12.46). Luther, in fact, wanted to discard also the New Testament books of Revelation and James, the latter which he termed an 'epistle of straw', and which he felt 'had nothing evangelical about it', not doubt because it clearly states that we are saved by faith AND works(cf.James 2.14-26), in contrast to Luther's erroreous 'faith alone' doctrine. Luther was ultimately persuaded by his friends to retain these books...the only challenge to (the Deuterocanonicals) and disregard of (the deut.)occurs when the so-called Reformers arrive on the scene in the 16th century and decide they can simply trash an 11 centuries long continuity regarding the canon's formal existence and a nearly 15 centuries long continuity regarding its practical existence. The fact that ANY individual would come along and single-handedly alter such a continuity regarding so central an issue as which books compromise the Bible should give the sincere follower of Christ SERIOUS PAUSE. Such a follower is compelled to ask,'By whose authority does this individual make such a major change?' Both history and Luther's own writings show that Luther's actions WERE BASED ON NOTHING BUT HIS OWN PERSONAL SAY-SO..."
-from 'Scripture Alone' by Joel Peters, Tan books and publishers, Rockford, Ill.

 

For Singer: FYI - the NT word for "church" is ekklesia which would have been used to refer to the members of a Jewish synagogue, or, in more general terms, an assembly of believers.

So Carson, you're right, buildings or the lack thereof are superflous. It is not an institution that is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, it is one body of faithful Christians that is.

However, I don't see that the differences between your beliefs and mine are that divisive. I don't see some of the doctrinal differences as having to be devisive. Perhaps it is because I was raised in an RCC environment, and held no grudge against the RCC when I left.

BTW - I found your post to be neither chiding nor arrogant. I do appreciate the fact that you have never once on this board questioned a man's salvation based on denominational lines. It is unfortunate that several have questioned yours.

I do find it amusing that, while my associates who are in the RCC never chastise my baptist views, my associates who are Baptist often chastise my RCC background.

Blessings always, Johnv

 

Hi John,

You wrote, "I don't see that the differences between your beliefs and mine are that divisive."

I believe that a piece of bread becomes God at Mass every day, and I worship this piece of bread once a week for an hour in what we call "Eucharistic Adoration". Would you like to join me?


I don't see some of the doctrinal differences as having to be devisive. Perhaps it is because I was raised in an RCC environment, and held no grudge against the RCC when I left.

Praise God - not for your leaving - but for your clear sight.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Singer,

You wrote, "If this is true, take the word "church" from any entry in the bible and replace it with "Catholic Church" for laughs."

I'd be glad to take you up on your offer.

Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Catholic Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Matthew 18:17 - "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Catholic Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Catholic Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Acts 5:11 - "And great fear came upon the whole Catholic Church, and upon all who heard of these things."

Acts 8:1 - "And Saul was consenting to his death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the Catholic Church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama'ria, except the apostles."

Acts 9:31 - "So the Catholic Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied."

Acts 12:1 - "About that time Herod the king laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the Catholic church."

Acts 16:5 - "So the Catholic churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily."

1 Tim 3:15 - "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Catholic Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

James 5:14 - "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Catholic Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"

You see, Singer, the church isn't a spiritualized concept in the New Testament. This is an idea that you've inherited through your Protestant tradition.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "As regards ‘Catholic’ ... in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (e.g. the Muratorian Canon) ... What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Ignatius, the second Bishop of Antioch (who succeeded St. Peter once St. Peter left for Rome to build up the Church there with paul), wrote seven epistles as he was escorted to Rome to die in the Colisseum as a Christian martyr. Ignatius was a direct disciple of the Apostle John.

In his Epistle to the Smyrneans (Chapter 8, Verse 2), Ignatius wrote circa 110 A.D.:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which isadministered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

If you would like to learn more, click on the link below:

http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

God bless,

Carson

[ October 23, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Yes Johnv, "church" means "to gather" and cannot exclude non-Catholics without a gross misapplication of facts along with a change of the meaning of the word.

And Carson, it would seem that something as important as salvation that was addressed in the Old Testament would have at least given honorable mention to the Catholic Church if it was in fact....factual. The word "church" does not even appear in the O.T. let alone give any indication of value or exclusivity....or point to a certain denomination.

From the "foundation of the world" was our inheritance prepared:

Matthew 25:34
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world:

The "Good News" that was brought to our attention was the sacrifice of Jesus that we might inherit the kingdom through faith....not through the revelation of a method of Organizational Leadership.

Christ brought an easy yoke and a light burden....not a complex method of "religion".
That's about as simple as it gets. !

 

Carson,

Concerning the word "church" in scripture and your applied meaning, lets look at a scripture you shared:

"Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Catholic
Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

It is my understanding that the word catholicism means "universal" and applied to believers, would mean "universal believers" or all believers/

As for Matthew 16:18 pertaining to the Catholic Church, the term "Catholic" was never even applied to or associated with the word "church" in the Old or New Testament. Evidence of it only applied in history after 110 A.D.. when Ignatius applied it as a proper noun.

It could not have applied in Matthew 16:18 as the Catholic Church did not even exist yet (at the time of Jesus' statement to Peter). This alone would disqualify your various scriptures.

Again, "church" means "believers" and makes much sense when read with that in mind.

Hope this helps.

 

Singer, let's assume one thing for a moment. Let's assume that the word church refers to the Roman Catholic Church. It would not exclude you. The RCC considers members of the separated brethren (ie, generally speaking, non-Catholic Christians) to be in communion with the RCC in the matter of salvation.

So you, being in full communion with the RCC, are not excluded from the statement.

Now, let's assume the the word "church" does not mean RCC. Full communion of the separated brethren still applies, and you're still included.

Please note that this is from the RCC view looking outward. It's not a concept is necessarily fully understood by a non-RCC Christian.

 

I believe that a piece of bread becomes God at Mass every day, and I worship this piece of bread once a week for an hour in what we call "Eucharistic Adoration". Would you like to join me?

Yes, I would if a priest allowe me to receive communion despite my lapse. I would never turn down an opportunity to have communion with a brother in Christ. However, since many in the RCC hold to the notion that I cannot take commnunion unless I'm a member of the RCC, I would be disrespectful to them for me to take Communion in a Catholic Church, and if my taking communion means disrespecting a roman catholic, I would decline.

On the other hand, I know that non-catholics are often served bread and wine that are not consecrated, and I would be willing to take the elemnts with you, yours being consecrated, and mine being not.

Also, you're equally welcome to take communion with me, since my church has open communion, and, according to my priest in high school, it is not a compromise on RCC beliefs for a Catholic to take open communion in Christian non-Catholic church. I'm sure you're aware that in my church's communion, while we believe Jesus is present in the elements, Jesus does not become the elements.

[ October 23, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]