Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

Just an fyi that Wycliffe's bible was the first complete English bible translated in 1382. There were several others made before the DR as well.

Here is a useful PDF outlining some historically significant translations.
History and Lineage of the English Bible

 

And what value is the Scripture if, as a result of that above individualistic method of interpretation, Christians arrive at radically different conclusions to each other? Now that is very contradictory

Yours in Christ

Matt</font>[/QUOTE]Amen.

 

Ditto.

 

And what value is the Scripture if, as a result of that above individualistic method of interpretation, Christians arrive at radically different conclusions to each other? Now that is very contradictory

Yours in Christ

Matt</font>[/QUOTE]Amen. </font>[/QUOTE]To be very blunt, the Catholic Church is not a Christian religion, any more than the Jehovah's Witness is a Christian religion. All of Evangelical Christian, practicing Sola Scriptura, are far more united in doctrine than than the Catholic Church would have one believe. I will give you one good example.

The New Birth:
The Catholic teaching on the new birth is that it means baptism. Ask any Catholic. You must be born of water and of the spirit, that is you must be baptized, and thus the doctrine of baptixmal regeneration.
No evangelical Chritian believes in baptismal regeneration. No eveangelical Christian believes that to be born again is to be baptized. They are all united in the meaning of what it is to be born again. And that union comes through sola scriptura. The Bible interprets itself. It is not too difficult to understand:

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
And yet so many today teach that man is basically good.

They say they believe the Bible, but either they are biblically ignorant (most Catholics), or refuse to accept the clear teaching of the Word. I believe it is both.
DHK

 

A question that I have always wanted to ask, but I’ve always forgot to ask. Why is it then that, lets say an IFB, requires that one be baptized before one is allowed membership?

If baptism does no good, why then require it? I know that baptism is identifying with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, but why couldn’t one just stand up in the pulpit and proclaim Christ as his or her savior?

 

DHK says: "The Bible interprets itself."

The widespread confusion among Protestants, and why some who believe and consider themselves Christian, don't even believe Jesus Christ is God is a result of this erroneous belief that the Holy Spirit will tell each one what it really means.

This idea that Jesus didn’t give His authority to His Church to go out and teach all nations what He commanded violates Holy Scripture. Jesus didn’t say, in the Great Commission, “Just wait 1400 years and when the printing press is invented everyone can just read the Book”.

Jesus could have taught his disciples to read and write and how to mass produce Bibles with a basic printing press if His intent was to leave His Word in a book that "interprets itself" for every man, woman, and child. According to His Word, Jesus left a teaching Church guided by the Holy Spirit with Himself as the cornerstone.

 

A question that I have always wanted to ask, but I’ve always forgot to ask. Why is it then that, lets say an IFB, requires that one be baptized before one is allowed membership?

If baptism does no good, why then require it? I know that baptism is identifying with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, but why couldn’t one just stand up in the pulpit and proclaim Christ as his or her savior? </font>[/QUOTE]Not all "evangelical" churches have that requirement, but all IFB churches have that requirement, unless they have been baptized in a scriptural manner before, that is by immersion after a clear testimony of salvation.

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. But it is the first step of obedience after salvation. If the new believer is unwilling to idenify himself with Christ and his church in baptism, how much else will he be unwilling to do in the church? God places a premium on obdeience.
Look at history: Every church: whether liberal, conservative, evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, etc.--almost every church down throughout history has always used baptism as the door to the church. Is that wrong?
DHK

 

I would love to invite D28 into this conversation and challenge you on how fragmented the Catholic Church is from within compared to how united all evangelicals are. You are stepping into a large swamp of sinking sand if you accept this challenge. The Cathoiic Church is mired in division, controversy, and even contradiction. Speak to your own condition. Your pope, and cardinals don't even know what to do with practicing pedophiles except to move them from one parish to another. What an evil travesty!! Or does the Catholic Church have a policy on pedophiia??
Does the Catholic Church know that the doctrine of "celibacy" is called a "doctrine od demons" in the Bible? What about the movement in the Catholic Church that promotes marriage among the priesthood? Shall I go on? I could fill this page about the division that exists in the Catholic Church. It makes me laugh when you point out division amongst evangelicals. It is a strawman, a red herring, a smokescreen for your own troubles and conroversies.

#1. Jesus never gave his authority to a cult or a false religion. That counts the Catholics out.
##2. The Catholics existence didn't even begin until the 4th century with Constantine. So don't even mention any origins with Peter. That is all folklore and wishful thinking.
#3. You are right. Jesus did give the Great Commission. But the Catholic Church wasn't around then. His disciples were. They were faithful to His Word, as was the Apostle Paul, and the many churches that he started on his three missionary journey that you can read about in the Book of Acts. But you don't read about the Catholic Church. It was "Christendom paganized" in the fourth century.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He did teach them. And he sent the Holy Spirit to further guide them. This verse specifically refers to the writing down of Scripture. They wrote down what the Holy Spirit told them. The Holy Spirit guided them into ALL the truth of the Word of God. Whatever they heard of the Holy Spirit they spoke, and their Emmenuensis wrote them down for them. The Holy Spirit also gave the prophecies which are written in our Bible as well.
DHK

 

That explains how "The Bible interprets itself."????

 

The teachings of the Catholic Church are not full of confusion. They can actually be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Church has been around since Jesus founded it and gave it His authority with His keys and told Peter to feed His lambs, feed His sheep, feed His lambs. It was this same Church He gave the Great Commission to go to all nations, teaching what He commanded and to baptize and promised to be with to the end of time.
If the Bible interpreted itself as you say, all Christians would have to do is drop millions of copies from aircraft all over the world. This isn't what Jesus asked of His Church, at least according to Holy Scripture.

 

DHK
"If Catholic priests encourage their people to read their Bible instead of their Catechism there has been a great change since I have been in the Catholic Church"
"
It's more like they encourage folks to read the Bible AND their Catechism.

 

Mioque:
"It's more like they encourage folks to read the Bible AND their Catechism."

I can agree with that. In fact the Catechism itself tells Catholics to read and study Holy Scripture because it is the very Word of God.

 

Yes it does. Evangelicals agree among themselves (ex. new birth), practicing sola scriptura at the same time. Catholics disagree and have many divisions within their own ranks in spite of having just one catechsim. Your catechsim doesn't prevent the division within your ranks.
DHK

 

If as you say, the Bible interprets itself, why don't you just take up a collection and drop bibles all over the middle east, africa, Asia, etc. and see what the fruits are? How many people will have the correct "Evengelical" interpretation? How many people will incorporate bits and pieces into their previously held beliefs? How many new denominations will the world have? How many more bible believing Christians will not even know that Jesus Christ is true God and true man?

 

I suppose the word "encourage" is key. Like I say, if that is true, then things have changed since I have been there. However this I do know. All of my extended family: parents, brothers, and sisters are still praciticing Catholics. To my knowledge none of them own a Bible, nor do they care to. The are all Biblically illiterate. They don't care what the Bible says. The word of the priest is good enough for them. Don't chalk it up to a bad priest or parish as you usually do, because they are all scattered throughout this great province of ours, none living close to the other. I don't look at the lives of the Catholic epologists who have the intestinal fortitude to come on a Baptist board and post in defence of their faith. How many Catholics are willing to do that? Maybe .001%. I look at the average Catholic like my extended family or my next door neighbor to see what an average Catholic lives like, and how knowledgeable concerning the Bible they are. The average Catholic is like I was in the Catholic Church--Biblically illiterate.
DHK

 

Have you ever heard of Gideon's
Why don't you write them and ask them for some testimonies.
DHK

 

Testimonies from people who believe they all have the "correct" interpretation?

Baptist Board has had some of these people who believe they have the "correct" interpretation and deny that Jesus Christ is God.

 

DHK,

All scripture quoted here is KJV, since I know most IFB as KJV only

So, I guess the Apostle Paul was pushing a "doctrine of demons" when in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

Oh yeah, let's not forget Jesus.

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Don't make me laugh. Talk about red herrings. Constantine in no way shape or form started the Catholic Religion. The Edict of Milan granted religious tolerance to Christians. He didn't start any religion.

For someone who believes Sola Scripture, where does the Bible state that baptism is the first step (or act) of obedience after salvation?

In Mark 16:16 Jesus said,"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

I Pet. 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3-4
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11-12
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Jesus also said Mt. 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

I don't see where Jesus states that Baptism is a nice little way to show obedience.


It is so clear what the Bible states with regards to Baptism, the Real Presence, celibacy, ect. that if you truly believed that the Bible interprets itself, you would still be Catholic

Like I stated before, as a small child when I read these verses in the Bible (I learned to read from the Bible in Kindergarten in the Baptist school)I took them to mean what was written.

The Catholic Church takes God at His Word to mean what He says and not look for some hidden meaning as the baptist do.

 

Edict of Milan (taken from a methodist website)

and from Text translated in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the
Original Sources of European history, (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press
[1897?-1907?]), Vol 4:, 1, pp. 28-30

 

For someone who believes Sola Scripture, where does the Bible state that baptism is the first step (or act) of obedience after salvation?
</font>[/QUOTE]I posted this same answer elswhere:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (ASV)

Notice that the ASV more accurately translates the word "teaching" as "discipling" giving the sense that a person must be saved before he is baptized. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation, but always comes after salvation, as an outward sign of that which was done inwardly at salvation. So this is a command by Jesus not to be ignored. It is important.

Now to Paul's ministry. What was Paul's ministry. Paul's ministry was the preaching of the gospel. He was a pioneer missionary. He set up churches of saved individuals, and apparently after one was appointed the pastor of the church, that pastor did the baptizing of the new converts, not Paul.

Therefore Paul says in 1Cor.1:

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

The church had to start somewhere. It seemed to start with the ones that Paul mentioned: Crispus and Gaius, whom he baptized, and then those in the household of Stephanus.
Remember that the church of Corinth grew to be a very large church--hundreds if not over a thousand members. Paul is speaking of just a handful of people that he baptized: a half dozen to a dozen at the most.

Then he says the most remarkable thing:
Summed up: Baptism isn't the important thing here. It was not important to his ministry.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

Christ did not send him to baptize. Get that. It is important. Paul did not baptize the majority of his converts. They were saved but not baptized. That is not what Paul was called to do. He did not baptize. He was not called to baptize. Baptism is different than preaching the gospel. It is not part of the gospel. It doesn't save, does not have the power to save, cannot was away sins or remit sins. Paul states this very clearly.
He was sent to preach the gospel, not baptize. The gospel could be preached and was preached without baptism. Baptism was not part of the gospel.

The gospel he defines in 1Cor.15:1-4 as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is belief in that gospel that saves--that gospel and none other.

He says in Gal.1 that if any man bring any other gospel than the gospel that I have brought to you let him be accursed. Be aware of putting baptism into the gospel. Be aware of saying that baptism saves or remits sin. It does not. Your argument here is with God. Paul has made it very clear. I have not yet found any refutation of these Scriptures. All that believe in baptismal regeneration must depend on the Book of Acts or the gospels--books of history and not of doctrine to defend their petty doctrines.
DHK