Does the RCC have An Inferior View On the Bible?

[Michael Wrenn]

According to the historical record, you are flat out wrong. If you can prove otherwise then please - be my guest. However, quoting John Wesley won't cut it.

W

I can prove it, but I'm not sure I want to. Weariness has set in. I'm feeling that way now about a lot that's discussed here -- not sure how important it is, after all.

Oh, I am very certain of the historical facts, as I have studied this kind of stuff in-depth for four decades, but I am feeling more and more the desire to simply follow the footsteps of Jesus.

But just to correct one thing -- the source that inspired Wesley concerning his correct view of apostolic succession and monarchical bishops dating back to the apostles as being a fable was his reading of Lord Peter King's "An Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church that flourished within the first Three Hundred Years after Christ".

Also, there is no doubt about what I stated concerning the terms bishop/elder/presbyter/pastor as being synonymous in the NT.

Peace to you.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, I've shown that the historical record clearly documents the existence of the Catholic Church as early as 110 AD. Therefore, in order to maintain any credibility, you will need to provide documents at least as early as that. Further, I notice that you like to do the doctrinal dance by mentioning five to ten "Catholic errors" in one post. I can easily shoot them all down, but let's just address the early existence of the RCC, then we can branch out to your other numerous accusations.

WM

I will just comment that the "Catholic Church" mentioned in 110 A.D. was meant as "universal church", not the RCC which came much later.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I will say this: In spite of what I know to be true about the RCC, it should be understood why the office of the monarchical bishop developed -- the main reason was to try and maintain orthodox teaching against movements like Gnosticism. That was also why it was important to try to discern and determine a canon.

Now the monarchical bishopric also developed for administrative purposes, but that's another story.

As for the RCC murders and persecutions, it seems there is a constant need for the reminder that the Magisterial Reformers were also fond of using the sword to kill Dissenters in the name of Jesus.

 

[saturneptune]

Don't like your holy huddle shook? The rcc is no threat to the nt church. That's preposterous. The protestant has more to defend than the rcc does. At least for being in line with the bible. Their church is more in line with how Paul'sdescriptions of the Church are, and apostolic authority is definitely closer to their views. Sola scriptura is defeated IN THE NT, when Paul explains the use of tradition, talks, vss just scripture.

Those are just some examples to what happens when you actually understand the scripture behind their thoughts, rather than just try to understand enough to pick at them.

Here is one to flip against all us protestants, paul teaches UNITY is part of God's plan in our understandings. He teaches mature believers through works, not theological knowledge will grow in unity and become as spiritually mature as Christ.

Christ corroborates Paul's claims, the John 17 prayers just one example.

Paul writes that dissensions and factions are of the flesh.

So let's examine the history of the church. There had been 200 years of people trying to reform the Rcc in some areas, but only at Luther did a schism occur. Luther is one of my heroes but, what started out pure and righteous, ended up more foul.

Rather than go to Rome to face excommunication, and likely execution, he broke off of the church. He fought for HIS life, which WAS Christ's life, but HE came first at this point, not God: protecting his own life is the first fruit of his actions. Thus was born the Lutheran traditions.

The church was built on martyrs, perhaps for the church of rome to have been "healed" since no one could sell them indulgences, would have been to martyr Lutherand stay whole.

But luther's split, has resulted in split after split after split, like a fertilized human egg growing through cell reproduction. 2 then 4 then 8, etcc. Its fruit was an exponential growth in denominations.

Paul wrote the deeds of the flesh..... pride, dissension, factions, all of which are rampant protestant fruits. So when it comes to finger pointing, its best to get your own home in order before you go tossing ad hominems at others.

What is perposterous is getting Protestants and Baptists mixed up. Neither group is as far gone at the RCC, but there are differences.

The RCC is universal, visible
The Protestant churches are universal, invisible
Baptist churches are local, visible

Three distinct entities. Granted, Protestants and Baptists are very close. How can you say the RCC is not a threat to the NT church when they claim to be the true church and at the same time worship saints and confess sins to a priest among many other practices?

You are right, we are not to cause dissention within the church. I take that to mean a local church, under the will of the Lord. I do not take that to mean not to point out flaws with a circus that claims to be the one true church.

 

[Walter]

Again, you are proven wrong. Why are you on a Baptist board anyhow? I do not go to Catholic boards for the purpose of irritating. Accusations against the RCC are not baseless, but the RCC is a threat to the New Testement Church. If you dont like what is said, then join your limbo friends on another board. IMO, your profile is in error. There is no way a born again, New Testement Baptist would make the posts you and Westminister have made.

First of all, I have made it quite clear that I no longer attend a Baptist church and attend the Catholic Church. This board makes it imposible to change the denomination you were affiliated with when you join the board. Secondly, I'm here because this is a debate board and this is the proper forum for debating other Christian faiths. I know you think the Catholic Church is the Great Whore and that your are rabidly anti-Catholic. I won't go away because you want me too. If the moderators wish me banned, they will do so, not you. You just tried to be clever in your statement that questioned my salvation so YOU are the one that needs to read the rules of this forum.

 

[Walter]

What is perposterous is getting Protestants and Baptists mixed up. Neither group is as far gone at the RCC, but there are differences.

The RCC is universal, visible
The Protestant churches are universal, invisible
Baptist churches are local, visible

Three distinct entities. Granted, Protestants and Baptists are very close. How can you say the RCC is not a threat to the NT church when they claim to be the true church and at the same time worship saints and confess sins to a priest among many other practices?

You are right, we are not to cause dissention within the church. I take that to mean a local church, under the will of the Lord. I do not take that to mean not to point out flaws with a circus that claims to be the one true church.

Baptist are Protestants. If you can show the historical evidence that their were 'Baptistic churches' in the first centuries of Christianity, please provide the proof. None????? Really????

 

[Walter]

I do not read KJV. Not only that, Baptists read the Bible on their own and study it, not parrot after a priest. I do not believe that has anything to do with books like Macabbees, which is not in the Bible. I mean really, I was reading Superman Comics as a kid.

Here is the truth:

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Roman Catholics will tell you, "You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it." This can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These false Catholic additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.

What is the Apocrypha anyway?

The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic institution pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Roman Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*


*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language which was used in the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."
King James Version Defended page 98.
By 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13
In his, "A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches,"--found in his Workes (a collection of the king's writings)--King James said this--

"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"
Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition. The Church of England published the Authorized King James Version) states that

(1) the Old and New Testaments are the Bible--

In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...
and,

(2) the apocrypha is not the Bible--

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James commanded the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--

The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...
The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.

There are other spurious books.

These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.

Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, there may be some information in them that parallels the Masoretic Text, but there are fables in them too. I went to see the scrolls a few years ago with great expectation but found a bunch of fables. The best defense against error in any form (fake Bibles and religions) is a solid knowledge of your King James Bible. If you read it, forgeries become readily apparent.

Those that are unsaved may wish to read our article entitled, How to Get to Heaven.



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cutting and Pasting Catholic apologetic materials wouldn't be allowed on this board, but you can put this nonsense up??? Why don't you formulate your own ideas!

 

[saturneptune]

Baptist are Protestants. If you can show the historical evidence that their were 'Baptistic churches' in the first centuries of Christianity, please provide the proof. None????? Really????

You are not that dense. They are certainly closer to Protestants than Catholics, but Baptists did not come out of the RCC (thank the Lord), we have no hierarchy, and are autonomous.

The best thing you could do is be truthful about your denomination.

 

[saturneptune]

Cutting and Pasting Catholic apologetic materials wouldn't be allowed on this board, but you can put this nonsense up??? Why don't you formulate your own ideas!

And it should not be allowed on this Board. This is a Baptist Board. The cut and paste says exactly what I said in earlier posts, but since you chose not to believe it, here it is in rewritten form.

It seems very odd to me for a person who lists himself as a Baptist to be defending a religion based on a false interpretation of Scripture.

 

[saturneptune]

First of all, I have made it quite clear that I no longer attend a Baptist church and attend the Catholic Church. This board makes it imposible to change the denomination you were affiliated with when you join the board. Secondly, I'm here because this is a debate board and this is the proper forum for debating other Christian faiths. I know you think the Catholic Church is the Great Whore and that your are rabidly anti-Catholic. I won't go away because you want me too. If the moderators wish me banned, they will do so, not you. You just tried to be clever in your statement that questioned my salvation so YOU are the one that needs to read the rules of this forum.

I do not believe I questioned your salvation, in fact, in many of my posts, I stated that many Catholics are saved despite their church. Either you cannot read or you dropped out in the third grade.

 

[Moriah]

What, are you pee wee herman? Everytime I call you on something you did to me, you try to reflect it back on me?/ third grade much? That reflecting, diversionary tactic abuse, is a note to seriously consider issues from the narcissistic family of behaviors. Meant in the medical way of course. I KNOW THEY SAY ANY BC IS WRONG1. I'm the one that explained why. You are the one making comments to me, as if they were big bad arguments, but only show you have no comprehension of what I said, or what you are talking about?
SOMEONE HELP ME OUT, DO WE HAVE AN ignore user option? And sorry for the 2nd caps. Thumb typing from my phone.

You cannot stop yourself can you? I know you cannot. I see I get you all stirred up when the truth is spoken. There is help for that. Obey God through Jesus.

To declare the Cath's as apostate only proves you feel you are inherently better and more holy than them. Yet another narcissistic behavior.

I understand you cannot stop yourself from name calling and attacking others. I will proceed regardless of what is going on in you and around you.
If you think that God is just as pleased with those who do not obey Him, then read about God’s wrath, read about what God is going to do to those who keep sinning against Him.
If there are any Christians in the Catholic Church, they must come out of her.
Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have very strong disagreements with the RCC on many things -- but I cannot say they are an apostate church. I can say that about many mainline denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, USA; the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

At least the RCC is a pro-life church and upholds traditional morality.

 

[Moriah]

I have very strong disagreements with the RCC on many things -- but I cannot say they are an apostate church. I can say that about many mainline denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, USA; the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

At least the RCC is a pro-life church and upholds traditional morality.

Hi Michael,

What do you think makes a church an apostate church?

The Catholics call their pope “Holy Father,” is that not blasphemous in your eyes? Holy Father is a name reserved for God, Jesus calls God "Holy Father."

The Catholics make statues and pictures in which they bow to them, and stand near them to wait for healing, is that not against the command of God in your eyes?

The Catholics call Mary the mother of Jesus the Co Redeemer and Mediatrix. God’s word says there is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. Do you think the Catholics are doing right by calling Mary Mediatrix?

Do you not think that the Catholic Church has abandoned the Word of God to follow their own way? If you say yes, then that is what makes one apostate.

 

[Walter]

I have very strong disagreements with the RCC on many things -- but I cannot say they are an apostate church. I can say that about many mainline denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, USA; the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

At least the RCC is a pro-life church and upholds traditional morality.

I live right next to an Episcopal Church. I would not walk across the street to hear a sermon preached in the local Episcopal Church. The pastor is a universalist who denies the diety of Christ and says 'resurrection is the spirit of Jesus living on in the lives of His followers.' The local UCC and American Baptist churches pastors seem to think this gal is 'the bomb', supporting that churches stand against the faithful ACNA churches that have withdrawn from TEC. Yet, many of the people on this board would rather cozy up to her than to listen to anything a Catholic might say.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hi Michael,

What do you think makes a church an apostate church?

The Catholics call their pope “Holy Father,” is that not blasphemous in your eyes? Holy Father is a name reserved for God, Jesus calls God "Holy Father."

The Catholics make statues and pictures in which they bow to them, and stand near them to wait for healing, is that not against the command of God in your eyes?

The Catholics call Mary the mother of Jesus the Co Redeemer and Mediatrix. God’s word says there is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. Do you think the Catholics are doing right by calling Mary Mediatrix?

Do you not think that the Catholic Church has abandoned the Word of God to follow their own way? If you say yes, then that is what makes one apostate.

I believe that the RC has departed from the truth in many ways.

But to address just one of your points: Yes, I believe it is wrong to call any man "Holy Father", but I think it is also wrong for Baptists and others to call their pastors "Reverend". I am ordained into the "historic episcopate", but I do not accept being called "Reverend", or any such artificial title, especially not anything that should be reserved unto God alone. On this, I agree with the Primitive Baptists, Churches of Christ, and Quakers.

 

[saturneptune]

I live right next to an Episcopal Church. I would not walk across the street to hear a sermon preached in the local Episcopal Church. The pastor is a universalist who denies the diety of Christ and says 'resurrection is the spirit of Jesus living on in the lives of His followers.' The local UCC and American Baptist churches pastors seem to think this gal is 'the bomb', supporting that churches stand against the faithful ACNA churches that have withdrawn from TEC. Yet, many of the people on this board would rather cozy up to her than to listen to anything a Catholic might say.

I would not listen to either. Do they transsubstantiate also?

 

[Moriah]

I believe that the RC has departed from the truth in many ways.

But to address just one of your points: Yes, I believe it is wrong to call any man "Holy Father", but I think it is also wrong for Baptists and others to call their pastors "Reverend". I am ordained into the "historic episcopate", but I do not accept being called "Reverend", or any such artificial title, especially not anything that should be reserved unto God alone. On this, I agree with the Primitive Baptists, Churches of Christ, and Quakers.

I do not believe a person should be called Reverend either.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do not believe a person should be called Reverend either.

At Least you're consistent even though you've claim to no longer sin.

 

[Moriah]

At Least you're consistent even though you've claim to no longer sin.

When and where have I claimed I never sin?
Do I sin all day every day? No.
Have I given up sins? Of course, I have.
Do I enjoy sin? No, I am completely changed in the way of sin.
I offer my body as a living sacrifice as my spiritual act of worship that is what true worshipers are commanded to do.

 

[Catalyst]

What is perposterous is getting Protestants and Baptists mixed up. Neither group is as far gone at the RCC, but there are differences.

Right, because we all know, baptists aren't protestants... the RCC left the baptists. I get it. :| That's a rather dishonest statement. By definition both groups have gone further than the RCC. But only those that do the leg work, and not parrot what other lemmings have said before them will understand that.

The RCC is universal, visible
The Protestant churches are universal, invisible
Baptist churches are local, visible

Not even sure what this means. The RCC is more local than baptists are, they are everywhere. They are more active in the world than the Baptists are as well.

Three distinct entities. Granted, Protestants and Baptists are very close. How can you say the RCC is not a threat to the NT church when they claim to be the true church and at the same time worship saints and confess sins to a priest among many other practices?

Because scripture says to confess to another man and he can forgive you. Because scripture says confession is a requirement for forgiveness after atonement. And because Ephesians 4 describes a Church to lead the people, not a people to lead the Church. That's RCC one point, PROTESTANTS 0 points for being scriptural.

You are right, we are not to cause dissention within the church. I take that to mean a local church, under the will of the Lord. I do not take that to mean not to point out flaws with a circus that claims to be the one true church.

Why do you want people to point the finger at your circus.

You've obviously never studied the way scripture defines the church. Maybe that would be a good thread, it seems there is a lot of lack of information on the topic. Historically, biblically, and idealogically, the RCC is closer to what is described than your local baptist church.

And I'm not denigrating the Baptists, I grew up SBC. But, facts are facts.

Oh, and I'm not RCC, I'd rather argue against them than for them. But, wrong is wrong. No one will ever learn otherwise if no one ever shows them there are other reads.

BTW, your comment above, "I take that to mean local church...." Is a great example of eisegetically rewriting scripture to suit your needs. Rome doesn't do that, they have the opposite problem.

There is no reason in scripture, just one in your emotions and hunches, to apply that to a local church not the corporte universal church. If it didn't apply to the universal church, JOHN wouldn't have addressed the gnostic threat, and Paul wouldn't have addressed the Circumcision group. AND you wouldn't be putting down the RCC. Which you do because they cause, in your eyes, a wrong picture of Xianity. The fact you want them to conform, contradicts your claim over the local vs universal church.

Such ironies and contradictions as that, take a LOT away from your argument.