church_me

Answering Protestants ^ | 7 March 2014 | Matthew Olson

[matthewrobertolson]

Only trusting the Bible without the Church would be like loving "Romeo & Juliet" and hating Shakespeare's explanation of it.

"Follow" me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/crucifixwearer

"Like" Answering Protestants on Facebook: http://facebook.com/AnsweringProtestants

Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+: http://plus.google.com/106938988929282894016

"Subscribe" to my YouTube videos: http://youtube.com/user/crucifixwearer

[Jim Noble]

Brother, your heart’s in the right place, but Shakespeare never explained his plays, and much of the commentary on them in the last 400 years has developed into an understanding that would not have been possible in 1608.

[daniel1212]

Again from the Gospel of John -- the leadership of Peter: John 21:15-19 -- it is in your Bible isn't it? Why don't you believe these things?

This is typical RC egregious extrapolation, as neither the apostolic foundation or Peter's leadership does not translate into an perpetuated Petrine papacy, with the whole church looking to Peter and successors as its infallible head. Instead, both Peter and the apostles are contrary to Rome.

Nowhere in Scripture do we see an apostolic successor except for Judas which was to maintain the number of the 12, (Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political means of casting lots. (Acts 1:15ff) And rather than supporting apostolic succession, the Holy Spirit never mentions any successor for the apostle James who was martyred (Acts 12:1,2)

Peter is not confirmed to be the rock upon which Christ built His church, but the Christ of Peter's confession is. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

Nowhere is the church exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head, much less in Rome (and is not even mentioned in Paul's list of acquaintances in Rm. 16).

Peter fades from view after Acts 15, and Paul himself called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that make him as a pope. (See parody, 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy )

While Peter was the brethren type leader among the 12, and exercised a general pastoral role, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19) and exercised contrary to Rome's presumption.(1Cor. 5; James 5)

NT pastors are never titled priests, or shown teaching or dispensing physical bread to gain spiritual and eternal life by, or hearing Christian confessions and granting forgiveness, and in the only instance of a possible convert doing so, then he was himself told to pray to God for forgiveness, which is what the Lord Himself taught.

More can be given if you were really interested in warrant for belief, versus simply continually posting and pasting papal propaganda.

[daniel1212]

sure it did...only the Catholic church was there at the time. They edited it, wrote it, copied it (by hand), and preserved it through 2,000 years so that you would have it to enjoy.....say "Thanks Catholics"!!!

That is amazing, since most of Scripture existed before there was a church even in Rome, while making the NT church into that of Rome today is two different things .

But i am interested in the polemical logic behind this oft-repeated we-gave-you-the-Bible assertion. Are you arguing that being the steward of Scripture makes them the infallible authority on it, so that those who dissent from them are rebels against God? And if this is not the argument, then what worth is the assertion at issue?

It also follows that if this statement is supposed to provide warrant to submit to the magisterium of Rome, then no one could have assurance of Truth, and of writings being Scripture, before they decreed what this and what they were. Affirm or deny?

[Mr Rogers]

“You read the Bible because the Catholic Church compiled it, and decided what would be put in that Bible.”

Hmmm...so the Catholic Church’s list of scripture agrees with Protestants?

“One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html

[daniel1212]

Strange. They were given to Peter by Christ. Why wouldn’t they exist in heaven where Peter opens and closes the gate?

Yikes. Where is it even officially taught that Peter is in Heaven actually opening and closing the gate, or have you moved beyond what Rome actually teaches, while censoring others for teaching what Rome does not officially say?

As far as the keys being given to Peter, this goes with binding and loosing, and which was not simply given to Peter, but to all the disciples the Lord addressed in Mt. 18:18.

And the "keys" are manifestly the gospel of salvation, by faith in which the believer is translated into the kingdom of Christ.

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" (Colossians 1:13)

Peter was the first to use them in Acts 2, while Paul was the chief evangelist, theologian, and writer, whom your pope reportedly said laid down the cornerstones of the Christian faith and creed.

[daniel1212]

Even the protestant’s great hero Luther said without Catholics there would have been no Bible. A little respect is due.

That's all you want, is a little respect? The problem is not only that the church of Rome today is critically and otherwise different than the NT church, but regardless, the often repeated we-gave-you-the-Bible assertion, if it is to have any real import, seems to be arguing that being an instrument and steward of Scripture makes such the infallible authority on it, so that those who dissent from these stewards are rebels against God. Affirm or deny?

I keep asking this because RCs keep making this polemical assertion, but will not answer my question as to its import.

[NKP_Vet]

“I keep asking this because RCs keep making this polemical assertion”

You mean the assertion that if not for the Catholic Church there would be no Bible? Not an assertion, it’s fact. Something that drives Catholic-hating protestants crazy. Protestants can’t change history. Deal with the truth and move on.

[daniel1212]

My brain hurts from trying to understand that analogy. Maybe if I were Catholic; it would all make sense?

Its a superficial apologetic meant to get blog hits to more of the same. He is looking to become a priest, based on ecclesiology that is contrary to how the NT church began, and even though NT pastors are never distinctively called that apart from the general priesthood of all believers, which is the only one the first "pope" described. (1Pt. 2:5,9)

Matthew:

[NKP_Vet]

“so the Catholic Church’s list of scripture agrees with Protestants”.

You have that backwards. Protestants agree with the Bible and what Catholics said is devinely inspired scripture. You have the Bible to read because of the Catholic Church. End of story. Move on. You can’t change history. The Bible is a Catholic document. The only scripture that PROTESTants do not agree with it are the books that King Luther took out of the Bible, BECAUSE HE DIDN’T AGREE, with them being there.

[daniel1212]

You mean the assertion that if not for the Catholic Church there would be no Bible?

Either you lack comprehension or you are avoiding the issue. Now read again very carefully,

The problem is not only that the church of Rome today is critically and otherwise different than the NT church, but regardless, the often repeated we-gave-you-the-Bible assertion, if it is to have any real import, seems to be arguing that being an instrument and steward of Scripture makes such the infallible authority on it, so that those who dissent from these stewards are rebels against God.

Affirm or deny???

Protestants can’t change history. Deal with the truth and move on.

The problem is that history is contrary to your version, as even RC research evidences , besides Roman forgeries , and thus the real basis for your assurance is that history is only what Rome says it is. Thus Manning's classic response,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.. . — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227 .

Rome has attempted to conform history to support her, and you are supporting lies. Deal with the truth and move on.

[Mr Rogers]

“Protestants agree with the Bible and what Catholics said is devinely inspired scripture.”

Since Protestants reject the Apocrypha, we obviously do NOT have the same list. Indeed, Jerome did not accept the Apocrypha for use in doctrine, which would mean it wasn’t scripture.

The canon of the New Testament was not decided by any church council. In fact, the Catholic Church did not make a formal declaration on the canon until the 1500s...and then they screwed up their list, accidentally deleting 3 passages from the Apocrypha. That in turn forced them to come up with a new term to describe the Apocrypha minus the 3 passages they had accepted for 1000 years but forgot to list at Trent.

[xone]

You’re right.....this indicates Holy Tradition. That many truths were passed down face to face, person to person and they aren’t necessarily recorded in the Bible.

For the sake of argument, I'll concede tradition, however, none of that unwritten tradition has a salvatory element. The written portion of John contains the elements necessary for salvation. The Catholic church stands in opposition to that.

[Salvation]

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

The Bible Reborn
Where We Got The Bible
Some Biblical Truths
The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
How to Read the Bible – A Three Step Plan (written for Catholics - valid for all)
Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
The Canon of Scripture [Ecumenical]
To understand Bible, one must understand its nature, pope says
Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[xone]

the protestant’s great hero Luther said without Catholics there would have been no Bible. A little respect is due.

And Luther had respect for the church that preached the Word and for the many great men that faithfully followed the ways of God as I do. I would be reading the Bible today whether the Catholic church had been designated to shepherd it or not. God said He would preserve His Word. So He did. That should be a designation of honor humbly accepted, like Mary did in her role in salvation. It doesn't mean that the Catholic church has had a beneficial effect on the spreading of the Gospel in later years, as it works show.

[Salvation]

**The Catholic church stands in opposition to that. **

In opposition to what? Scripture? No. Tradition? No

Why do you try to tell me what to believe or what Catholics believe? How do you know?

[xone]

Why do you try to tell me what to believe or what Catholics believe? How do you know?

Because I can read, because the Catholic church codifies everything but its Tradition. Depending on the source, there are between 250+ to 400+ dogmas of the Catholics. Non-disputable as a Catholic, that they are require to adhere to lest they become estranged from the church and be denied heaven. Some of this dogma has arisen in the last 500 years some within the last 150.

If this required work was covered in the Gospel of John, you know the verse that says "31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.", there wouldn't be anything left in John but an exposition of this dogma. Since most of it isn't there in one form or another, it CANNOT be required for salvation.

Yet the Catholic church burdens its members with it. Even the Pharisees who had 600 odd additional laws, never claimed to speak infallibly in the place of God, denying salvation where the Gospel says otherwise. While both teach a works righteousness, one based on the Law, the other support of the organization, they both contravene the clear words of God on the subject.

[xone]

In opposition to what? Scripture? No. Tradition? No

Some of your 'Tradition' stands opposed not only to what scripture says, but also dogma of the Catholic church. Now since 'Tradition' isn't codified it can't be 'enforced' so to speak. But that stance isn't in concert with scripture either, because it causes confusion.

[Salvation]

**Now since ‘Tradition’ isn’t codified it can’t be ‘enforced’ so to speak. But that stance isn’t in concert with scripture either, because it causes confusion. **

Why do you continue to try to tell Catholics what to believe?

Good bye.

[NKP_Vet]

“Are you arguing that being the steward of Scripture makes them the infallible authority on it”

No, that authority comes from God.

[xone]

Why do you continue to try to tell Catholics what to believe?

Not telling them what to believe, comparing 'what' they already claim to believe versus the errors of the 'Tradition'. Recently, there was posted a 'tradition' regarding Mary's death. Despite the fanciful 'transportation' of the Apostles physically to her at that time, the story also told of Christ Himself in the body attending for a time.

Catholics confess about Christ death burial and resurrection, ascension: 'From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead'. No mention of from thence....and attend to His mother's impending funeral.

Catholics rightly speak of Christ's second Coming, but the 'tradition' if held would mean the 2nd coming was the 3rd. Perhaps Catholics should spend more time with their own teachings before they attempt to defend them here.