Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[smcllr3]

I'm sorry. I couldn't cite word for word everything in order but I can definitely scan it in my head now and find just about anything, which was frustrating last year when all I had in my head was the NT and a basic outline of the OT. I read the OT over and over for the past year because I was weak on it. When I say I memorized it I mean that I'm completely familiar with the wording of all the passages in the NASB and have an outline in my head as to where everything is. I know it enough to tell that the wording was different, which gives cause for pausing and checking it out.

Anyway, that's what I meant. Nothing spectacular.

[popeman]

"The position stated by the leaders of those Bible studies does not reflect the Protestant position."....EXCELLENT POINT!

Who does reflect the Protestant position? Steve, Karen, Darin, that guy...who? Since the answer is "none of them" then this topic is a dead issue because never (unless you can find one) has any Protestant authority sat down for a powwow, a synod, a council and decreed for the Protestant faith that these books are canonical.

At least the Catholic faith will write it down and show some history to support that. Peace Popeman

[steve]

Popeman,

I guess you and I are looking for different things in a belief system.

You, apparently, are looking for a system hammered out for you by a group of men, who call their system "Roman Catholicism," and you think I must be looking for some group of authorities who will work out for me a system of beliefs called "Protestantism."

No wonder you are jousting at windmills here!

I don't think anyone at this forum is looking for any such thing! I have no loyalty to some system called "Protestantism." Neither I, nor anyone I know, has the slightest interest in representing for you an "official Protestant position." If I were to seek a religious system, there are thousands from which to choose, and a thorough appraisal of the merits of each of them would take more than the years I have left of my life.

I have always been satisfied with Jesus. He did not, as far as I can find in the gospels, ever set up a religious system. He called men to follow Him as His disciples. That is not a very complex thing to do. It requires only that I submit to His lordship, take "His yoke" upon me, and "learn from Him" for the rest of my life (Matt.11:29). There is no pressure to get everything sorted out all at once. Obeying His commandments is the primary assignment, and that means to love God supremely, and to love others as He does. It's not a difficult yoke—most of the time it's even fun (to someone who defines "fun" as I do, at least). Let those who wish to be "Protestants" bicker as long as they wish with those who wish to be "Roman Catholics." It seems almost entirely a waste of time, to me—and a distraction too! I will follow Jesus. You will follow whomever you choose.

[popeman]

You mention you've read the Bible many times and have memorized much (but not all) but you realize some wording is different. Does that not give you even more than simply reason to pause but rather to run to the history books? The books "Crossing the Tiber" and "Born Again Catholic" are two baptist preachers that became Catholic Christians after doing some history study. You are too strong a Protestant to convert but reading/reviewing the mere footnotes in these two books will give you a deep idea of where Tom and I and other Catholics are coming from.

If Protestants state they have the true scripture then show Catholics how this can be. The Bible is the most published book since replications/publications could occur. This is a huge book and an exteremely influencial book that people died for. Does is not seem plausable that someone, some synod, some council sat down and discussed a canon of scripture? The idea that maybe it fell from the sky is a little skeptical but that is pretty much all i get from Protestants. Especially in light of all the heretical faiths that have run around you'd think that someone wrote about the books of the bible in the earliest years?

Our Constitution is several hundred years old and influences the USA enormously and other countries marginally. The Constitution has been written about so much as to its articles/amendments that it could fill numerous libraries. The Bible has been around for 2000+ years and has influenced the WORLD (not just the the USA) in ways that make the Constitution look like a comic book, so don't you think someone wrote down the Christian/canonized books we are to use in our worship of Jesus Christ?

You would think that if Catholic Christian Scripture were heretical/off-base to endorse poor doctrine that a protestant council would have been convened and a scripture canon would have been decreed. What did the early Christians do when heretical faiths started popping up? Do you think that they may have sat down as a they did in Acts 15 (1st council) to decide on a Christian canon?

Protestants are quick to note that Jesus was the 1st born therefore the assumption was there was a 2nd born (the argument against catholics who believe that mary was ever virgin), so if we run with that then don't you think that if there was a 1st council meeting in Acts 15, that there may have been a 2nd council meeting? Not all Christian history is in scripture.

I applaud you and your scripture reading but do not be like our JW and allow them to be scripturally authoratative just because they read/memomrized scripture when in fact they changed significant parts. The earliest Christian councils/synods are out there, as well as, numerous Christian authors that state what the Bible books are. Peace, Popeman

[popeman]

I beg to differ. The Catholic Christians on this site authoring/reading herein want that doctrinal foundation because that is where true Christian historical roots are. Whether you, or others, state you are not Protestants, you are. If it drives like a car, has four wheels and honks like a car...its a car. You and others are Protestants.

The windmill analogy is a better analogy for you because you are picking a choosing your doctrinal beliefs which also brings you to odds with many Protestant preachers that are of the opinion you are wrong. The windmill spins and their is no steadfast foundation to build a one faith, a one belief because you and others continual change your belief system/doctrine. The historical Protestant was one who "protests" against the Catholic Christian doctrine, but as time has gone on it also denotes one that "protests' against other Protestants. Again, history will prove me right as we look at Luther, then Calvin, then Zwingli, then...etc. It never has stopped has it? You are caught in that windmill fighting me and Protestants. I have a firm foundation I can rely on, you can't. No, you can not rely on your Bible because there is no history to its canonization. Your argument makes JWs right, too.

Your excuse that you have "Jesus" is admirable but a very loose canon (in both ways!). It allows you to singularly decree what is true and what is right. It appears you have done well with that attitude. But what did Timothy do when he asked Paul when in doubt what should he do to determine how he should conduct himself as a Christian? 1 Tim 3:15 states it well... "...you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

Timothy was a Bishop (that's huge!) but he still asks how he should conduct himself? That is an all-encompassing question. Conduct applies to one-on-one relationships and also how he shall worship God and study Scripture. Timothy, the bishop, is told to look to the church for guidance.

The church is a body/assembly of people (you, me and this forum). It is also an authoratative body (Acts 15). Paul would not tell Timothy to go to the body/assembly of Christians to see how he should conduct himself or he'd be like this forum opinion....all over the place...no firm foundation. The Church is the foundation not the Christian assemblies opinion.

I beg you or the other Protestants (yes, you are Protestants so bear with me) please show me the Protestant history from 100 to 1517 AD? Christ Peace, Popeman

[smcllr3]

Well don't applaud. I have hardly done my duty.

Does that not give you even more than simply reason to pause but rather to run to the history books?

I'm not trying to guess whether I have the true OT scripture but that if I did, how do you think it would change my doctrinal beliefs? And do you think it is necessary for me to read other non-canonical history books to obey Jesus' commandments?And If it changed my doctrinal beliefs and I knew the history from the non-canonical history books, how would that change my obedience to Jesus? If not, why should I pursue them? I'm looking for substance in your suggestions. There has to be an end that I'm trying to reach that might be skewed if I continue the way I'm going in order for your suggestions to make sense.

I hope I worded this correctly enough.

sorry if it turns to babble there at the end.

Thank you,
Sam

[steve]

Popeman,

You give the distinct impression that you either did not read, did not understand, or have forgotten what I said in my last couple of replies to you. This becomes frustrating—not that we disagree, but that you do not know why we disagree.

You wrote (to me):

that you have "Jesus" is admirable...It allows you to singularly decree what is true and what is right.

How does this follow? If I am following Jesus, it does not give me the power to "decree what is true and what is right." You apparently do not realize that, when you surrender to the lordship of Jesus Christ, it is forever afterward He who decrees what is "true" and what is "right." You simply obey.

Many Catholics have told me that I need for the church hierarchy to interpret what Jesus said, before I can follow Him. Really? When the disciples followed Jesus around in Galilee, who interpreted for them what Jesus said to them?

You Catholics, I think, make Jesus' teachings out to be more mysterious than they really are! Jesus did not speak to trained theologians. He spoke to His disciples as the plain, unschooled peasants that they were, and expected them to understand Him. Why do you think that uneducated fishermen could understand the teachings of Jesus at the time they were given, but nowadays only trained theologians can really understand them? Could it be, perhaps, that it takes a trained theologian to really misunderstand such plain teachings?

Any necessary thing that the disciples did not understand when Jesus was here, He promised they would learn directly through the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, after His departure (John 14:26; 16:12-13). Then John tells us all that we have the same privilege of being led into all truth by the same Spirit who resides in us—rendering any dependence upon human teachers obsolete (1 John 2:27; cf.Heb.8:10-11). I don't really think you will look up these verses, but you ought to. They tell us that following Jesus, especially now that we possess His Spirit, does not require that we depend upon human teachers. The teachers in the church are human teachers, so John must be referring to the likes of them (I should say "us," since I are one!)..

You have defined a "Protestant" thus:

The historical Protestant was one who "protests" against the Catholic Christian doctrine, but as time has gone on it also denotes one that "protests' against other Protestants.

…after which, you say that I am a Protestant, even though your definition does not describe my position. My religious convictions did not arise and are not sustained as a protest against Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other ism, but against the devil himself and his kingdom. You don't seem to understand that not everyone develops his beliefs in the context of the Catholic/Protestant controversy—nor even pays more than a passing notice to the controversy. I grew up in a Protestant denomination. I left it years ago, but not in protest against it. In my following of Jesus, I just outgrew any interest in denominations of any kind. This is not a protest. It is indifference.

Of course, when asked, I can tell you what I think is wrong with any given denomination, just as you can tell me what you think is wrong with them. However, I am no more "protesting" against them than you are! If we both are equally doing so, then I guess that makes both of us "Protestants," by your definition.

I have no idea why you say that my faith has “no foundation” upon which to stand, when Jesus is the true foundation of the Church (1 Cor.3:11), and my knowledge of Him comes from exactly the same New Testament canon as the one you use. Do you read different gospels from the ones I read? All four of them are in both of our Bibles.

Your reference to Timothy is somewhat perplexing on two accounts:

First, because you say he was a "bishop." There is no scripture referring to him by this title. Rather, he is referred to, along with Paul, as an "apostle"(1 Thess.1:1 with v.6). Like Paul, Timothy appointed bishops (1 Tim.3:1ff). This means his role was something other than theirs—more authoritative.

Second, because you say that Paul directed Timothy to go to the church to learn how to behave in the church. I can find no place where Paul gave any such instructions. You cite 1 Timothy 3:15, but this verse hardly makes any point like yours. You quoted a portion of the verse, and even the portion you quoted said nothing to your purpose. I will quote the whole verse from American Standard Version. Paul wrote to Timothy (finishing-off a sentence begun in the previous verse):

"…but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

"I write" is borrowed from the previous verse, since the present verse has no subject or predicate verb, and presupposes the same subject and predicate from the beginning of the sentence, in the previous verse.

I do not see any instructions here about going to the church for answers about how to behave. I see Paul referring to his own letters (scripture) as the authoritative instructions for proper conduct in the church.

And this is where I myself go for answers. I go to Paul's writings, and those of the other apostles as well. If you were to make these documents your primary source of instruction, then you would do well.

One example of proper conduct in the church, found in this very same chapter, is the qualifications for bishops. Paul lays it out as a necessary qualification for bishops that they be married (1 Tim.3:2). Is that how bishops conduct themselves in your church? If not, then they apparently are not looking for their answers in the same place that Paul told Timothy to find his...are they?

[Paidion]

Popeman, you have made up your mind that we are all Protestants, so I guess there's no purpose served in claiming otherwise. "Convince a man against his will; he's of the same opinion still."

Ok, then let us ask the forum. Who has the truest version of the OT Bible, the Protestants or the Catholics? Naturally, I believe that the Catholic Christian OT Bible is the truest version of OT Scripture because Protestants took several books/parts from the Bible. If you disagree with that tell me why your Protestant OT Bible is more correct.

This Catholic-Protestant dichotomy is clearly balonian.

The most "Protestant Bible" of all, the original 1611 KIng James Version, included the Deuterocanonical books.

[tom]

Karen,

I've been wanting to reply to your post for awhile now.

Hi Tom!

"Whoever hears my words and does them are my disciples". My Church.

Yes this is a true disciple but not the Church. They are part of the Church. A better quote would be from Luke 10, "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come....He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." The Church!

Tom

[steve]

Tom,

Are you aware of any non-Catholic disciples who despise the seventy that Jesus sent out in that passage? I have not run across any.