Why do Fundamentalists Condemn Catholics for taking Scripture at Face Value? [Archive]

LivingWordUnity

16th July 2007, 10:03 PM

Why do Fundamentalists always accuse Catholics of having a "non-Biblical" faith while, at the same time, Fundamentalists will condemn Catholics for taking the Bible at face value?

Some examples include:

1) The Holy Eucharist (a.k.a. "The Lord's Supper"):
Matt. 26:26-29
Mark 14:22-25
Luke 22:19-20
Luke 24:30-31
John 6:48-56
1 Cor. 11:23-31

2) Calling Mary blessed:
Luke 1:48

3) We are to mark the Saints and to Imitate Them
Phil. 3:17

4) The Primacy and Infallibility of Peter
Matt. 16:18-19 (cross reference with Isaiah 22:20-23)
Luke 22:32
John 21:17
Acts 1:15
Acts 2:14
Acts 4:8
Acts 10:44

5) Apostolic Succession
Acts 1:20
Acts 8:18
Romans 10:14-15

6) Authority of the Church
Matt. 9:8 (God gives authority to forgive sins to men)
Matt. 18:15-18

7) Hierarchy of the Church (not all are in authority)
1 Cor. 12:27-30
Romans 12:4
Romans 13:1-2

8) Infallibility of the Church
John 16:13
1 Tim. 3:15

9) Death does not separate us from God
John 8:51
Eph. 3:15
Luke 23:43
Luke 20:37-38
Matt. 22:32
Mark 12:26-27

10) Angels and Saints are in Heaven and Interceding for us, taking our Prayers to God
Matt. 18:10
Rev. 5:1-8
Rev. 8:3-4

11) Moses is commanded by God to make statues
Exodus 25:18–20
Numbers 21:8–9

12) Not by Faith Alone (Faith and Works)
James 2:20,24,26
Mark 8:34
Mark 13:13
Matthew 10:22
Matthew 10:38
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 25:41-46
John 14:15
Romans 11:22
Galatians 5:19-21
Hebrews 10:26
1 John 2:3-4,24

13) Bible plus
John 20:30
John 21:25
John 14:26
1 Cor. 11:2
2 Cor. 3:2-3
2 Thess. 2:15
2 Thess. 3:6
2 Tim. 2:2
2 Pet. 1:20
3 John 13

14) Greater and Lesser Sins (a.k.a. Mortal and Venial sins)
John 19:11
1 John 5:16-17
Matt. 12:32
Mark 3:29
Luke 12:10

15) Baptism washes away our sins, regenerates us, and renews us in the Holy Spirit
Acts 22:16
Titus 3:5

16) Baptism is done with water
Acts 8:36
Ezek 36:25-27

17) Baptism is done to everyone in the household without exception
Acts 16:15,33
Acts 2:39

18) Baptism is done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
Matt. 28:19

19) Baptism has taken the place of circumcision
Col. 2:11–12

20) And circumcision was normally done to infants
Genesis 17:12

21) But Baptism is universally for males and females
Galatians 3:27-28

22) All Roads Lead to Rome
Acts 19:21
Acts 23:11
Romans 1:7
Romans 1:15

Aibrean

16th July 2007, 11:24 PM

What about Papal infallibility when the Pope is definitely human and imperfect.

LivingWordUnity

16th July 2007, 11:35 PM

What about Papal infallibility when the Pope is definitely human and imperfect.Papal infallibility is not the same as impeccability. The Pope can sin, but the Holy Spirit keeps him from ever formally teaching any heresy. Peter was the first example of this.

By the way, development of doctrine is not the same as contradicting doctrine. For example, you will never see the Pope do something like deny the Holy Trinity.

The Pope can develop an existing doctrine and officially define it as dogma, but he can't invent one out of thin air. For example, the dogmas about Mary were based on Scripture and what was always the Tradition about her from the first centuries of the Church.

Spiritofprophecy

3rd August 2007, 04:09 AM

Greetings in the name of Jesus. :hug:
:)
First I would like to say Catholics of faith are as Christian as any Christian. God bless the layman Catholic.

living word Unity. Said.
"The pope can sin, But the Holy spirit keeps him from formally teaching any heresy".

Excuse me for saying this; but that quote to my understanding, is pure heresy. First you admit the Pope is Human and not perfect and can sin: amen well said. But then comes the heresy to protect evil if evil exists. And with man it always exists. But your telling us, That God, which is the spirit, Prevents the pope from teaching heresy. I would have added the formally or Informally teaching, if your can explain how popes can do one without the other? As if popes can teach Informally.

That goes with the anti christian theology of Catholicism. to say. the pope is perfect without error in theological things. Thats heresy. And to say the spirit prevents him from teaching heresy. Which is false doctrine. Then its saying the pope always teaches theology correctly. Only Jesus does that. And even Peter whom you claim descendance: was in error, and corrected by Paul about Gentiles being accepted into the Church. If Peter had his way; no gentile could be saved. And would be no Catholic church. For the record: of Popes not teaching heresy. Then the world is flat, and only 6000 years old, as Popes taught, and Copernicus and Galileo. Were theologically wrong, and deserved condemnation for saying other. You make all Catholics look bad in this.

You also spoke of how people criticize Catholics for standing on the word. remind me. Which religion of man or denomination, Had Only Latin Bibles for hundreds of years. And something called reformation brought the bibles to the masses. Which denomination was that, which stood between man, and the word, separated by priest and monks.

And the History is empirically true and sure about Popes in the middle ages which rivaled the Caesars in depravity.

Each man should be Judge individually; and this Pope , who knows. Now the pope who Just died: was a sure man of God. He was a the Greatest Pope. Which is only my opinion.

Governor Frank Keating Life long Catholic and deacon of church Known for Honesty: Was appointed by arch Bishop in America, to Investigate Priests and Child abuse in America. And said that the Catholic leadership is unable and unwilling for self Correction, and to face its problems. As we see with Catholic paying for silence; is Now $2 billion dollars. Remember the Catholic Church, is the People and layman, Not the leaders. Nowhere Is this Kind of evil covered up, and facilitated as in Catholicism. This is true evil, and cannot be denied.

And if the Spirit Prevents in Catholicism as you say from heresy: you wouldn't have children Molested, and Leadership covering it up. These are Frank Keating, Catholic Deacon words and findings. He said he was obstructed from doing a proper Investigation and finding a solution. And As I said. He is respected by All faiths as honest and pure and sure in sight, Like Mother Teresa.

God showing that Catholic leadership cannot solve these problems: is God speaking to all, especially Catholics.

Now if a protestant pastor or leader is found to Molest a child, No protection or coverup money should ever be paid. And should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That protestant pastor would have abused his position of trust. And should pay a higher penalty than the average Joe.

To have a pastor or priest: caught in evil and crimes: should not be protected. Pastors and priest shouldn't be held to a lower standard of righteousness and on sin: but they should be held to a Higher standard, and be doing it better, than the average Joe. No pastor or Priest should be given a pass on evil; that the average Joe, is Jailed and condemned for. Thats my opinion.

I say Jesus would agree: for if you claim Jesus, and then do evil still; you cast blame and evil on Christ.

I say again. Catholic laymen and believers are second to None, better than most: And the Church is the people: But their leaders fail them; and they deserve better: And I pray, that these events that transpire will cause a new Catholic reformation of its policies and leaders.

I am sorry and ask forgiveness if I offend any one: But I am quoting from News papers, and Frank Keating, and truths. I spoke these things; to show the falsehood of Catholic perfection, claimed by this thread.

Catholic have some Great Doctrines rooted in truth: but perfection of theology, without teaching heresy: is one of their evils. And any church, who claims a perfection;
Is like the dinner bell for demons and evils to abuse the system with deceptions. The last pope would never admit to theological perfection. This is really bad.

I pray my words do not offend any: which I am sure they are: But I did not mean to offend people, but speak unto Institutional wrongs.
God bless C.F. and all who use it. :wave:
</IMG></IMG></IMG>

SumTinWong

3rd August 2007, 06:12 AM

"Why do Fundamentalists always accuse Catholics of having a "non-Biblical" faith while, at the same time, Fundamentalists will condemn Catholics for taking the Bible at face value? "
I am not a fundie, but i did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once so let me say that to qualify these observations.

First i do not think fundies say that you do not have a Biblical faith, but an extra-Biblical faith. They believe in Bible alone and do not agree with your assertions that traditions and teachings of the church are of equal value.

Now it IS a rather off thing that somethings on both sides are taken at face value and somethings are not, but what it boils down to is interpretation, and theirs does not agree with yours and in the sense that somethings that can be taken literally are in conflict with other things previously mentioned in the Bible (i.e. eating flesh and drinking blood were and are forbidden) under the old covenant fundies tend to side with caution.

Hope that helps but I think you probably just cut and pasted this from somewhere else and were looking to show your point rather than debate, am i right?

kepha31

4th August 2007, 10:02 AM

Excuse me for saying this; but that quote to my understanding, is pure heresy. First you admit the Pope is Human and not perfect and can sin: amen well said. But then comes the heresy to protect evil if evil exists. And with man it always exists. But your telling us, That God, which is the spirit, Prevents the pope from teaching heresy. I would have added the formally or Informally teaching, if your can explain how popes can do one without the other? As if popes can teach Informally.
You say this because you refuse to believe that impeccability is not the same as infallibility. Worse, you refuse to believe what infallibility means. If the Church is fallible, then no one can be sure the list of books of the New Testament is a true list. Infallibility is a gift from God, not something the Church invented for herself.
That goes with the anti christian theology of Catholicism. to say. the pope is perfect without error in theological things. Thats heresy. And to say the spirit prevents him from teaching heresy. Which is false doctrine. Then its saying the pope always teaches theology correctly.
Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

Only Jesus does that. And even Peter whom you claim descendance: was in error, and corrected by Paul about Gentiles being accepted into the Church. If Peter had his way; no gentile could be saved. And would be no Catholic church. For the record: of Popes not teaching heresy.

Because you have believed the confusion of human opinion. Paul did not correct Peter for his teaching, but for his behavior. Peter did not teach that one needed circumcision, and no where does Galatians say he did.
Then the world is flat, and only 6000 years old, as Popes taught, and Copernicus and Galileo. Were theologically wrong, and deserved condemnation for saying other. You make all Catholics look bad in this.
This is another anti-Catholic lie. The universities, owned and operated by the Church, had accepted scientific discoveries of heliocentricism long before Galileo. Gallileo was using science to disprove the bible, because the bible says “the sun rises and sets”. Galileo was interpreting the bible apart from the authority of the Church, and trying to prove it wrong, and he refused to shut up. He was also a friend of King Ferdinand, and if Galileo was mistreated, it would have been mentioned in their letters. Propaganda is powerful, isn't it?

You also spoke of how people criticize Catholics for standing on the word. remind me. Which religion of man or denomination, Had Only Latin Bibles for hundreds of years. And something called reformation brought the bibles to the masses. Which denomination was that, which stood between man, and the word, separated by priest and monks.

This is another anti-Catholic lie. Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
And the History is empirically true and sure about Popes in the middle ages which rivaled the Caesars in depravity.
Catholics don’t deny there were a few corrupt Popes. Please name what false teaching any of them proclaimed. While your at it, please justify the atrocities of your spiritual ancestors. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html) And what can we conclude? That some of both Catholic and Protestant leaders of the past were sinners?
Each man should be Judge individually; and this Pope , who knows. Now the pope who Just died: was a sure man of God. He was a the Greatest Pope. Which is only my opinion.
Yes, he was a great Pope. But Catholics revere the office more than the man. The present Pope, as with all Popes, are bound to the teachings of the former Pope, plus the Bible, Tradition, and former councils. That means infallibility is extremely limited, and grossly misunderstood.

Tell me at least one thing, Spiritofprophecy, how many lies does the Catholic Church propagate against your church?

kepha31

4th August 2007, 11:35 AM

July 26, 2007
FX’S “RESCUE ME” RIPS CATHOLICISM
In last night’s episode of the FX drama “Rescue Me,” Denis Leary’s character had an exchange with a new firefighter about the Bible. He said the Bible is to Catholics what “The Godfather” is to the Mafia. Continuing, Leary blasted the Catholic Church for being corrupt, maintaining that the 12 years he spent in the Church was effectively like being in prison. The biggest gangster on the face of the planet, he contended, was the pope.

Later in the episode, another firefighter returns to his apartment, one he shares with his girlfriend, a former nun. He finds her having sex—while wearing a habit—with his cousin.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:

“Imagine what would happen if every Catholic priest, nun, brother and lay person in the United States who volunteers his or her time in hospitals, clinics, hospices, after-school programs, camps, soup kitchens, day care centers, mental institutions and the like were to go on strike for one day. Would the Denis Learys of this world still be painting them as corrupt and oppressive, led by the world’s biggest gangster? Or would they suddenly realize the yeoman work these selfless people do every day?

“One more thing: What kind of creative genius at FX is responsible for portraying an ex-nun having sex with her habit on? Do they know of any ex-Muslim women who have sex wearing their hijab? For that matter, do they know of any imams who would make Al Capone look saintly? Why is it always us? Don’t these guys believe in diversity? Or could it be that they know, deep down in their hearts, that we are the one, true religion? After all, that would account for their dismissive attitude toward all the other competitors.”
http://www.catholicleague.org/ (http://www.catholicleague.org/)

Spiritofprophecy

4th August 2007, 08:21 PM

Greetings in the name of Jesus:
kepha

did I say Lie?

kepha31

4th August 2007, 08:46 PM

Spiritofprophecy

4th August 2007, 09:31 PM

No, you did not say "lie", but you posted them. You posted them because you, like most anti-Catholics, have never questioned the unceasing hate propaganda against the Catholic Church. It's a kind of spiritual pornography and it's very popular today because its a money maker, be it news articles, movies, books, web sites etc. There is not one "bible-Christian" web site that teaches the truth about Catholicism. Not one. Yet there are millions of them teaching lies about our faith.

Show me one Catholic web site that misrepresents, slanders, lies, or bears false witness against any other church. Truth has no need to disprove. If it does, it cannot be truth, because truth can stand on its own merits, and does not need to disprove anything.
greetings in the name of Jesus:

Dear Kepha: Wow, again you discern me poorly;

I will openly agree with you; that Catholics are unfairly persecuted and abused by the Media; More than Other denominations respectively? Probably yes, I always support Catholics when they are Mostly right. But when Catholics cannot admit evil, thats another evil. duh. or the word lies. This is for any denomination.

Ehh; again you, not the layman, are wrong and Judge me falsely.

And me: anti Catholic; Wrong, I love all bible versed catholics.

And Isaiah 14. says Lucifer is Man. Isaiah 14;16. Clearly saying it. And Nowhere says Angels. And you claim to hold to the word. Again proof positive you do err. I love thee and all Catholics, but you are blinded by faith not in Jesus and the word, but your avowed church, Catholicism. When Jesus is the Church, and so says the word. Amen.

I pray my words do not offend. God bless C.F. and all who use it.

Spiritofprophecy

4th August 2007, 09:37 PM

Greetings in the Name of Jesus:

Dear kapha: I challenge you to quote a lie I posted about catholicism. I will repent and ask for forgiveness is you so show: But you will not reciprocate if you post not the lies.

The fig leaf spoken of By Catholics: how can that be true if like you: say None but Catholics are saved.

What Christian group as a whole; Claims Catholics are all damned and not saved?..None Only Catholics leaders have this evil. Not shared by most laymen.

If you deny Us of salvation, then our meat and words you also will find contemptible; and communion and Fig leaf is a deception.

I pray my words do not offend, God bless C.F. and all who use it.

kepha31

4th August 2007, 10:32 PM

The fig leaf spoken of By Catholics: how can that be true if like you: say None but Catholics are saved.

This statement, "No salvation outside the Catholic Church" was first taught when there was only one Church in the 14th century, 300 years BEFORE the Reformation. Think hard. If there is only one Church, and if a person does not believe in Jesus, how can they be saved? Back in the 14th century, the only way a person could know Jesus was through the Catholic Church, because there were only Catholic Christians on the planet who could tell people about Jesus. The Catholic Church has expanded her definition of herself to INCLUDE all baptized believers as being saved. The Pope did NOT say non-Catholics are not saved, he said the opposite. The media hates the Church, and that is why they like to print lies.

this post of mine, #16, has more details
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37350078#post37350078 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37350078#post37350078)

This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." 269 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=817&FNoteNum=269) The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=817&FNoteNum=270) - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. 271 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=817&FNoteNum=271)

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." 272 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=818&FNoteNum=272)

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=819&FNoteNum=273) are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." 274 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=819&FNoteNum=274) Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, 275 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=819&FNoteNum=275) and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." 276 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=819&FNoteNum=276)

So what happened recently? The Pope made a statement to clarify the above. The official unadulterated statement is found here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)

The Catholic Church says those in these communities are our brothers and sisters.

They have "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

The Catholic Church formally declares that “…Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”

If a Catholic tells you only Catholics can be saved, tell them they don’t know their catechism.

Spiritofprophecy

5th August 2007, 12:57 AM

Greetings in the Name of Jesus:

dear Kapha;

Are you trying to be evasive or deceptive: which to say clearly. Do you not answer any questions? Only sticking to your proselytizing: and there is not discourse; but you showing us our absence of God and truth Salvation.

I spoke about the acceptance of each other as both equals in forum in the eyes of God, and the fig leaf is by those who seek an Honest and respectful discourse of God and bible and Jesus as all of the Church.

But some Catholics will not put forth an honest " fig leaf" without retaining their belief that these people (non Catholics)are without salvation: denying them validity.

Now I believe and will submit this is Heresy; Further more I shall also submit that any christian who believes that another christian who accepts Jesus but not their form of Jesus, Is not or cannot be saved. which is a form of heresy to Judge the salvation of others who claim Jesus.

And any Christian who does "Fruit tree"; Heresy Judgement. Must be banned from discourse in all rooms except their personal denomination. Which is probably Only Catholics.

Kepha I thank you for aiding me in finding proper solutions for heretical actions by Christians holding not to the word.

I pray my words Cause not distress or anger or offense by any: God bless C.F. and all who use it.

Aibrean

5th August 2007, 06:47 AM

Not by Faith Alone (Faith and Works).In reference to number 12 (the Lutheran view)

While faith should be done WITH works (i.e. faith without works is dead...if we are truly Christians we should want to do good works), it isn't necessary/required for salvation.

Romans 5:1-11
1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. 6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Roman 10:5-10
Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'(that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Romans 11:5-6
5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Phillipians 8b-9
that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

thereselittleflower

7th August 2007, 04:08 AM

I think the OP's question is quite profound.

Fundamentalists take a literal approach to biblical interpretation, yet they accuse Catholics of improper biblical interpretation when Catholics take the words of scritpure literally.

For intance, when Jesus says that we must eat His flesh, Catholics take this literally and are accused of error for doing so.

Yet fundamentalists insist on interpreting scripture literally.

It seems to be a clear double standard.

.

thereselittleflower

7th August 2007, 04:13 AM

Spiritofprophecy

7th August 2007, 03:23 PM

SpiritofProphecy, you confuse infallibility with impeccability.

Now, Peter was our first pope . . are you saying he didn't teach infallibly? He wrote scripture, right? Scripture is infallible, right?

Do you realize that the Catholic teaching of infallibility does not mean the pope is infallible in everything he says, but only in very specific, rare circumstances when the GIFT of infalliblity operates to protect the ancient teaching of the Christian faith?

Do you realize that just because this gift operates in the Office of the Pope WHEN NEEDED, that does not make the pope personally infallible or impeccable?

Do you realize that this gift operated in Peter, otherwise he could not have written scripture, and it didn't make him impeccable (ie sinless)?

You need to stop and consider what is being said instead of rushing to judgement. :)

.
Greetings in the name of Jesus:

Teaching and writing scriptures are two different things: and Yes peter did teach things which were wrong: which he was confronted by paul and was corrected: for peter believed and taught that only Jews were to have salvation: and paul correctly taught him, it was for all believers, which concept of Peter, wouldn't even allow Catholicism;. Also peter believed that some meats were not to be eaten and was corrected by the holy spirit.

Now if you seek to contend that popes today or at any time; are perfect in theological concepts and teachings. then your premise and concept and understanding in scriptures on perfection of men is false and rooted not in scriptures: furthermore, the concept that Men, popes or peter are perfect in teachings is no where taught or part of scriptures. Even the disciples needed each other to correct their misconceptions. God,makes perfect his words by omitting by time the false teachings not of God.

Now I was speaking to what "Gov. Frank Keating "a Catholic said. appointed by Catholic Church to Investigate child abuse in Catholic Church: and the conclusions were rejected. and All findings of the Catholic Frank Keating respected by all who respect truth, is Now Called Falsehoods and Hypocrisy:. your own people and faithful church layman, whom was appointed by Catholic Church, And accepted. And Now is demeaned and Insulted and called names for his conclusions.

This leadership problem in the Catholic Church is a Cancer, which if not removed shall continue to destroy the Church from within.

The evidence of Catholic americans wealth expansion, which is now denying funds to Catholic american coffers is Undeniable. Especially now after a 600 Million dollar payoff; buying silence, this month, to Catholic victims in America: is not this cause and reason Catholics so withhold donations to their Church which has failed them. I have read 20%: but Catholics are abused in the press: and one must Not believe many anti Catholic reports in press; but to reject offhand, Catholic laymen Leaders of Catholicism laymen, which views are different then Catholic priesthood leaders. Is rejection of laymen without Justification.

I believe God in his mercy will heal and correct, some how this breach in priesthood and laymen followers in his own way and time. I have no Idea how God will act: but Non catholic ministries are blowing away Catholicism in south america and Africa; which is different than in past. Must have Gods hand in it.

Catholics are great and wonderful People: but their leadership has failed them. and they deserve better.

Now since I am quoting Catholics, you may google. Then to call these things Falsehoods and Hypocrisy; is to call your own people these things. Believe me they are watching and listening.

May God continue to Bless Catholic laymen, and aid them in finding Gods healing and correction for their leadership.

I pray my words do not offend any one, God bless C.F. and all who use it.

Spiritofprophecy

7th August 2007, 03:33 PM

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

Dear Thereselittleflower:

I appologize for mixing my threads: I spoke to perfection of popes as your post mentioned. but I also spoke on " frank Keating" which in my haste; did mix two threads comments into both threads.

I am sorry for " Frank Keating comments" which were meant for another thread in this forum.

I pray that you be not offended, and Know I support all those who believe in Jesus.

God bless C.F. and all who use it.

Spiritofprophecy

7th August 2007, 04:30 PM

Greetings in the name of Jesus: :hug:

dear Kapha: after reading your comments, there is a lot of merit and validity in your words, but the premise is not accurate; Now if you say 300 years before the reformation; that the only Church is the Catholic Church. is false in two ways: first the word Church is not institution, but believers. And there were other believers besides Catholic. Now if we change the meaning of Church to mean Institutions and Buildings, then there is a merit of truth in there since the eastern churches were in disunity and dispersed. But many small institutions did still exist of Central authority in part. Coptic, for one. Its not accurate.

And also in the spirit of agreement,It was truth, there is cause for strong leadership offered by Catholicism which I always believed and still believe was Gods will; for those times. As if Catholicism were Christian soldiers of God for troubled times, to preserve Gods words to not return unto him void.

And yes the popes of late, especially this last pope who died: was greatly respected and believed from God by most Christians. But the concepts taught earlier of " Catholics Only Church for salvation" seems to still have great meaning and foundation in Catholics; spoken of right here in Christian Forum. And I also submit; if Popes are not perfect in theological matters; then the doctrine should be removed from Catholic leadership concepts. which is still there today. Lest popes are not flesh and blood along with spirit: then this concepts is totally anti scripture, and demeans Catholic leaderships validity on theological truths.

Now 500 years ago, the belief the world as flat, and 6000 years old was not seen as a Joke, as it is today: which rightfully Catholic leaders have rejected this old fallacy. But then, to say today: that any man can be as Jesus and perfect in any thing; other than blood perfection grace given not earned but given by Jesus, is a Joke. This last deceased Pope, I could accept 99%, cause he was special, but compare to Jesus 100% perfection. What folly Catholic leaders hold too.

Would you accept without laughing, if Jim bakker of PTL. or Moral majority Leader Baptism Jerry Fallwell claimed perfection. No Christian has the audacity to claim any perfection related to God, except Catholics. Which on the face; contradicts sound doctrines. And can Only be termed as Heresy. No man is perfect Like Jesus, especially in theological God things; which only God can claim. Now for you to quote: " Others have Means to salvation," said by pope, is not to say they achieve it, its like saying Other churches are a means for christians to find catholicism and be saved. Which means. Leaders of Catholicism are not saying people are saved in other Churches. Only Other churches are a means to achieve salvation. which really says Nothing. except is good to believe.

I know this is a form of flaming. but I am only speaking to a doctrine of Catholicism which is still contained and written in their doctrines as truth. Which I contend many Catholics also cannot accept, and most know not; that its even still there, probably. And yet some Catholics claim it to this day as truth. I cast not stones on the validity of Catholic laymens salvation or the Great doctrines held by Catholics, but only the small few Middle ages doctrines, which are still retained, and not buried. Most all of what you said though, we are in agreement about God and doctrines, besides what I mentioned. I do not believe these few differences should separate belief that Catholics are Gods people and One true source of Gods truth, and ordained by God to achieve Gods desire on earth including salvation for Catholic laymen; I'm more worried about leadership salvation.

I pray my words do not offend, And I pray God bless C.F. and all who use it. :wave:
</IMG></IMG>

thereselittleflower

7th August 2007, 06:19 PM

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

Teaching and writing scriptures are two different things: and Yes peter did teach things which were wrong: which he was confronted by paul and was corrected: for peter believed and taught that only Jews were to have salvation: and paul correctly taught him, it was for all believers, which concept of Peter, wouldn't even allow Catholicism;. Also peter believed that some meats were not to be eaten and was corrected by the holy spirit.

OK . . let's stop there for a momment and look at what you just said.

You said Peter taught some things wrong. You refer to the time when Paul rebuked Peter as proof of this.

I would ask you to please show us where Peter taught only Jews were to have salvation as you claimed above.

I will wait to resopnd to the rest of what you had tos ay until we work through this claim first.

.

Spiritofprophecy

9th August 2007, 12:42 AM

Greetings in the name of Jesus: :hug:

dear Thereselittleflower: I praise God for your spirit to seek Gods truth, without doctrines of men.

After Noticing your Catholic emblem, I question if answering was wise.

But you seem as Of spirit of love. so I shall answer.

In scriptures a lot of it is acts 10. about the roman who had God and spirit speak to him, and where Peter was given dream three times about hoofed animals which were unclean now clean. And of the Church of Jerusalem, which James brother of Jesus was the head of church of Jerusalem, not Peter, and Where Jews of Jesus complained to peter about having non circumcised in his house, When Paul taught circumcision was not mandated for acceptance of salvation.

But I am not sure how speaking of James brother of Jesus, is seen in Catholicism. since I am not Catholic: And not sure how James is accepted, but James was holding to Jews alone, as being allowed salvation, and circumcised only, to be accepted, and Peter was a member of this Group.

Now there are many verses which reference this. Peters belief of Holding to traditional Jewish doctrines; wanting all Christians to convert first to Judaism. This is evident in My KJV bible. But Peter with spirit Changed to accepted Hoofed animals and uncircumcised believers.

I could find the exact verses, but its about acts 10 or 11.And this is a general KNowledge of difference of church of Jerusalem, and pauls teachings. and the roman believer who stayed in peters house as one example. And there are Non scriptural writings about the early Christian Church of Jerusalem. This was a Group of Jew believers holding to Jewish doctrines of Old covenant, and believing in Jesus.

I pray my words do not offend. God bless C.F. and all who use it. :wave:

MrPolo

11th August 2007, 12:12 AM

God bless the layman Catholic.

Did you deliberately exclude Catholics who are not laymen?

MrPolo

11th August 2007, 12:27 AM

Lest popes are not flesh and blood along with spirit: then this concepts is totally anti scripture, and demeans Catholic leaderships validity on theological truths.

When you belittle the holder of the Seat of Peter, it isn't the Pope you are belittling, it is Jesus Christ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022:32;&version=31;).

Spiritofprophecy, most of your posts are about the individual sins of Catholic leaders. Who denies them? The Church is full of sinners. You pointed out the sins of Peter personally yourself, yet you don't reject Christianity...but for each sin of a Catholic Church leader today, you turn around and reject that faith!

As a teaching Body, the Catholic Church retains the promise of the Holy Spirit when it comes to truth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2016:13&version=31).

I would sympathize with you better if you could demonstrate that the Catholic Church has taught in error on faith or morals.

thereselittleflower

11th August 2007, 02:51 AM

Greetings in the name of Jesus: :hug:

dear Thereselittleflower: I praise God for your spirit to seek Gods truth, without doctrines of men.

Hi

The truth is very important to me. :)

After Noticing your Catholic emblem, I question if answering was wise.

But you seem as Of spirit of love. so I shall answer.

In scriptures a lot of it is acts 10. about the roman who had God and spirit speak to him, and where Peter was given dream three times about hoofed animals which were unclean now clean. And of the Church of Jerusalem, which James brother of Jesus was the head of church of Jerusalem, not Peter, and Where Jews of Jesus complained to peter about having non circumcised in his house, When Paul taught circumcision was not mandated for acceptance of salvation.

But I am not sure how speaking of James brother of Jesus, is seen in Catholicism. since I am not Catholic: And not sure how James is accepted, but James was holding to Jews alone, as being allowed salvation, and circumcised only, to be accepted, and Peter was a member of this Group.

Well, here I would ask you how it is that James was holding to Jews alone as being allowed salvation, when in Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, he gave instructions to Gentile believers. Obviously he accepted that gentiles without the law were being saved as were jews and accepted Paul and Barnabas' testimony of all God had been doing through them with the Gentiles.

Remember, this is during a period of revelation taking a group of jewish men into new, and for some, unexpeted territory. As James said in Acts 15, prophesy regarding the ingathering of the Gentiles was being fulfilled in front of their very eyes.

Now there are many verses which reference this. Peters belief of Holding to traditional Jewish doctrines; wanting all Christians to convert first to Judaism. This is evident in My KJV bible. But Peter with spirit Changed to accepted Hoofed animals and uncircumcised believers.

All of the Apostles, at first, didn't understand that the gospel was for the gentiles as much as it was for the Jews. To Peter first this new thing God was doing was revealed. From that point, Peter never held to any notion that they were sent only to the Jews. He himself went to the gentiles.

I could find the exact verses, but its about acts 10 or 11.And this is a general KNowledge of difference of church of Jerusalem, and pauls teachings. and the roman believer who stayed in peters house as one example. And there are Non scriptural writings about the early Christian Church of Jerusalem. This was a Group of Jew believers holding to Jewish doctrines of Old covenant, and believing in Jesus.

I pray my words do not offend. God bless C.F. and all who use it. :wave:

No, not at all. :) What you are discribing was a transition period. Not all the Jewish believers were willing to make that transition revealed to the Apostles and taught by them, that the gentiles were being saved just as the jews were being saved, and that keeping the law was not required for salvation.

The Jews that refused to make this change in thinking became known as the Judaizers which Paul was always taking issue with.

Peter and James were not Judaizers. There were some in Jame's congregation though that were. That did not make James one of them though.

Do you see what I am saying? To say that Peter taught that gosple of salvation was only for the Jews simply because that may have been his initial understanding is to miss the bigger picture . . that he let go of that idea totally and did not teach it, but rather that salvation had come to the gentiles without the law, the same as Paul taught.

.

Spiritofprophecy

11th August 2007, 04:50 AM

greetings in the name of Jesus::)

dear flowers:

My point is still valid, as acts 10 so shows; that peter held to the old covenant about animals and what is clean and not clean;

I am not sure where the Judaziers comes from but we are off bible texts, and there many such texts which I have read which depict the meeting of paul and peter in opposition to gentile acceptance, which James also believed; which Acts 10 so shows the Judaic old covenant principals still held by peter, which even after vision and told all animals are clean, he still held to old covenant concepts two times.

But I ask if you understand the " Parable of the fruit tree" about Judging fruits of men, but not the man.
or if you Know the scriptures about Judge not lest ye be Judged, and Christians may Judge all things, and yet be Judged by no man.

And spirit revealing Judging all things is as to sin or not sin, and yet Judged of no man, is that if of Christ, No one can Judge my Salvation. Yet it seems One Church can claim sole authorship on salvation: How can that not be Judging Christians, which even today, they claim no other way to salvation except through Catholicism? This Omits the possibility of civilized discourse with Catholicism; since this means the meat of non Catholics is contemptible and with out merit.

The Peter of perfect theology is not a subject any true Christian would entertain; Knowing all men fall short of the Glory of God. oops except Popes I guess some say in theology.

I think that is totally anti Scripture to claim equality of Jesus is theological matters. And even Peter would never do. And is indefensible in scriptures.

Does it say that Popes are perfect in theological matters?. it doesn't does it. I know Catholic people are good Christians, and have many sound doctrines, but do your really think this is one. Historically speaking, the Popes of middle ages, put the Caesars to shame in comparison to depravity and vanity of flesh.

This is pretty provable; and then to attach a heritage of perfection to this lineage; which no where is such lineage theology so espoused, Like sons of Peter always being Popes. Even the word Church, does not have the original meaning given today. Which was originally people of faith.

dear flowers, I respect your church, but seek not to argue the perfection Mistake free peter; which was one of Peters very Job and purpose to show us that Gods people are just average.
Not perfect.

I dont believe Catholicism can grow beyond its middle ages concepts, which they hold today and deny any theology not originating out of the monarchy style controlled church: which is well evident in more open churches of harborer of mans evil if power is held in darkness of centralized control.

But since individuals, you for example are controlled in theology by Popes: Can I then have true discourse if your beliefs are not of personal conviction but derived by other men? I say not.

I can only accept you as Christian, because of knowledge of faith. And then you not of me, because of edicts of Pope. We have a separation, and I refuse to become follower of men, or pope, but only Jesus.

And the only true conversation we can have, is about my Joining true Catholicism, and you proselytizing me for this. As I sense of spirit of you, I must always Love you, and claim you in Christ, as you are directed by Pope to not do unto me. if Script said, be Catholic, I would, but it doesn't.

But I appreciate your interest, but if you wanted Peter proof of not being of theological perfection, the meat dream of Acts 10 is it. He clearly is against eating Unclean meat. Case closed he was wrong.

And that was what this was about yes? perfection in theology of Peter and then Popes also.? yes?

I pray my words do not offend any, God bless C.F. and all who use it. :wave:
</IMG></IMG>

plmarquette

29th August 2007, 02:19 PM

the same thing could be asked of catholics...
why John 6 for lord's supper at the expense of matthew, mark, luke, john, and the epistles ....only one that speaks of the elements of communion ...

or why do protestants deny one seat, one chair , the catholic succession of leadership ... when aaron and his seed were called of God to be the ministers in the holy and most holy place , or when moses set up the rulers of the congregation ...

we both select , footnote, and document what supports our tenants of faith , while sweeping others under the rug... perhaps, one day we will embrace the will of god and depart from the will of men & associations

lismore

7th September 2007, 08:09 PM

plmarquette

12th September 2007, 02:46 PM

Hi Friend:wave:

From those scriptures to the modren RCC is a massive jump, too big a jump to be made on scripture alone!
the arguement is about the mouth of 2-3 witnesses (doctrine), more than scriputes ...Catholics use John 6 and a quote from the gospels Peter and rock and tradition to stand on ...

Protestants use everything but John 6 (not sure how to handle it) and speak of the authority of all believers... avoiding synods, bishops, overseer's ... the rulers of the congregation ...

we have 2 different old covenants , the same new testament, 2 different yardsticks, yet the same Lord and God ...

david01

13th September 2007, 06:02 PM

LivingWordUnity

17th September 2007, 11:38 AM

I have known a surprisingly large number of Christians who became protestant (fundamental - believing in the five fundamentals of the Christian faith) Christians simply by reading the Bible. I have yet to meet a single person who became a Roman Catholic simply by reading the Bible. It appears to me that, as has been asserted above, Roman Catholicism relies heavily on extra-biblical doctrines to establish itself.None of the "Bible Alone" Fundamentalists follow the Bible alone, they hold this impossible rule to the Catholics but not to themselves.

I have quoted numerous scripture verses to Fundamentalists which clearly support Catholicism and they always basically tell me, "I know it says that, but it really means this" and then they proceed to quote from one of their non-Biblical sources. But if I offer a quote from an Early Church father, they will say, "I only will accept it if it says it in the Bible."

An easier way for them to dodge Catholic Bible quotes is to say "you're taking it out of context", then they try to show me another Bible verse as if it's supposed to contradict the one that I showed to them. If I keep showing them more Bible verses which clearly support Catholicism, they get emotional with "why are you trying to cause divisions?", or they get defensive with "why are you trying to convert me? I won't convert!"

However, there are a lot of former "Bible Alone" Protestants who have converted to Catholicism, and many of them were Protestant ministers before converting to Catholic.

There is one that I know of that even went to the most anti-Catholic place around, Jimmy Swaggart Bible College, just to try to prove the Catholic Church wrong. His name is Tim Staples, and he is now one of the top Catholic apologists in the USA. You can hear him on Catholic radio on a show called, "Catholic Answers Live".

This list of others is only off the top of my head. There are many others, but you only asked for one example:

David B. Currie
Book: "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic"

Steve Ray
Book: "Crossing the Tiber"

Dave Armstrong
Books:
"The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants"
"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism"

Scott and Kimberly Hahn:
Book: "Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism"

Alex Jones
Book: "No Price too High: A Pentecostal Preacher Becomes Catholic"

And here are some books which feature collections of conversion stories:

Marcus Grodi
"Journeys Home"

Patrick Madrid
"Surprised by Truth"
"Surprised by Truth 2"
"Surprised by Truth 3"

Edit:
I forgot to mention that I am a convert to the Catholic faith.

everready

22nd September 2007, 07:20 AM

[quote=LivingWordUnity;38889763]None of the "Bible Alone" Fundamentalists follow the Bible alone, they hold this impossible rule to the Catholics but not to themselves.

I have quoted numerous scripture verses to Fundamentalists which clearly support Catholicism and they always basically tell me, "I know it says that, but it really means this" and then they proceed to quote from one of their non-Biblical sources. But if I offer a quote from an Early Church father, they will say, "I only will accept it if it says it in the Bible."

An easier way for them to dodge Catholic Bible quotes is to say "you're taking it out of context", then they try to show me another Bible verse as if it's supposed to contradict the one that I showed to them. If I keep showing them more Bible verses which clearly support Catholicism, they get emotional with "why are you trying to cause divisions?", or they get defensive with "why are you trying to convert me? I won't convert!"

However, there are a lot of former "Bible Alone" Protestants who have converted to Catholicism, and many of them were Protestant ministers before converting to Catholic.

There is one that I know of that even went to the most anti-Catholic place around, Jimmy Swaggart Bible College, just to try to prove the Catholic Church wrong. His name is Tim Staples, and he is now one of the top Catholic apologists in the USA. You can hear him on Catholic radio on a show called, "Catholic Answers Live".

This list of others is only off the top of my head. There are many others, but you only asked for one example:

David B. Currie
Book: "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic"

Steve Ray
Book: "Crossing the Tiber"

Dave Armstrong
Books:
"The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants"
"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism"

Scott and Kimberly Hahn:
Book: "Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism"

Alex Jones
Book: "No Price too High: A Pentecostal Preacher Becomes Catholic"

And here are some books which feature collections of conversion stories:

Marcus Grodi
"Journeys Home"

Patrick Madrid
"Surprised by Truth"
"Surprised by Truth 2"
"Surprised by Truth 3"

Edit:
I forgot to mention that I am a convert to the Catholic faith.

But having speakers on will intensify it's meaning.

http://www.spreadhisword.org/jil/anti1.htm

In Christ,
Lee

Spiritofprophecy

11th October 2007, 02:37 AM

Spiritofprophecy

11th October 2007, 02:58 AM

When you belittle the holder of the Seat of Peter, it isn't the Pope you are belittling, it is Jesus Christ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022:32;&version=31;).

Spiritofprophecy, most of your posts are about the individual sins of Catholic leaders. Who denies them? The Church is full of sinners. You pointed out the sins of Peter personally yourself, yet you don't reject Christianity...but for each sin of a Catholic Church leader today, you turn around and reject that faith!

As a teaching Body, the Catholic Church retains the promise of the Holy Spirit when it comes to truth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2016:13&version=31).

I would sympathize with you better if you could demonstrate that the Catholic Church has taught in error on faith or morals.
greetings in the name of Jesus:

Seat of Peter. I can only say this is not Scripture; and Peter himself, would call it heresy; as all things which detract from the magnificence of Jesus. Heritage claims of authority of Peter or Jesus is false.

The only authority which comes from Peter is the witness and sacrifice given as to his faith in Jesus, as the only seat and authority.

Claiming an authority of man, is a deception and evil doctrine not born in scriptures or teachings of Jesus.

seat of Peter, Peter would not claim these usurpers of Gods authority our Lord Jesus.

Praise God Christianity will survive, but Catholicism shall have no more Popes after this one.

One question, can one be impeccable and without vanity, therefore being not Christian?

I pray my words do not offend, God bless Christians in forum, and all those who use it.

Albion

11th October 2007, 09:09 AM

Albion

11th October 2007, 09:14 AM

[quote=LivingWordUnity;38889763]None of the "Bible Alone" Fundamentalists follow the Bible alone, they hold this impossible rule to the Catholics but not to themselves.

I have quoted numerous scripture verses to Fundamentalists which clearly support Catholicism and they always basically tell me, "I know it says that, but it really means this" and then they proceed to quote from one of their non-Biblical sources. But if I offer a quote from an Early Church father, they will say, "I only will accept it if it says it in the Bible."

An easier way for them to dodge Catholic Bible quotes is to say "you're taking it out of context", then they try to show me another Bible verse as if it's supposed to contradict the one that I showed to them. If I keep showing them more Bible verses which clearly support Catholicism, they get emotional with "why are you trying to cause divisions?", or they get defensive with "why are you trying to convert me? I won't convert!"

In Christ,
Lee

I really can't imagine why you are so baffled, Lee. It often IS the case that people misunderstand Bible verses or take them out of context. When it is said that something is out of context, why do you consider it automatically a "dodge" and not exactly what is alleged--that it is out of context? If they say ONLY that it is out of context and don't explain to you why it is, I can understand. But why would anyone otherwise think that it is impossible to misunderstand scripture? I could easily show you how every supposed Bible verse that you think proves a Papacy means something else.

And as for Protestants who have converted to Roman Catholicism, there are Roman Catholics who have converted to Protestantism. They can't all be right

As for the issues themselves, there is nothing about a Pope in the Bible, nothing said to Peter about him being infallible, nothing about him passing along to others whatever Jesus gave him alone to do...so yes, we are well-grounded to state that if one goes by the Bible, the only sure source of divine guidance, the idea of a Papacy or even of one denomination being the only one Christ had in mind must be of human origin. And since the early Church didn't believe in a Papacy either, we are confirmed in the correctness of our conclusion by history, by Patristics, and by Tradition, as well as by scripture.

lismore

11th October 2007, 03:10 PM

Why do Fundamentalists Condemn Catholics for taking Scripture at Face Value?

Call no man father?

Spiritofprophecy

13th October 2007, 05:29 AM

greetings in the name of Jesus:

wonder what scripture Living wordunity is speaking about?

LivingWordUnity

24th October 2007, 05:06 PM

Call no man father?I didn't say that Catholics take every Bible verse literally. But for the most part, Catholics do take more of the Bible at face value than Protestants.

The only way to take that verse as absolutely literal would be to say that the Bible contradicts itself.

Because Catholics believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, Catholics don't believe that the Bible ever contradicts itself.

If a Bible passage seems to be contradicted by another Bible passage, that's when we have to look at the context and see how to reconcile the two or more passages so that they make sense in context with each other. This is not the same as choosing one Bible verse while dismissing the other.

This excerpt from the Bible Christian Society explains it:

Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven." Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest, father, and calling the man who is married to your mother, father.

But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? Which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them...they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation. Which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs.

If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of Scripture. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as "father" several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the "father" of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That's referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.

In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and "fathers," as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit...they must have all gotten it wrong.

It is okay to call priests "father", just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham "father" and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders "father." As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him. And as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.

Source:
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=17 (http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=17)

LivingWordUnity

24th October 2007, 05:12 PM

wonder what scripture Living wordunity is speaking about?I gave plenty of examples in the OP. Please look them up and decide for yourself what happens when they are taken at face value.

Albion

24th October 2007, 05:27 PM

I gave plenty of examples in the OP. Please look them up and decide for yourself what happens when they are taken at face value.

The only way to bring this thread back to life, if that is wanted, is to start from scratch. As it started off, the title--and therefore the premise--is wrong.

1. "Fundamentalists" don't do this. The entire Christian world beyond the RCC believes that the Roman Catholic Church has created some doctrines that are not Biblical.

2. Of course, it also matters which doctrines are being examined, since most of us would agree with some RC teachings while disagreeing with others.

In the OP it was asked why other Christians take this position, but when we look at the doctrinal examples given, some of those are clearly NOT "taken at face value" from the Bible and it doesn't take a Fundamentalist any more than an Anglican, Lutheran, or Methodist to point it out.

Then too, most Christians, including but not confined to Fundamentalists, agree that some are taken directly from scripture. These are not doctrines that are peculiar to the RCC, in orther words, so they are not examples of Catholics being condemned.

Spiritofprophecy

29th October 2007, 10:00 PM

OK . . let's stop there for a momment and look at what you just said.

You said Peter taught some things wrong. You refer to the time when Paul rebuked Peter as proof of this.

I would ask you to please show us where Peter taught only Jews were to have salvation as you claimed above.

I will wait to resopnd to the rest of what you had tos ay until we work through this claim first.

.
Greetings in the Name of Jesus:

Dear sister in Christ:

first it is written, that all fall short of the glory of God. that is Jesus they refer as Glory.

also Peter as perfect: Two Scriptural confirmations is Acts 10:12. where all things are righteous unto the faithful, if done in praise and supplication unto God.

Peter Opposed the eating of unclean and or common things. This scripture and vision was several years after death of Jesus.

also acts 10:45 they of circumcision, Peter was one; " were astonished" Peter was changing his mind about Gentile acceptance into baptism.

Also acts 11;2 the " contended with him" peter, about his new doctrine, about Gentiles.

Peter of all people would never, Never claim any authority of heritage and wisdom, since he was the one who Knew best about mans backsliding and mans doctrines being precepts being replaced with spirit of love and Gods spirit and the era of grace and forgiveness; and accepting of all things and peoples which were gifts of Jesus pure sacrifice makeing all things Holy unto God, if dedicated unto and done to Glorify God and Jesus.

Peter sought purposely to break the Authority of mans doctrines as written in Colossians 2;22. Which things perish with the using. which includes all things of flesh, stating only things of spirit do continue and endure unto salvation.

But on mans authority and Catholocism, we will disagree I fear: but I do not reject Catholic authority as being Given them by God, but just that its authority over man, and of man; but not Gods authority of God himself. As Catholics claim Popes of the Vicar of God to be. Although John Paul recently deceased Pope, I found of God, and the Acme of Popes being of Gods spirit.

Catholics are Christians as all denominations and Christians are unto God. and Judged by their hearts and faith in Jesus, Not their denominational Name of Methodist or Baptist or Catholic.

On Judgement day all Claimed Methodists and Baptists, and Catholics, and etc, are in peril of loss of salvation, for only,Only claimed Christians are assured acceptance and a crown of glory.

I pray my words do not offend, God bless all Christians in forum, and all those who use it.