What Can Protestants Expect From The New Pope?

Modern Reformation ^ | APRIL, 21, 2005 | Michael S. Horton

[fortheDeclaration]

Prove it without making any reference to that "ass" or the people within it. Prove that the Bible is the Word of God. You base your faith on a circular argument, quite frankly. Mine is based on the witnesses of the Catholic Church.

How do you know the Roman Catholic Church is even a church unless you make the circular argument appealing to Matthew 16 as proof.

You have to have a Bible before you can even discuss what a church is or isn't.

It is the Bible which gives us the truth of what a church is or isn't, not any particular church.

[P-Marlowe]

The new testament demonstrates that the churches are connected and that there is something similar to a chain of authority.

I would say it is closer to a chain of custody.

[fortheDeclaration]

The new testament demonstrates that the churches are connected and that there is something similar to a chain of authority.

The NT states that the church is the Body of Christ united by the Holy Spirit. (1Cor.12:13)

As having the same Head (Christ), churches are united in having individual members who are brothers and sisters in Christ.

They are not united by organization.

[fortheDeclaration]

The new testament demonstrates that the churches are connected and that there is something similar to a chain of authority. I would say it is closer to a chain of custody.

Yes, the church does have a responsibilty to protect the words of God from corruption.

A fact that has been lost by the Neo-Evanglicals who have accepted the Critical text (Roman Catholic) and rejected the Received text of the Protestant Reformation.

Geisler being one of them.

[xzins]

I disagree.

There's a very clear organization pictured in the new testament.

That's what the council of Jerusalem was all about, that's why Paul went privately to the leaders, that's why Paul appointed Titus to appoint elders in churches.

It's all very clear to me, and I cannot deny it. There was a very obviously, overtly referenced, connected system.

[jo kus]

The Catholic church (4th century) had nothing to do with the preservation of the Scriptures.

That's pretty funny. Are you trying to be funny?

On the contrary they have been attempting to destroy them or discredit them with a false line of texts (Alexanderian)

Yes. That's why Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint so often...

Regards

[jo kus]

Let me know if you can prove that God's Word is found in Scriptures WITHOUT the witness of the Catholic Church.

I'm not sure what you mean by the question.

Sorry, pastor, I was asking P-Marlowe that question, since he seems to think that the Bible validates itself as God's Word without the witness of exterior witnesses.

Regards

[jo kus]

Your Old Testament doesn't match our Old Testament.

That's the Protestant's fault. We use the same Scriptures that the Apostles used in the New Testament. Over 80% of OT verses found in the NT are from the Septaugint.

You accept the Apocrypha books as scripture.

You are again incorrect. There is no Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible

As for the New Testament, there are differences within the Books themselves.

You mean translations?

The Roman Catholic bible is not the Christian Bible.

I guess Christianity didn't exist until the Protestant Reformation, then. I wonder why Jesus didn't protect His Church like He promised...

Regards

[jo kus]

The church discussed in Matthew 16 is the organization that is built on faith in Christ who is the Rock (1Pe.2:8) and the only foundation for the true church

Sir, how can a human organization be invisible? Do you realize what you are saying when you write things? By the way, who is called "Kephas - Rock in Aramaic" in the New Testament? Jesus or Simon PETER? Boy, those "Christians" were a confused bunch, they couldn't even figure out why they called Simon "Kephas"....

Those churches are local, not united under any human head or gov't.

They shared the same faith, the same baptism, the same loaf, and the same leadership. Yes, brother, they were united in the faith under the leadership of the Apostles. That is quite clear in the New Testament.

The spiritual church (made up of all those who believe in the saving work of Christ) is revealed by Paul, to whom alone it was revealed (Eph.3:3) and who revealed it to Peter (2Pe.3:15-16)

I don't find ANYWHERE in the NT that denies a visible organization of believers. You foist that interpretation onto Scriptures when it is just not there. Paul shared the SAME Gospel as the other Apostles. He didn't teach a different Gospel - if you read Galatians chapter one, you'd see that.

Regards

[jo kus]

How do you know the Roman Catholic Church is even a church unless you make the circular argument appealing to Matthew 16 as proof.

I didn't initially approach the Bible as God's Word, but as a valuable historical book. Based on ALL the writings of this time period, I have come to the conclusion that those men DID believe that the Messiah had come to them in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. I trust their witness - and their witness to the Scriptures as being inspired by God. Thus, I don't use Matthew 16 as my proof text! I utilize the writings that we have available to us from the first few centuries and have found them trustworthy.

Those men believed in something called Apostolic Succession. They believed that God protected the writings of the first teachers that were sent by Christ, called Apostles. And they believed that God continued to protect them. Their witness was proven in the blood of martyrs and the confessors of the faith. This is not a circular argument, brother.

You have to have a Bible before you can even discuss what a church is or isn't.

The Bible came before the Church? WOW! Amazing....Where does Jesus give the Apostles a Bible? Did He commission them to preach and teach all that He taught them, giving them pamphlets and bible tracts? Do you actually have any clue on how the first Christian communities were formed? By oral teaching! NO NT BIBLE YET!

It is the Bible which gives us the truth of what a church is or isn't, not any particular church.

"But if I tarry long, that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15.

Brother, the Bible again disagrees with you. Perhaps you should go back and read the whole NT before you start making groundless assertions.

Regards

[jo kus]

As having the same Head (Christ), churches are united in having individual members who are brothers and sisters in Christ.

They are not united by organization.

You are contradicting yourself. IF the Body was purely invisible, who is Jesus refering to in Matthew 18 when He mentions "the Church"? How can you take a problem of the last resort that you have with another Christian to an invisible body??? And tell me, do you think that the Apostles, a visible body of chosen men, were NOT an organization? They had a government, they had rules, and they had leadership within it. They ordained successors to themselves latter on. As time went on, they formed Councils to determine the answer to the question on circumcision. They came together to plan out the strategy of evangelization to the Gentiles. They sent money back to the "home" Church in Jerusalem (not invisible money sent to an invisible church). When Paul traveled to Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc, he was going to invisible communities? He didn't leave anyone behind in a leadership role, such as Timothy and Titus? And when Paul wrote letters, did it go to invisible places and was read by invisible people??? See where this is going?

The Church is quite visible. It is clear from the Scriptures that we are to only follow THOSE men, as their teachings come from God!

Regards

[Frumanchu]

I guess Christianity didn't exist until the Protestant Reformation, then. I wonder why Jesus didn't protect His Church like He promised...

Actually, the Reformation was ample evidence that He DID. (see 1 Kings 19)

[jo kus]

Actually, the Reformation was ample evidence that He DID. {Protect the Church}

"Sorry, general, I had to destroy the village to save it..."

Mentality like that has no logic. Perhaps you should consider what Jesus said to the Pharisees who thought He was from the devil

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every house or city [divided] against itself will not remain." Luke 11:17.

Not satisfied? Look at the precedent of those who break away and form their own "church" in Numbers 16.

Still skeptical? What does Paul say about dissent among the Christian communities?

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and [that] there be no divisions among you, but [that] ye be perfect, joined together in the same understanding and in the same perception" 1 Cor 1:10.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye are not consumed one of another" Gal 5:15

And finally, words to heed:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]: ... hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, ... and such like; which I denounce, as I have also told [you] in time past that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-21

Seems like about what Moses said in Numbers 16. Your argument that Christ divided His Kingdom to save it has no precedent in the Scriptures.

Regards

[Cronos]

The first time I heard the Islamic call to prayer from a muzzein in a Muslim country, I realized how limited our view can be from the pews. I have a lot more in common with my Catholic and Orthodox friends than I do with an Islamist or a Buddhist.

Well, that's true --- if you're not a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness or a Unitarian (their rejection of the Trinity isn't quite in line with Church views). Buddhism isn't a religion, more a philosophy.

[TradicalRC]

By attacking the Catholic Church, you merely bite the hand that has given you the Scriptures in the first place. You implicitly trust their decisions on what is Scripture, while discarding the claims made by such Gnostic groups as those who follow the Da Vinci Code and other such nonsense.

Au contraire mon frere. The protestant Luther edited the Catholic bible and THAT's what they consider Scripture. My only questions are: What gave Luther the authority rather than the Church and if Luther got to decide then why can't I forge a new canon of Scripture based on whatever "Christian" texts I deem worthy?

[TradicalRC]

The Holy Spirit gave us Scripture and ultimatly kept it safe. If He used the RC church to that end for a period of time, so be it.

The Holy Spirit gave us Scripture and the Catholic Church. Christ granted us the authority of the Pope.

[Gamecock]

***The protestant Luther edited the Catholic bible and THAT's what they consider Scripture.***

BWAAAHAHAAAAA < wipes tears from eyes>

That's a joke, right?

So you think that English "Proddie" Bibles are translated from the Luther German Bible?

[TradicalRC]

The Bible is 2000 years old, written for a different culture that even thinks differently.

The only difference is that they believed in the reality of God, while our culture insists that He's merely an idea. Otherwise Scripture is timeless. If you have trouble with that one it is because you are caught up in the spirit of the age.

[TradicalRC]

("Sola Scriptura,Sola Christus,Sola Gratia,Sola Fide,Soli Deo Gloria)

Every one an extra-Biblical belief save for the posssibility of the last.

[TradicalRC]

So you think that English "Proddie" Bibles are translated from the Luther German Bible?

Uh.no....I said that he edited the Catholic Bible. Is the King James Canon any different from the Lutheran Canon?