Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

Is Peter The Rock of the Church?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 30.6%
  • No

    Votes: 34 69.4%

  • Total voters
    49
Status
Not open for further replies.

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again...….There is not ONE single Scripture in the Bible that validates apostolic succession. NOT ONE.

It is a made up position by the RCC...…….Peroid,.

Apostolic succession preceded the RCC. There are verses in the scriptures that validate the church’s authority to make decisions. The scriptures were written by men whom authority was given by God. Jesus didn’t write anything it was the church elders who wrote the scriptures. Also keep in mind it was the church that determined what scriptures were inspired by God. So your trusting the very same men to determine which scriptures are from God but you can’t trust them to determine who the next church elders should be.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the Emperor and the Church, both in the west and in the east, had a checkered history. At the time of the Schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, had ambitions on being Emperor. This finally lead to his being removed and exiled by the Emperor in 1058. Here is a link to a brief history of this man. As far as the pentarchy, the EOC has broken that claim themselves by elevating Moscow to having a Patriarch. They, rightly, see the need for a center of Christianity in Moscow; but fail to acknowledge that the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem no longer have any meaningful need.

Well how can we say there is no need to these men unless we know what they are doing each day?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Apostolic succession preceded the RCC. There are verses in the scriptures that validate the church’s authority to make decisions. The scriptures were written by men whom authority was given by God. Jesus didn’t write anything it was the church elders who wrote the scriptures. Also keep in mind it was the church that determined what scriptures were inspired by God. So your trusting the very same men to determine which scriptures are from God but you can’t trust them to determine who the next church elders should be.

That is totally incorrect. It is what YOU WANT to believe but it is not reality.

IF there were any Scriptures which validated Apostolic succession YOU would have posted them already.

In Fact, I would have done that for you as it would be Biblical however there are NONE!!!!

YOu said.............
"Also keep in mind it was the church that determined what scriptures were inspired by God.

Also totally INCORRECT!

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution, and official church gatherings were very risky in the Roman Empire due to the persecution.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible?

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself that worked through the Apostles.

Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible? | CARM.org
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I posted evidence but as expected, you dismissed it. :doh:

I am really bad to ignore traditions and man made doctrines and instead relay on the Scriptures themselves.

Now just to be correct and save me having to look up where you posted the Scriptures to validate your claim, would you please post them again?

Then as you well know, the Catholic church does not allow Popes or clergy to be married.

However the Scriptures tell us in Matthew 8:14...……...
"When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever."

Would you like to comment on how the Catholic's church's 1st (According to them)
Pope was a married man?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well how can we say there is no need to these men unless we know what they are doing each day?
That is fair and I am throwing rocks from a distance too great to really hit anything. I was in Rome in 2008 and had a talk with the Catholic Bishop of Jerusalem. This was at the end of the yearly Feast of Peter and Paul Mass in St. Peters. The Ecumenical Patriarch was there and he and the Pope concelebrated the service. There were a huge number of cardinals and bishops attending and the Bishop of Jerusalem was feeling a little left out. I got the feeling that this was a common feeling among the Eastern Rite Catholic churches. I felt for the guy; but in truth he only has about 60,000 Christians in his care. That is a small diocese anywhere else and rates a Bishop; but the Catholic Church would never think of raising this up to a Patriarchate. Now Rio De Janiero, with 123 million Catholics in Brazil and well over 250 million in all of South America, would be a good candidate for a Patriarchate. I could get behind this sort of need based elevation of certain Bishops to be Patriarchs. My main issue with the EOC is their insistence that the world today is just the same as it was in 600 AD.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To be technical in certain periods, a Patriarchate is over a large area of Bishoprics. Again, what Rome does or does not do has no bearing...
I agree with your assessment of what a Patriarchate should be. That is why, even though Rome was against the elevation or both Constantinople and Moscow, I can agree with the need. The Catholic Church today tries to dialogue with both of these Patriarchs, even when they are fighting with each other.

Every post of yours has ended with a slap at the Catholic Church, even the ones that mark areas of agreement. Is it a strong defense of your faith when it does not stand to any criticism and provokes such a visceral response?
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I agree with your assessment of what a Patriarchate should be. That is why, even though Rome was against the elevation or both Constantinople and Moscow, I can agree with the need. The Catholic Church today tries to dialogue with both of these Patriarchs, even when they are fighting with each other.

Every post of yours has ended with a slap at the Catholic Church, even the ones that mark areas of agreement. Is it a strong defense of your faith when it does not stand to any criticism and provokes such a visceral response?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church

The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible?

I never said the RCC gave us the OT or even the scriptures. I said the Catholic Church determined which writings were deemed inspired writings of God. There’s a difference between the RCC and the Catholic Church. The Church of God adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD-180AD. The RCC didn’t officially begin until 1054AD. Before 1054AD there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church there was only the one Catholic Church.

Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

First of all that is referring to the scriptures of prophecy which is in reference to the OT. Second, there were many books that were claimed to be inspired writings. The church had to sort thru all these writings to determine which writings were considered inspired by God. There were many false writings they had to omit like for example the infancy gospel of Thomas in which Jesus is said to have killed out of pride and anger three times if I’m not mistaken. So just because there were people present to attest to the authenticity of the writings we know today as the NT there were also people attesting to the authenticity of other apocryphal writings. So the choice still had to be made in order to determine once and for all which writings are of God and which are not. The gospels are no doubt scripture but the epistles were personal letters written to specific people that were canonized as scripture by the Catholic Church over 600 years before the RCC existed. So the verse you quoted was not made in reference to any of the NT scriptures because they didn’t exist yet. Surely Peter wasn’t referring to his own letter as scripture in his letter otherwise he would’ve said it openly.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I never said the RCC gave us the OT or even the scriptures. I said the Catholic Church determined which writings were deemed inspired writings of God. There’s a difference between the RCC and the Catholic Church. The Church of God adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD-180AD. The RCC didn’t officially begin until 1054AD. Before 1054AD there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church there was only the one Catholic Church.



First of all that is referring to the scriptures of prophecy which is in reference to the OT. Second, there were many books that were claimed to be inspired writings. The church had to sort thru all these writings to determine which writings were considered inspired by God. There were many false writings they had to omit like for example the infancy gospel of Thomas in which Jesus is said to have killed out of pride and anger three times if I’m not mistaken. So just because there were people present to attest to the authenticity of the writings we know today as the NT there were also people attesting to the authenticity of other apocryphal writings. So the choice still had to be made in order to determine once and for all which writings are of God and which are not. The gospels are no doubt scripture but the epistles were personal letters written to specific people that were canonized as scripture by the Catholic Church over 600 years before the RCC existed. So the verse you quoted was not made in reference to any of the NT scriptures because they didn’t exist yet. Surely Peter wasn’t referring to his own letter as scripture in his letter otherwise he would’ve said it openly.

I can not agree with you.

"ALL means ALL".. "ALL Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable...…."!

If God had intended ALL to mean only The Old Test. He would have said so.

The New Testament scriptures were almost complete when 2 Timothy was written. The writings were being collected, circulated, and being completed when Paul wrote 2 Timothy.

The ones not included then would have been 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation.

But......who is the actual author???? Peter, Jude, John?????

NO. MEN wrote down what Jesus Christ gave them to write.
The author is Jesus Christ therefore those works would also be included in "ALL SCRIPTURE".

Colossians 1:16..........
"For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Luke 24:27........
"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."

Jesus Christ is the center and focus of the ALL the Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Apostolic succession preceded the RCC. There are verses in the scriptures that validate the church’s authority to make decisions. The scriptures were written by men whom authority was given by God. Jesus didn’t write anything it was the church elders who wrote the scriptures. Also keep in mind it was the church that determined what scriptures were inspired by God. So your trusting the very same men to determine which scriptures are from God but you can’t trust them to determine who the next church elders should be.

INCORRECT my friend.

Are these Scriptures valid??????

Colossians 1:16..........
"For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Luke 24:27........
"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."

Jesus Christ is the author of ALL Scripture just as He is the agent by which the Universe, Earth and you and me were created.
Even though it is really God who wrote the Bible, He used humans to write it down for us.
It was then Jesus Christ who determined what would be in HIS Word.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is fair and I am throwing rocks from a distance too great to really hit anything. I was in Rome in 2008 and had a talk with the Catholic Bishop of Jerusalem. This was at the end of the yearly Feast of Peter and Paul Mass in St. Peters. The Ecumenical Patriarch was there and he and the Pope concelebrated the service. There were a huge number of cardinals and bishops attending and the Bishop of Jerusalem was feeling a little left out. I got the feeling that this was a common feeling among the Eastern Rite Catholic churches. I felt for the guy; but in truth he only has about 60,000 Christians in his care. That is a small diocese anywhere else and rates a Bishop; but the Catholic Church would never think of raising this up to a Patriarchate. Now Rio De Janiero, with 123 million Catholics in Brazil and well over 250 million in all of South America, would be a good candidate for a Patriarchate. I could get behind this sort of need based elevation of certain Bishops to be Patriarchs. My main issue with the EOC is their insistence that the world today is just the same as it was in 600 AD.

That’s an interesting observation. I can see the need for more patriarchs as Christianity grows & spreads or perhaps relocation to meet the needs of the majority of the Christian population. That makes a lot of sense friend.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"ALL means ALL".. "ALL Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable...…."!

The author is Jesus Christ therefore those works would also be included in "ALL SCRIPTURE".

By no means am I saying that the scriptures are not from God Himself brother. I’m simply saying that Peter was not referring to his own epistle when he wrote it. Nor any of the other epistles of the NT because they had not been deemed as inspired scripture at that time. They were personal letters of instruction to various churches. Peter was not advocation sola scriptura over the interpretational authority of the church. If he were then he COULD NOT have overridden the scriptures on the decision concerning the necessity of circumcision in Acts 15.

The apostles never canonized the scriptures. They were long dead when that happened. The very same men who decided what books to include in the Holy Bible also advocated many of the traditions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic beliefs on the Eucharist and prayers for the intercession of the saints and Mary for example had already been established even before the canonization of the Bible. St Iranaeus’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans written in 107AD confirms the Catholic teachings on the Eucharist and Origen and Cyprian advocated prayers to the saints in the 3rd century. So ultimately your trusting these men to decide which books are inspired by God but don’t trust them to make any decisions outside of the scriptures. You know, come to think about it, the scriptures never say anything about compiling a bible to begin with.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
INCORRECT my friend.

Are these Scriptures valid??????

Colossians 1:16..........
"For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Luke 24:27........
"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."

Jesus Christ is the author of ALL Scripture just as He is the agent by which the Universe, Earth and you and me were created.
Even though it is really God who wrote the Bible, He used humans to write it down for us.
It was then Jesus Christ who determined what would be in HIS Word.

And it was the Catholic Church that told you which writings are considered to be scripture. Jesus didn’t write any scriptures he established a church.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And it was the Catholic Church that told you which writings are considered to be scripture. .
Is there any way that we can all move beyond that fiction? It is asserted by someone or other in each discussion on this topic, then it's rebutted, and here we are again.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is there any way that we can all move beyond that fiction? It is asserted by someone or other in each discussion on this topic, then it's rebutted, and here we are again.
I think BNR32FAN was using Catholic in the sense that the universal church came together in councils and tried to arrive at a common list of universally accepted books. You and I both realize that the result was mixed as far as universal acceptance of the resultant list.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think BNR32FAN was using Catholic in the sense that the universal church came together in councils and tried to arrive at a common list of universally accepted books. You and I both realize that the result was mixed as far as universal acceptance of the resultant list.
You know, that thought was nagging me as I was writing. Now I'm thinking it's a toss-up as to which meaning was intended.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is there any way that we can all move beyond that fiction
Actually, it ain't fiction. The fiction is denying that the Roman Catholic Church determined which books were inspired.
It is asserted by someone or other in each discussion on this topic, then it's rebutted, and here we are again.
Of course the claim is rebutted. The key is to logically and coherently rebut the claim which hasnt been done yet on this forum. I'd be interested in anything beyond opinion that you have to offer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
By no means am I saying that the scriptures are not from God Himself brother. I’m simply saying that Peter was not referring to his own epistle when he wrote it. Nor any of the other epistles of the NT because they had not been deemed as inspired scripture at that time. They were personal letters of instruction to various churches. Peter was not advocation sola scriptura over the interpretational authority of the church. If he were then he COULD NOT have overridden the scriptures on the decision concerning the necessity of circumcision in Acts 15.

The apostles never canonized the scriptures. They were long dead when that happened. The very same men who decided what books to include in the Holy Bible also advocated many of the traditions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic beliefs on the Eucharist and prayers for the intercession of the saints and Mary for example had already been established even before the canonization of the Bible. St Iranaeus’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans written in 107AD confirms the Catholic teachings on the Eucharist and Origen and Cyprian advocated prayers to the saints in the 3rd century. So ultimately your trusting these men to decide which books are inspired by God but don’t trust them to make any decisions outside of the scriptures. You know, come to think about it, the scriptures never say anything about compiling a bible to begin with.

You are correct about Sola Scriptura. The Apostles did not originate that mode of study. NO ONE ever said that they did.

As Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction OF IMPLICATIONS of what is clearly taught in the Bible.
The 1st thing that comes to my mind is the TRINITY.

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.
https://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20).

When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). That means that there are NO APOSTLES today because there is no such Scripture in the Bible that validate Apostolic succession.

So then, Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Concord1968
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And it was the Catholic Church that told you which writings are considered to be scripture. Jesus didn’t write any scriptures he established a church.

Hebrews 12:2...…….
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

2 Peter 1:20-21........
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Now as a Catholic I know you believe in the TRINITY. God is the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit. THREE PERSONS in one.

So then with that Bible knowledge when you see "Men were moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" means that in fact Jesus was the author of Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
By no means am I saying that the scriptures are not from God Himself brother. I’m simply saying that Peter was not referring to his own epistle when he wrote it. Nor any of the other epistles of the NT because they had not been deemed as inspired scripture at that time. They were personal letters of instruction to various churches. Peter was not advocation sola scriptura over the interpretational authority of the church. If he were then he COULD NOT have overridden the scriptures on the decision concerning the necessity of circumcision in Acts 15.

The apostles never canonized the scriptures. They were long dead when that happened. The very same men who decided what books to include in the Holy Bible also advocated many of the traditions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic beliefs on the Eucharist and prayers for the intercession of the saints and Mary for example had already been established even before the canonization of the Bible. St Iranaeus’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans written in 107AD confirms the Catholic teachings on the Eucharist and Origen and Cyprian advocated prayers to the saints in the 3rd century. So ultimately your trusting these men to decide which books are inspired by God but don’t trust them to make any decisions outside of the scriptures. You know, come to think about it, the scriptures never say anything about compiling a bible to begin with.

And I am saying that I do not agree with your opinion.

The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church.

If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God.

Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.
The Catholic Church did not Give the world The Bible!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.