The Bible establishes Peter as the head of the true Church. The Popes are the modern-day Peters. Please explain how you can deny this truth and still say you are “Bible-believing”.
Ok, Peter is established by the bible, for the sake of argument this is true. So, what is wrong with believing that?
Huh? I’m saying that someone who believes the bible will believe that Peter, and his office, is established by it.
I agree with apostolic succession, being Catholic. Protestants just believe that Peter was the rock Jesus built his Church on, but the keys to the Church, or the leadership, was not passed on like we believe to successive Popes. It stopped there, I suppose they would say. So they make the claim they are “Bible believing,” they just interpret Scripture a different way than the Catholic Church does.
I, however, am not an authority on this matter, nor have I studied as much as I would like on Protestant beliefs before speaking about them. If I have misspoken, I meant no offense. I was just trying to clear up how a Protestant thinks on this issue.
It can be gleaned from scripture that Peter may have in his life been held as the primary apostle. However, scriputre nowhere teaches he had a sucessor.
Then what point are you trying to make? We seem to be going in circles…
Easy. Even if “the Bible” does any such thing to Peter (which is itself anything at all except obvious), that says nothing about whether he was to have successors, let alone on what conditions they were to succeed. What the Pastoral Epistles - 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus - say of the qualifications of office-holders in the Churches, is different from anything required of Popes. The moral character of office-holders in the Pastorals is contrary to the way that many Popes have behaved, with their fornication, bastard offspring, political entanglements, worldliness, waging of war, exhuming and putting on trial the corpses of their predecessors, ousting one another, imprisoning & murdering their predecessors, simony, ambition, & the like. Many Popes, if measured against what is said in the Pastorals, would probably not count as Christians, let alone Christian bishops.
It’s no good beginning well, if you then go off the rails. A lot of people find the history of the Papacy the very reverse of a good reason to consider becoming Catholic; as their objections to its details show clearly enough. Because people believe the Bible, they take the Bible-defying immorality of the Papacy’s occupants seriously. The Pastorals say one thing - the Papacy shows something different. If the Popes had repented of their crimes as Peter did of his perjury & cowardice, they might not be such an obstacle to believing the Roman claims. We are told that he “wept bitterly” - something not said of them.
That’s completely beside the point.
There is no such thing as a self-interpreting text, so anyone who claims to be a member of a “Bible-Believing Church” are actually begging the question, WHO determines which churches are “Bible-Believing”?
In other words: It’s a logically useless term.
It’s no good beginning well, if you then go off the rails.
Just curious… does this apply to all spiritual leaders or only to Popes? When believers in other Christian faiths have one of their leaders “go off the rails,” I’m curious to know how their beliefs become invalidated or somehow lower in esteem by the actions of their leader(s).
Martin Luther, for instance, played a large part in declaring the Peasant War, and encouraged killing them in large batches. He also secretly endorsed a polygamous relationship for a prince, a scandalous bit of handiwork no other follower would have gotten. Do those kinds of egregious acts nullify or diminish in some way his theological works, such as Simul Justis et Peccador or Sole Fide?
Does Scripture record the death of Peter? If not, how could it record his successor?
(on a side note, Acts records the fact that Judas Iscariot was succeeded by Matthias. Why is this not precedent-setting?)
Are “Bible believers” bad? :shrug:
No, not really, it’s the context they use it in that’s bad. It sounds like they’re saying that Catholics don’t believe in the Bible.
Am I right in what you are saying. If you are not Cahtolic you can’t or don’t have a right to believe in the bible?
The crux of the issue: are those that use the term “Bible-believing” differentiating their belief from “Scripture and Tradition”, and further implying that Catholics don’t believe the Bible? Some, without a doubt. Many probably don’t think that far.
While I somewhat disagree with your characterization of Luther’s actions, I would say yes, and no. The fact that Christian communions are populated by sinful beings means they will at times appear to have lost their way. Whether it be popes or reformers, scandalous pastors or priests, Christ’s message does continue. If we confess our sins, Christ brings us all back on the rails.
So, yes, it applies to all. No, beliefs are not necessarily nullified or diminished.
Thank you, Jon. This was precisely the point I was trying to drive home; that is, if it is God’s will to communicate His being and message to humanity, sinful man does not constitute an obstacle around or over which He cannot go. There is no scoundrel so wicked that God cannot accomplish something through him. This is even taught IN the Bible numerous times. Moses - who murdered a man - used by God to lead His chosen people and to receive the laws. David - adulterer and murderer - to serve as a King from whose seed would be born the Messiah. Jonah - disobedient to the command of God, delivered by force to where God wanted him to go. Peter - denier, Paul - persecutor. The list is enormous.
LOL - actually, i think the most common use and intention of the lable “bible believing” among Protestants is to distinguish between those who take the Bible literally as the word of God, and those who do not.
For that matter, any Catholic true to Church doctrine would be “bible believing”, but there are many within the Catholic Church (catholic by birth, not believers) who are not bible believing. Similarly, “bible believing” Protestants probably make us a relatively small % of Protestants world wide (for the same reason).
That being said, I’m sure there are some “bible believing” Protestants who use that label/term in a way intended to distinguish themselves from Catholics - this is sadly largely out of ignorance as to the Church’s teaching on the importance of scripture.
It is nice to see that you accept the obvious. That Jesus was speaking to Peter and about Peter when he established his Church. You are however assuming that because Peter’s sucessor wasn’t mentioned in the remainder of the NT that there wasn’t supposed to be one? Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. This is stewardship. Read Isaiah. Stewardship is passed from one generation to the next. Paul laid hands on Timothy, and Titus. Why? Sucession of leadership, and authority.
Yes indeed, and they drew lots to decide…gambling apostles!
It’s gleaned from:
Why establish a “primary apostle” if you knew he was going to die and you wanted other apostles to continue the teaching of the faith.
But to the OP’s post, I too am a little irritated…maybe amused at times…by the phrase “bible believing”. It seems to be code for “anti-Tradition”. Catholics are bible believing Christians. Lutherans, Methodists, etc. are also bible believing Christians.
What it also means is “bible interpreting the way I feel is appropriate”. :rolleyes: