Franciscan University of Steubenville unbiblical

Yeah, about that... Catholic Church considers itself to be THE Church of Christ's disciples that started when the Spirit descended on Apostles at the Pentecost... and has a non-nonsense claim to be at least a branch of the historic Church (other branches, like my Eastern Orthodox, exist, and each claims ITSELF to be the true one). THAT Church existed long before Biblical canon was finalized, and did not have even a stable Old Testament collection let alone New Testament. Goings on in that early Church are the main topic of the bulk of New Testament - chiefly Acts and all Epistles. So, um, Sola Scriptura on it face contradicts rather clear biblical witness. And, of course, genuine Tradition cannot contradict the Bible, the latter being the most authoritative part of said Tradition. Not to mention, every Protestant sect, upon rejecting "catholic" tradition (bulk of it an undivided Chalcedonian tradition of the first millennium), swiftly invented their own. Nevertheless, I would not call them all "unbiblical" or "not Christian" on that basis. I wish they had the same decency.

 

Oh please. New Testament books were each written in a particular time for a particular purpose; most are letters from Apostles and Evangelists to fellow disciples. Biblical canon formed gradually, as part of Church tradition, and eventually finalized by official canons (Church law). There are works that orthodox Church leaders, even Fathers, considered Scripture, that we now don't. E. g. St. Ignatius epistles were read in churches on par with canonical ones.

There is a religion that considers a holy text an uncreated aspect of God, but it's not Christianity. It's Islam. The Bible is inspired and holy, but the Church produced it, not the other way around.

 

I'm not a believer either, but perhaps for different reasons.

It's the product of a certain strand of early Christian tradition that seemingly enshrined Paul and his writings as authoritative. (There were other early strands as well, such as the Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem who disappeared in the Jewish wars.) This Pauline strand established itself by establishing congregations among diaspora Jews in what today is Turkey and quickly spread to Rome as well. It started evangelizing among gentiles and it established the early church organization with supervising 'bishops' (and ideas of apostolic succession). The bishops are the ones who canonized the early writings that we call the 'New Testament' as authoritative, originally as texts commonly used in the churches, then as written collections of those texts, then a standardized collection whose contents became traditional over time.

Later, like the Roman Empire itself, that early church divided into a Latin speaking western portion centered on Rome and its bishop, and a larger Greek speaking eastern section. The latter was rather different culturally from the west, more influenced by Greek philosophy and more productive of arcane (and fascinating) theological subtleties. (Lots of debates about ousia and hypostases.)

Part of the reason for the split in the church, which occurred very gradually and took centuries, was the bishop of Rome claiming the grandeur of the old Roman emperors, claiming to rule like a monarch over the lesser bishops of the rest of the church. The Greek speaking eastern bishops were more inclined to think of all bishops as equals (obviously some were more influential than others) with decisions to be made by councils of bishops.

After the collapse of the western Roman empire and the general economic and cultural collapse that accompanied it, the Pope became the only symbol of unity that people had. The Christian church was something that people in remote corners of Europe wanted to align themselves with, since it represented what little remained of the lost ancient civilization that existed around them only in legends and ruins. So the monarchic centralized tendencies of what was now the Roman Catholic Church multiplied during early medieval times. (During later medieval times we see secular kings challenging it and ultimately winning.)

Many of the practices and even theological beliefs prevalent in the church arose through gradual evolution of tradition over the centuries and have no counterpart in Paul's very early writings to his tiny congregations.

Because Protestantism arose as a protest movement against what was perceived as the corruption of the Roman Catholic church. Ethical corruption, but theological corruption as well. (I'm not sure that the Protestant reformers distinguished between those two.) The reformers saw the essence of True Christianity in the New Testament (and hence in the theology of Paul) and condemned anything different from or subsequent to that as corruption.

It's ironic, but I hypothesize that the Protestant reformation unintentionally helped give rise to secular modernism. That's because the Protestants taught extreme skepticism about the traditional teachings of the church (in the name of Biblical tradition). Mary, the Saints, the mystery of the Mass, miracles... out it all went. And with it a good part of popular religiosity.

So the obvious question then was, why halt the skepticism there? So in the next century we see the rise of Deism, best characterized as skepticism about all of revealed theology (including the Bible) while retaining only natural theology. Why should the Bible remain immune from critical skepticism that the reformers had launched at the church?

So after establishing sola scriptura Biblical faith in northern Europe in the 16th century, we see it starting to unravel in the 17th with the rise of free-thinking, Deism and the Scientific Revolution. The Modern world was well and truly launched.

 

Maniac Craniac, there are at least two schools of thought on that topic:

1. Catholic theologians claim that the Catholic Church can trace its apostolic succession, through written documentation, from the present day, all the way back to Christ's apostles.

2. (a) Some Protestants (not all) have not considered that there is a written/documented apostolic succession, from the apostles, to the present day Church OR (b) they believe that apostolic succession has been superseded by the Holy Spirit, which cannot be documented or traced in apostolic succession.

Maniac Craniac, all Protestant denominations owe their foundation to a human. For example:
- Baptists = Thomas Helwys
- Southern Baptists = Wilson Lumpkin, William B. Johnson, etc.
- Wesleyanism = the Wesley brothers
- Church of England = King Henry VIII
- Presbyterianism = John Calvin
- Disciples of Christ = Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell
- Jehovah's Witnesses = Charles Taze Russell
- Adventism = Ellen Gould White
- Etc.

Maniac Craniac, when you say that Catholicism "came into existence centuries after the Bible was completed," can you identify a human author who founded it, along with the date of its inception?

 

Maniac Craniac, it is true that the Catholic Church tried to suppress the printing of what it considered to be heretical mis-translations. Conversely, the Catholic Church printed what it considered to be good non-heritical translations.

Catholic Church authorities believed that they had a duty to suppress heretical translations that could mislead people. To give you an example of inaccurate Bible translations that exist today, please consider:
- Jehovah Witness bible
- Seventh-day Adventist Clear Word bible (paraphrase)
- Bibles that remove the divinity of Christ
- Bibles that remove gender (that refer to God in the masculine form)
- Etc.

Maniac Craniac, if you were a Christian pastor, would you steer your flock towards bible translations that are heretical or misleading? The Catholic Church has a responsibility to do that.

 

Maniac Craniac, that is true. For the first 1500 years of the Church, printing presses did not exist, so having printed copies of the Bible (or anything else) was impossible. Subsequently, Church leaders taught the salvific Gospel message through "tradition" to an illiterate people. That is the genesis of "tradition." Today, the salvific message contained within "tradition" has not suddenly lost its efficacy.

 

Maniac Craniac, that is true. Unfortunately, many uninformed Protestants parrot unsubstantiated fables about Catholicism that are simply not true. Many Protestants will never read historical Church documents that go back 2000 years. When the historical documents are reviewed, it dispels misnomers or it dispels commonly parroted fables that are repeated over and over. A canyon echo only proves that a statement was repeated, just as a parrot only repeats what it heard. Modern sources must be validated for historical authenticity and veracity.

 

Great job with your critique. I will be reading this over again a few times to clear up my thoughts. I grew up very religious. I have two bothers with their own churches. It is difficult to explain, but freedom from not beleiving, and my person freedom from religion has made me a happier person. I have learned just recently, not to be rude to people who are believers. I do think how is it that people can’t see what I am seeing when it comes to God, but that is no big deal.

 

Phdtobe, here is what cannot save you:
- religion
- your two brothers
- the two churches that your brothers founded
- freedom from religion

Only one thing can save you -- and that is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, along with his resurrection from the dead. Phdtobe, here are two questions for you:
1. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?
2. Do you ever talk to him?

At the end of your life, the only thing that will matter to you is whether you made it into heaven -- or missed it and went to hell. Nothing else (at that point) will matter any more.

Nothing...

 

This is where you lost me. Heard/read it all before. I wish I can convince being a non believer is the way to go. It is so weird I used to say those same things as you just did. Unless you have my convertion away from Christianity as in my case you won’t understand.

 

Phdtobe, you have not yet seen the other side of eternity. You have not yet died. You have not yet seen heaven or hell. You have not yet been:
- eternally sentenced to hell
- or granted admission to heaven.

On this side of eternity, we have not even scratched the tip of the iceberg. You are far from seeing and hearing it all. There is much more to come, even if you are not yet aware of its existence.

 

To add to me again's post:

1) Lets pretend it is all a joke. Well, I'd rather error on the side of caution just in case it isn't a joke.

2) Even for non-believers, I think religion is very important for society because deep fundamental elements of being human are rooted in religion, and that's why civil society is built upon religion. At least that's what I got from Dr. Jordan Peterson on the subject.

 

Maniac Craniac, there is no need to reply. Wars have been fought and blood shed over much less. In heaven, it's all been worked out, but here on earth? Not quite yet. But the day is coming when the Lord Jesus Christ will rule the nations with a rod of iron. Yes, that day is coming, but is not yet.

 

Consider the possibility that you never had true Christianity. It's not saying the right things, doing good deeds, subscribing to the correct tenets or doctrines. I genuinely believe that had you ever experienced the real deal, you wouldn't be speaking this way. At least ponder the idea that you never did understand, perhaps never really knew Jesus, but perhaps saw a lot of hypocrisy, chauvinism, nonsense and flaky mysticism that quite rightly turned you away from religion, but that knowing Jesus is another matter entirely. Realize that a lot of those things I described ran me away from the organized church--probably forever--but not away from the real deal, whom I genuinely believe to be Jesus.

 

Tell me if I put it unfairly. Tell me how and I'll take it back.

 

You made some great points to support your position. I took the easy out by stoping the generalization and made it only about me and my experience.

 

HERESY DEFINITION: one who holds VIEWS and BELIEFS that are CONTRARY to the Teachings of CHRIST— the SCRIPTURES in the BIBLE.
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.

Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).

Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.

Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).

Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).

Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.

Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”