Baptist/Protestant

pinoybaptist said:

I doubt that they do and they certainly don't accept the patristic writings (Eusibius, for example) as canonical.

No problem with this. I agree wholeheartedly.

Just because the Bible doesn't mention it doesn't make it untrue. For example, we know Titus sacked Jerusalem following a long seige in A.D. 70; we know Silva took the Masada fortress in 73 A.D. only to find that all its inhabitants had committed suicide; we know that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna until about 155 A.D., yet none of these facts are presented in the Bible.
The truth is there is not a single writing before the Reformation that suggests Peter died anywhere but Rome or that Peter wrote his first epistle anywhere but Rome. By way of example only, consider this sentence from Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, 32,2:

Lest you think I never consult anything but the patristics, consider this from the introduction to 1 Peter in The Open Bible.

pinoy baptist also said:

Fair enough, I won't quibble over the distinction between bishop and pastor. But how does it follow from this that Peter was not in Rome?

 

I am Blessed 17 says:

Nor do I.

And so do I.

I didn't say Peter was Catholic. Chapter and verse from the Bible proving that Titus sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? We just can't use the Bible as the final authority on church history because it doesn't cover everything, not even in the first century.

 

Doesn't anyone think it strange that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans doesn't address "Pope Peter" or the "Mother of God" One time?

If we can get around that one then why are not the so-called "dogma" which the Church of Rome says have always been known and acknowledged from the beginning, not found in the Epistle to the Romans?

Where are the dogma of the Real Presence, the Veneration of Mary and the heavenly host, auricular confession, absolution of sins by a sacerdotal priesthood, the use of the Rosary, indulgences and so many other teachings that they can not all be easily mentioned in a singular post.


HankD

 

You could say the same thing about the word Trinity!

 

OK, that's one word, the concept is there in the Scriptures.

What about the rest of the concepts I mentioned of which the Scripture is devoid??

Still, it begs the question - was it not strange that Paul did not send a greeting to "Pope Peter" in his epistle to the Romans?

HankD

 

While I certainly don't consider Wikipedia a great source of information, this may be helpful.

 

Wikipedia can be very helpful especially when the presentation is documented.

However, I personally do not consider myself a "Protestant".
If I were a Protestant that would mean I give some kind of credence to the Church of Rome known as the "Catholic" Church and am "protesting" something about it.

There is no "protest", I simply reject it as a NT Church.

A former "Catholic".
HankD

 

But understand that the word "protestant" doesn't mean to "protest" in when used in this context but to "testify".

 

Me too, Hank!

 

Prove it!



HankD

 

I left pre-Vatican II, Latin mass, etc.

HankD

 

Hank: I quit going to the RCC back in the 60's but, wasn't saved and, didn't become a Baptist until the 70's.

I attended a RCC grade school also.

Jimmy: protestant refers to a person who protests.

 

True, but you can protest for something. We talk about someone "protesting their innocence", for example. The word "protest" originally meant "a solemn declaration," from the Latin protestari "to declare publicly, to testify." Its first recorded use in the modern sense of disapproval against something was in 1751, wheras the term "Protestant" came into existence at the time of the Reformation, at which time "protest" still had its older meaning.

 

Origin: 1530–40; < G or F, for L prōtestantés, pl. of prp. of prōtestārī to bear public witness or to testify.

 

From the Episcopal Church website:

"A conference of three clergy and twenty-four lay delegates met at Chestertown, -Kent County, Maryland, on Nov. 9, 1780, and resolved that "the Church formerly known in the Province as the Church of England should now be called the Protestant Episcopal Church." On Aug. 13, 1783, the Maryland clergy met at Annapolis and adopted the name "Protestant Episcopal Church." At the second session of the 1789 General Convention, Sept. 29-Oct. 16, 1789, a Constitution of nine articles was adopted. The new church was called the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" (PECUSA). The word "Protestant" noted that this was a church in the reformation tradition..."



Methodists were an evangelical outgrowth of the already protestant Church of England.

 

None of this matters to me, I'm still don't call myself a Protestant.

All the so-called "protestant" churches mentioned here in this thread are either heretical or confused (IMO) about several things (Baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, the "Sacraments" and many other distortions of the Scripture in spite of their so-called proclamation of "Sola Scriptura" and "39 Articles of Religion") and I don't want to be lumped together with them and their error under the umbrella of "protestant".


HankD