Do Guarding Angels exist?

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are again answering with devotional tradition rather than Scripture. The passages you quoted do not teach angelic patronage, angelic bonding, or angelic reliance. They teach angelic ministry under God’s command. “Their angels” in Matthew 18:10 does not mean personal guardian‑angel relationships or devotional practices. It means that angels who serve God on behalf of His people have direct access to the Father. Scripture never teaches believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

As for your claim that Catholics assembled the Bible, that is simply not true. The Bible is not a Catholic book. It is the Word of God, written by prophets and apostles long before Rome existed as a church. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel, not by Rome. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates, all of whom lived and died before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received the apostolic writings directly, copied them, circulated them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome did not create Scripture. Rome did not inspire Scripture. Rome did not determine Scripture. Rome inherited Scripture from the apostolic churches that existed before it.

The idea that Protestants are not apostolic is also historically inaccurate. Apostolicity is not defined by institutional succession. It is defined by fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine. The believers’ church line that carried Baptist distinctives long before the Reformation preserved Scripture, preached Scripture, copied Scripture, and suffered for Scripture. The Waldenses, the Paulicians, the Petrobrusians, the early Anabaptists, and the first English Baptists all held the apostolic writings as their sole authority. They did not rely on Rome to tell them what Scripture was. They recognized Scripture because the sheep hear the Shepherd’s voice.

Your argument assumes that the authority of Scripture depends on the authority of Rome. Scripture never teaches that. The apostles never teach that. The early churches never believed that. The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from any human institution. Rome did not assemble the Bible. Rome did not authorize the Bible. Rome did not preserve the Bible alone. The Word of God stands on its own authority, and the churches that held it before Rome and outside Rome testify to that fact.

So again, you are answering with tradition rather than Scripture. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman claims about assembling the Bible are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these things overturn the plain teaching of Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

You are all narrative and no sources.

Bible history is Catholic history.

Protestants had nothing to do with the Bible.

Feel free to cite Protestant sources from the 300s.

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You are all narrative and no sources.

Bible history is Catholic history.

Protestants had nothing to do with the Bible.

Feel free to cite Protestant sources from the 300s.

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

Cathode, thank you for the citation. But you are not answering the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting a Catholic decree to prove Catholic authority is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The decree of Damasus in 382 AD did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. The Waldenses, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, and other believers’ churches held the apostolic writings as their sole authority long before Rome claimed magisterial control. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are doing what Catholic apologist do when they get cornered by Scripture, you retreat into the supposed safety of magisterial claims, apostolic succession rhetoric, and the “Catholics assembled the Bible” talking points. It is nothing more that catechetical reflex.

When pressed the Catholic retreats into institutional claims.

You shifted from:

• angels to
• “The Bible isn’t a Protestant book” to
• “Protestants aren’t apostolic” to
• “Catholics assembled the Bible” to
• Anything and everything to avoid the collapse of your argument it appears

This is the standard fallback when the biblical argument collapses. It is not a response. It is a deflection.

I cited sources you cite narratives.

Tell me how Protestants preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and assembled the Canon.

You are talking about history that is entirely Catholic and you are in complete denial of reality.

All you have is prejudiced narrative as filler.

The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky in the 1500s.

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).

All Catholic Councils.

Do you see any inspired books listing which books belong in the Bible?

No? Your Bible is Catholic tradition, that’s why.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This is what the Catholic apologist does when cornered by Scripture, he retreats into institutional claims, and when those claims are challenged, he retreats further into self‑authenticating citations, sources that assume the very authority he is trying to prove.

They quote a Catholic decree to prove Catholic authority. This is the self‑justification reflexive knee-jerk response in its purest form.
That is circular.

It is saying: “Rome is authoritative because Rome said so.” This is not evidence. It is self‑authentication.

Notice he ignored the actual historical point I made.

I said:

• Israel preserved the Old Testament
• Apostles wrote the New Testament
• Early churches circulated the writings
• Rome inherited Scripture, not created it
• Apostolicity is fidelity to doctrine, not institutional lineage

He did not answer any of that. He did not address:

• the Waldenses
• the Paulicians
• the Petrobrusians
• the early Anabaptists
• the pre‑Reformation believers’ churches

He did not address the fact that Scripture existed before Rome. He did not address the fact that apostolic writings were recognized before Rome. He did not address the fact that canon lists existed outside Rome.

The authority the Catholic depends on is “Bible history is Catholic history." That is not an argument. It is a slogan.

This is the collapse.

When the Catholic cannot defend his doctrine from Scripture. When he cannot defend claims from history.

He retreats into:

• slogans
• decrees
• magisterial claims
• circular citations

I said: “This is the standard fallback when the biblical argument collapses.”

And he responds by… falling back into the standard fallback.

He proves the point by trying to refute it.

That is collapse.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I cited sources you cite narratives.

Tell me how Protestants preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and assembled the Canon.

You are talking about history that is entirely Catholic and you are in complete denial of reality.

All you have is prejudiced narrative as filler.

The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky in the 1500s.

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).

All Catholic Councils.

Do you see any inspired books listing which books belong in the Bible?

No? Your Bible is Catholic tradition, that’s why.

Cathode, you are still not addressing the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting Catholic councils to prove Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The Council of Carthage in 397 did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, thank you for the citation. But you are not answering the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting a Catholic decree to prove Catholic authority is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The decree of Damasus in 382 AD did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. The Waldenses, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, and other believers’ churches held the apostolic writings as their sole authority long before Rome claimed magisterial control. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

All the Churches held the Council to determine the authenticity of the books. 54 books were said to be gospels and hundreds of others claiming to be from some apostolic source.

Do you know what criteria was used to establish authenticity?

Catholic Tradition.

The Bible was Catholic Liturgy before it was the Bible, it had to be continuously read in the churches from the Apostolic times.

The Catholic Councils held these scriptures, because they were the Church of the Apostles.

It was the Catholic Church’s inspired idea to assemble the Bible from its own liturgy.

No Protestant aided in its preservation or construction.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

All the Churches held the Council to determine the authenticity of the books. 54 books were said to be gospels and hundreds of others claiming to be from some apostolic source.

Do you know what criteria was used to establish authenticity?

Catholic Tradition.

The Bible was Catholic Liturgy before it was the Bible, it had to be continuously read in the churches from the Apostolic times.

The Catholic Councils held these scriptures, because they were the Church of the Apostles.

It was the Catholic Church’s inspired idea to assemble the Bible from its own liturgy.

No Protestant aided in its preservation or construction.

Cathode, at this point we are simply repeating the same pattern. You are relying on Catholicism to prove Catholicism. Quoting Catholic councils to establish Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very conclusion you are trying to demonstrate. That is not argument; it is self‑authentication.

The councils you cite did not create Scripture, did not inspire Scripture, and did not make Scripture Scripture. They listed books the churches already recognized. The writings existed first. The churches read them because they were Scripture. Liturgy followed Scripture; Scripture did not follow liturgy. Rome inherited the canon; Rome did not originate it.

Appealing to Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition is not a response to the historical or biblical points I raised. It is simply the system defending itself with itself. That is why the discussion keeps circling back to the same institutional claims.

So I will close with this: the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome. The canon was recognized because it was inspired, not because later councils acknowledged it. And quoting Catholic sources to prove Catholic authority is precisely the circularity I have been pointing out.

We have reached the end of what can be clarified here. This conversation is over.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are still not addressing the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting Catholic councils to prove Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The Council of Carthage in 397 did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

Angelic help, guidance and protection is lived spiritual experience in the old and new covenants.

Angels serve God, not us.

False, scripture says God sent them to serve us as well.

“Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?”

They are our servants, this is the relationship.
What do servants do but take our requests.

So your statement is unbiblical.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are still not addressing the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting Catholic councils to prove Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The Council of Carthage in 397 did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

How do you know the Bible is inspired?

Self authentication would be an inspired author listing which books belong in the Bible.

Do you see any such inspired book listing which books belong in the Bible?

The Bible isn’t self authenticating, it’s Catholic Tradition.

Too scared to face the reality.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

How do you know the Bible is inspired?

Self authentication would be an inspired author listing which books belong in the Bible.

Do you see any such inspired book listing which books belong in the Bible?

The Bible isn’t self authenticating, it’s Catholic Tradition.

Too scared to face the reality.

Cathode, I was waiting for the personal attack, and now that it has arrived, I’m going to close my part of this discussion with a simple observation. I have engaged in this conversation for a few specific purposes: to show how shallow the Catholic apologetic method becomes when pressed by Scripture, to show the lengths of falsity it must claim to sustain itself, and to show the personal attacks it eventually resorts to when the argument collapses. All of these are indicators of a false, unscriptural, and self‑authenticating system.

The constant retreat into magisterial claims, the circular appeal to Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition, and the refusal to engage the biblical argument all reveal the same thing, a system defending itself with itself. When an argument must rely on its own authority to justify its own authority, it has already lost its biblical foundation. That is why this discussion has drifted into councils, decrees, and institutional claims rather than Scripture. It is not a personal issue; it is the nature of the system you are defending.

I have succeeded in demonstrating exactly that. You have confirmed it.

For my part, that is enough to make the point. I’ll leave it there.

 

[Ben1445]

People did talk to angels in scripture, angels were part of the lived experience in the old covenant and new covenant churches.

Tell me where you find men, made lower than angels summoning them to watch the Jericho road to make sure that the story of the Good Samaritan didn’t happen too often?
Anything remotely close?

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, I was waiting for the personal attack, and now that it has arrived, I’m going to close my part of this discussion with a simple observation. I have engaged in this conversation for a few specific purposes: to show how shallow the Catholic apologetic method becomes when pressed by Scripture, to show the lengths of falsity it must claim to sustain itself, and to show the personal attacks it eventually resorts to when the argument collapses. All of these are indicators of a false, unscriptural, and self‑authenticating system.

The constant retreat into magisterial claims, the circular appeal to Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition, and the refusal to engage the biblical argument all reveal the same thing, a system defending itself with itself. When an argument must rely on its own authority to justify its own authority, it has already lost its biblical foundation. That is why this discussion has drifted into councils, decrees, and institutional claims rather than Scripture. It is not a personal issue; it is the nature of the system you are defending.

I have succeeded in demonstrating exactly that. You have confirmed it.

For my part, that is enough to make the point. I’ll leave it there.

What I notice is your flurry of verbiage and narratives with bold claims and no sources.

If the Bible is self authenticating, why is there no inspired author in an inspired book listing what books belong in the Bible ?

Didn’t want to hang around to face that question.

 

[Ben1445]

If the Bible is self authenticating

Which is why there is the Bible and there is the apocrypha instead of just the Bible.