Posted on 06/19/2014 5:13:49 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Yeah...
Sure...
Nope; a bunch of guys get together and VOTE on someone.
Chased off porches and barely mentioned then ignored in FR threads...
If you have cable TV, there wont be much on to watch.
If there isnt much on to watch, you will answer your door whenever someone rings.
If you open your door, you will see mormons.
If you talk to mormons, they will trick you into praying about whether something is true.
If you rely on your feelings, you may become a mormon.
If you become a mormon, you will have to wear magic underwear!
If you wear magic underwear, people will immediately label you as a cultist.
DONT be a cultist!
Get DirectTV.
There are claims made by Catholics that are just stunning in not only their falsehood but in their arrogance and pomposity as well. The claim that the Catholic Church gave us scripture has to be at the top of that list.
what do you want?
I think I’ve read that somewhere before....:)
By the same token, since Roman Catholics believe some of the same things as JWs, therefore, Catholicism must be a cult.
Well said!
Good stuff!
bttt
I don't quite understand the modern movement to denigrate the Apostle Peter as if by any means it must twist the Scripture. I see flaws in your contentions and there is so little time so I'll only address a side issue for now specifically. Every Apostle presented the Gospel to the Jew first, as they should for it is written: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
The verse you quote from Romans confirms Galatians 2:7.
Part of the issue with Peter is the RCC's attempts to elevate Peter into something not intended by the Bible.
There has been no attempt to denigrate Peter. Only to look at Peter in the proper Biblical context.
yes there is; just as there still is for Jacob with snide sermons; the real issue with Simon/Peter is that so many who call themselves Christian are only differentiated by being antiCatholic; their lives and theology radiate radiate spiritual rebellion; Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
No, It does not confirm Romans; it conforms to romans. the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first and then also to the Greek/Gentile; that is why even the Apostle to the Gentiles always goes to the Jew first. Each if the Apostles apparently had primary missions or assignments from The Lord, as we see from scripture and traditions that were written into history later.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Jacob and how this relates to Peter.
Was Peter given a special role by Christ? Yes he was.
Was Paul given a special role by Christ? Yes he was.
Does Chirst give each of us believers a special role? Yes he does.
Do we all have the same Holy Spirit? Yes we do..
Was Peter's role greater than any of the other apostles?
There are varying aspects on this among the post apostles and those called the "church fathers."
Opposed:
Augustine (354-430): "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.' . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
Origen (185-254)i."And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My church'? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' etc, . . . And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was." (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)
Chrysostom (349-407):i."Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples" (Commentary on Galatians, 1, vv. 1-3).
In favor:
Jerome (347-420):i."Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold . . . As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! . . . If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all . . . But may the faith of Rome never come to such a pass! May the devout hearts of your people never be infected with such unholy doctrines! Let us be satisfied to speak of one substance and of three subsisting persons--perfect, equal, coeternal. Let us keep to one hypostasis, if such be your pleasure, and say nothing of three." (Letter 15:1-2, 15:4)
I am sure there are more quotes both for and against Peter as the Rock. What we can conclude from this is that not even the "church fathers" agreed on Peter.
In this case we have to go back to the Bible and ask upon what is the church built.
A man?
Or, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
The context of the Bible will make it clear it is the profession of Christ as the Son of the Living God is the foundation, the rock of the church.
As noted in a prior post to you, the traditions are not all agreed upon by the early "church fathers." In that case we have to use the Bible...the only one of the two that has not changed and the only one of the two that is God-breathed.
Although I make my arguments from the Scriptures you have introduced into evidence the Early Fathers and dropped the pretense of Sola Scriptura. You can now consider the primacy of Peter in light of the Early Fathers. I am not as well versed in the Early Fathers and I think others here are. I do find some interesting debates on the Internet that turn your evidence around. I will leave it as an exercise for you and others to debate the Early Fathers and the Primacy of Peter.
Scripturally, it is clear that the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone. It is not built on a confession. It is built exactly as the Scripture says it is.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The "thee" for the keys is singular, not plural. The same is true for the "thou" here in Matthew 16:19; he was speaking directly to Peter. The other disciples were candidates to succeed Peter though, as evidenced in Acts 1:15-22 where Peter exercises his leadership and determined that they needed to select an Apostle to replace Judas, and he led this effort with an appeal to Scripture and Prayer. In Matthew 18, the Lord uses the plural for you in a different context but for "binding and loosing" and it applies to these same Apostolic candidates.
Nope. I only used the ECFs as a point to show that not all agreed on the claims made by the RCC. This renders these claims invalid.
That takes us back to the Bible, which is where we need to be all along as it is the ONLY God-breathed words we have.
Some simple questions and contextual analysis will clear up the issue of Peter or his confession as the foundation upon which the church is built.
Upon what is the foundation constructed that the apostles and prophets are laying?
Green rabbits? No.
It is Christ and Christ only.
What was "this" that was revealed to Peter? That Christ was the Son of the Living God.
What was "this" that Christ was referring to? Peter's confession that Christ was the Son of the Living God.
What are the keys to the kingdom? In other words, how does one enter the kingdom of Heaven? What's the key to getting in? Belief in Christ
What did the apostles and prophets preach about? Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven.
When Peter delivered his sermon on the day of Pentecost, what was it?
That he was Peter and Christ had given him the keys to heaven and that he was going to forgive their sins? No!
but rather:
Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This is the binding and loosing and forgiving and retaining of sins that Christ was talking about.
If someone believed then their sins were forgiven...if not those sins were retained by that person.
The foundation is the clear, simple, message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It cannot be anything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.