Posted on 01/11/2018 6:54:52 PM PST by Salvation
Real ones; that is.
Catholic believers are commanded to Accept wholeheartedly what Rome tells you is FACT, for only SHE rightly handles the Word of Truth.
Where are the Catholic ‘Bereans’ of today??
I suspect it is.
Said Harvey to the lass on the couch,
‘If this hurts, you’d better yell “OUCH!”
‘Do it right away,
‘Not some far off late day;
‘for no one your story will vouch.’
2 Timothy 2:14
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of Godnot to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
Many of them are here. 😄😀 I like dealing with Berean Catholics. They listen more closely, and ask intelligent questions. 👍
There is but a razor-thin margin between Simon's salvation and the Iscariot's loss: the difference is in the heart, not so much in the mind. With His omniscience Jesus knew ahead of time, way ahead. I just don't believe it is appropriate to put Simon on a pedestal, then or now.
But thanks for your note.
The argument from silence does not prove the Messiah did not call him Cephas/Kephas. He very well could have.
Nor does your argument on the same basis prove that Jesus ever did. But since the silence of the issue is an inspired, inerrant, complete silence, I take the absence of Jesus use of "Peter" to address him, combined with the very positive indication in an intimate vignette more convincing:
The risen Jesus: "Simon of Jonas, lovestἀγαπάω = sovereignly prefer thou me morefully than thesethan the others do?
Simon: "Yea, Lord; thou knowestperceive that I loveφιλέω = have affection for thee."
Jesus: "Feednurse my lambslittle ones."
(perhaps a contemplative pause?)
Jesus: "Simon of Jonas, lovestἀγαπάω = sovereignly prefer thou me?
Simon: "Yea, Lord; thou knowestperceive that I loveφιλέω = have affection for thee."
Jesus: "Feedtake to pasture my sheepgrown ones."
(another thoughtful moment?)
Jesus (pressing a bit?): "Simon of Jonas, lovestsup>φιλέω = have affection for thou me?
Simon (Peter) (aggrieved at the insistence and alteration of the kind of love mentioned): "Lord, thou knowestperceivehave knowledge that I lovehave affection for thee."
Jesus: "Feedbring fodder to my sheepgrown ones." Jesus then tells Simon of his future.
I would think that if Jesus was in the habit of addressing him by his common nickname, that it would be here, if anywhere. But again, that's just an unproveable hypothesis, not a doctrine. More than anything, my opinion is that this little vignette is the point at which Simon is shown that the six denials of the trial night did not cause Jesus to dismiss him, but rather encouraged Simon to keep trusting in Him and keep on with the ministry, as the others were.
Well, so much for the primacy of "Peter" as "Pope," I hope.
This is made clear by the context. The reference to John’s greatness occurs in a discussion of his role as a prophet (11:7-15). And the declaration of his greatness is occasioned by Jesus quoting the prophecy of the coming prophet (v. 10) who would herald the Messiah (Mal. 3:1). Jesus follows up the remark by pointing to John as the terminus of the Law and the prophets (v. 13) and as the fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah (or one like Elijah) would come (v. 14).
This explains the sense in which John is greater than all others: He is the greatest of the pre-Christian prophets in the sense that he gets to be the herald of the Messiah himself. Indeed, some manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel give the parallel to this saying as, “I tell you, among those born of women no prophet is greater than John the Baptist” (Luke 7:28, var.). Needless to say, the class of Old Testament prophets is a set to which Mary does not belong.
Further, Jesus’ universe of discourse at this point is limited by another factor: time. “The kingdom of heaven” refers to the Christian age, to the Church that Jesus will found. John thus may be the most blessed of the line of Old Covenant prophets because he is the Messiah’s herald, but even the humblest Christian will be more blessed than John is. And of course Mary-unlike John-lived into the Christian age and became part of the Church.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-universe-of-discourse
For The God so lovedsovereignly preferred over self and others the world, so that He gave His Only Begotten Son in order that everyone persistently committing trust unto Him subjunctivenot perish, but subjunctivecontinually have eternal absolute life."
The present tense clearly impresses the Greek-thinker that salvific trusting is a continually ongoing process, in which the regenerated (born-anew) spiritual being cannot and will not revert to the old life of the worldling. If he/she even thought about it, they should know and remember that The Holy Spirit will not permit it. He may even administer physical death, if necessary, to see that cessation of one's trust does not occur. Removal from the temporal to the eternal will ensure that the saved person continues life for ever.
The Scripture does not suggest backsliding for the truly saved person. It is not an option.
2 Cor.13:5 AV:
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"
The God, The Father of regenerated believers, is not just some Big Celestial Buddy of theirs:
Heb 12:7-8 AV:
"If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."
Applying the sense of the Greekiness of the present tense should solve the "salvation by works" issue permanently, without "wrangling."
Not only that...the Roman Catholic has to believe this...if not, they are no longer a Roman Catholic and are condemned. It should be noted this is not a New Testament requirement for faith.
Hence, if anyone shall dare which God forbid! to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm
"Wrangling is not studious discourse over tenses, voices, moods, cases, etc."
He very well could have.
He very well could have.
He very well could have.
What you are witnessing is the Roman Basis of Truth!
God Could Have Done it that Way!!!!
Yes, once the facts do not support a Roman belief, there is a quick turn to "God could have done it that way."
Isn't it amazing that most of the key beliefs of Romanism are not to be found in the Scriptures and only in Hopium??
Not!
Mary was the fulfillment of prophecies about Messiah, made to Jews
Mary lived before she bore Messiah - as a Jew
The Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out at Pentecost.
Christ had not yet died
In summary, your quoted link is just not true Adsum.
Would he really apply the limited discourse argument to John 6??
No worry, I know the difference between a Bible discussion and
a religious discussion, entirely my fault.
The catholic organization is not The Body of ALL believers relying on Jesus as Savior and Lord. Your continued purposed conflation of church and Church (The true body of all in His body of believers) is duly noted for the deceit it is.
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.