Posted on 06/28/2023 4:27:11 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.
(Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.
(John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.
“I have not taken it out of context. The were commended for searching the scriptures as to the truth of what was spoken to them.
So you are trying to tell me searching the scriptures for the truth of someone presenting God’s word to you is not at all what that scripture means? “
Re read what you just wrote. Then
“...the truth of what was spoken to them.”
What was spoken to them, was St. Paul’s assertions, that the Jewish Law and the Prophets, foretold Jesus and his sufferings.
So they looked, in the Jewish Scriptures, to see if St. Paul was just B.S.’ing them, or if the Jewish Scriptures really said what Paul told them they did.
I do not see how that creates binding precedent for Christians to rely solely upon the _New_ Testament, as the Sole authority for *Christian* doctrine and practice.
You are claiming that that passage from Acts automatically establishes the example for all Christians for all time on all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice: whereas I see it as a further affirmation of Jesus as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament
The Protestant teaching/dogma, seems to be that, “well, the Church had to rely upon the eyewitness accounts for doctrine until the Scriptures were accumulated, and then that is a hard, fixed, and immutable barrier from then on, so that if it’s not in the Bible, it MUST be flagged as wrong.”
The problem is, it is believers who decided which of many writings were inspired and therefore given credence/precedence, which means it is humans who defined what is and what isn’t the Bible...at least the New Testament.
And Jesus said, “When the Holy Spirit comes He will guide you into all truth.” He didn’t say He’d leave one set of writings from the early believers which were supposed to become the exclusive source of doctrine for all believers from then on.
Remember, long before there were any Protestants, the Catholic Church was defining dogma and theology (including Creeds and heresies), which historically shows a teaching role for the Church.
FReepmail on the personal.
Which means you must define what you think SS has to mean. Thus,see 14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia
then answer the actual questions:
Thus here are questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia: 1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of the written word of God, or the NT church, and what provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure, substantive source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture ever subject to testing by the oral words of men, or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scriptura must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office (and ideally a centralized one) as the formal judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme source of Truth)?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, as the sole sure, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
No: Anybody who suggests that the Peter was not called a stone can argue with The Lord. "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone [Petros] (John 1:42)
But anybody who suggests that Peter was called the Rock upon whom the church was built can argue with the Lord about His manifest use of language. Petros is only refers to Peter in the NT, and never for a actual physical rock. But there is a word for the rock upon which the church is built, and for Christ (two words): I tell you that you are Peter, [Petros] and it is on this rock [petra] that I will build my church, and the powers of hell will not conquer it. (Mat 16:18)
In contrast to Peter (“petros”), that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
While men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic, the phrase “this stone” (“touton lithosis”), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44)
It is by the “rock of this faith” that the church not only exists but it gains its members. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) And it is by the essential faith which Peter expressed that church overcomes: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn, 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25)
And linguistical debates never end:
David Garland (“Reading Matthew”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) contending that there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay. And this “changed wordplay” greatly advances the (already likely) scenario that Peter is not “the rock” of that verse.Following on what Garland pointed out, Everett Ferguson, in his “The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), also affirms that in the Syriac language, which is a later form of Aramaic, does indeed make the “kepha/tnra” distinction in existing Syriac translations of the Gospel of Matthew:... More, by the grace of God.
I see that I am up against a truly dizzying intellect. I will prefer to keep my rather simplistic assessment that Christ meant that Peter would be the foundation of His Church since Jesus said:
“Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.” - New Living Translation (NLT)
I will rather take the humble status of ‘lamb’ than the sly status of ‘fox’.
Tell me you meant the New Testament, not most of scripture! First, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)
For the Hebrew Scriptures testify to Jesus being the promised scapegoat and perfect atonement, (https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2022/05/why-should-of-jewish-faith-believe-in.html)and the basis for the teachings of Christ and that of His church. And thus Scripture provided the **doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. ** Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.
For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15 And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
Moreover, as for the recourse to oral tradition, under the premise that this supports Catholic oral tradition (some of which the EO's significantly disagree w/ Rome on), the fact is that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
And the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism, and indeed The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The the magisterial office of church is essential to settle disputes, in subjection of Scripture, and not as superior to it, contrary to the Catholic premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (and basically in primary cults).
Wrong, and deceived, as shown at length, by the grace of God.
That is indeed what Matthew 16 states though you do not accept that simple interpretation.
Without Peter, it is likely that the other 10 would have scattered prior to Pentecost. Without the gift of the Holy Spirit, none would have ventured forth to build the Church of God.
Christ taught his apostles, but Peter is the one who showed them how to carry on in His absence. Peter is the one who lead the first public proclamation after the Ascension. That proclamation set the tone. This is why the others looked to Peter for guidance … just as all bishops continue to look to Rome for guidance today.
The link I posted was supplementary documentation in support of your contention, not against it.
Read on.
Solo Scriptura cannot logically stand on its own. More discussion later in the thread.
bkmk for later study
Meaning engaging in isolationist eisegesis, rather than how the rest of the NT defines what this word play means, in which only Christ is described to be the rock upon which the church was built, and even explicitly states:
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11) And which was penned by a man who manifests more papal care.
More delusion. There is nothing on this thread refutes what I said on SS as defined therein. If so, show it.
The original Acts citation talked about Jews double-checking Paul's claim that the Law and the prophets foretold Jesus. It keeps getting quoted as proof, that "the Scriptures" are the sole source of doctrinal truth: thereby generalizing from a specific instance, of Jews "fact-checking" specific assertions about the Scriptures, to a general binding precedent, that Christians should solely depend on the OT and on the (as of that time, neither defined nor even all written) New Testament, as the binding arbitrator on all matters of faith & doctrine (and sometimes practice).
In practice, many Protties go beyond that (e.g. "dispensationalism") and reject things in the Scriptures such as miracles, prophecy, and the like, which are "not how God works today." They claim the completion of the written New Testament texts, meant that the church no longer needed the assistance of such helps.
:)
no, it does not, and you should know that.
???
He didn't. Jesus spoke Aramaic. He said "Kepha". Kepha = rock, stone.
When the Gospel was translated to Greek, they would not use "Petra" for Simon because it was a feminine noun. A man would not be called by a feminine noun, so the masculine version (Petros) was utilized. Your whole claim regarding Jesus "calling Peter a little stone in the feminine form" is utterly nonsensical.
You have to admit, you just altered what it said to defend your doctrine.
No I didn't. Point out where I altered anything.
In this verse, Paul explicitly tells us who *petra* is, and it is Christ.
In the Greek, the word for rock is petra.
JESUS is the chief cornerstone, not Peter.
https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
*Petra* and *Petros* denote two different objects in the Greek.
Jesus is *petra* and Peter was names *Petros*.
Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.
There is FAR more record of Paul's activities in establishing churches throughout the Roman empire than anything recorded about Peter.
Catholics laud Peter who didn't even hold the top position at the Council at Jerusalem (James did that), and ignore all of Paul's church planting work.
All to try to put their claims to the papacy and being head of Christianity above dispute.
It hasn't worked yet, because there are too many holes in their fabrication.
It’s not scholarship.
It’s rationalization.
“You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church”
So if Jesus is the rock spoken of, it becomes
“You are Peter, and upon this Me I will build my Church.”
Doesn’t sound right, either grammatically, or in terms of what someone would bother telling someone 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.