Fundamentalists and Catholics Whose Bible is it, anyway?

http://www.christlife.org/library/articles/C_understand2.html ^ | Peter Kreeft

[johnb2004]

Every word of Scripture must be reconciled. We cannot take a phrase here or there and interpret it on its own. You make my point for me. Why would Christ tell Peter he has the ability to bind and loose only to "really" mean He was founding several independent churches and you each was to figure figure it out on their own?

Plus all the folks who new the apostles spoke of the one true Church and were obedient to the teachings of Peter and his successors.

As I look around the world today find only ONE Church that has constantly taught the same doctrines. Every other church has fallen into error.

[Wrigley]

If they have the baby tooth and the foreskin of Jesus, what's to stop cloning?

[Ff--150]

My bad =-( Refer to post #41, (senility setting in)

[johnb2004]

BTW, doctrines are not the same as a pious belief such as venerating a relic of the true cross.

[ArrogantBustard]

If I'm not mistaken Catholics believe Peter established their church.

You're mistaken.

The antecedent of "I" in Matt. 16:18 is Jesus, a fact of which Catholics are well aware. We believe Jesus founded one Church (ours), and appointed Peter (and Peter's successors) as His vicar. I suggest you consider that maybe other ideas you have about what Catholics believe are equally mistaken.

[ArrogantBustard]

< crickets >

[johnb2004]

In fact, Protestantism itself can exist now only because the Catholic Church has successfully defined so much of Christian doctrine for Protestants to borrow from. There is much less doctrine for the Protestants to argue about. If the Church had to use the Protestant model from her inception, she would have disintegrated into a meaningless morass of confused doctrines with no means to pull herself out of the muck and mire. It only took 500 years for Protestantism to disintegrate into 28,000 denominations. Imagine if the Protestant model had existed for 2,000 years?
It is ironic that most Protestants now deny almost all of the articles of faith that historic Christians held! How would any religious organization that claims to be historic deny the previously held historic beliefs and then invent new doctrines that the historic Church had either never held or previously rejected! The historic Church had rejected doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Faith Alone, and Eternal Security. In what sense, then, can Protestants claim to be "historic"?

Marty Rothwell

[johnb2004]

Cardinal John Henry Newman was a prominent 18th century Anglican bishop who also grappled with the problems between Protestantism and historical Christianity. Unlike Dr. Horton, he did not try to rewrite Church history. Instead he saw the fallacies Protestantism is built on, and converted to Catholicism. He wrote:


"And this one thing is certain…the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so… This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it… To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Today, Protestants are continuing to come to the Catholic Church as they read the early Church fathers for themselves.


Marty Rothwell. "Catholics, Protestants, and History." Petersnet September 4, 2002.

[NYer]

The Books that were placed in the NT canon are those selected under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is sheer hubris to imply that the men of the early church selected them

How can you say which books are inspired and which are not? Here for example are two short books included in the Canon (KJV version). What’s in these books that so obviously makes them inspired?

Book of Philemon

3 John

[Wrigley]

The historic Church had rejected doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Faith Alone, and Eternal Security.

If the historic church is defined as the Roman Church, the historic church is wrong in all those areas.

[aimhigh]

Mat 16:18 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.

This refers to the confession Peter made, not Peter. The name Peter means "pebble". The "rock" is a different word.

[johnb2004]

There is only one TRUE Church. The one founded by Christ and has a visible leader on earth..His vicar JP II

[johnb2004]

Which early Christians and which apostles believed in Sola Scriptura?

[Desdemona]

"petr," as in the word petrified, means rock.

[NYer]

The name Peter means "pebble". The "rock" is a different word.

Actually, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

 

Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

 

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

 

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

[Barnacle]

CREDENTIALS I have been ordained as a Reverend and received an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by mail through World Christianship Ministries and also received my "authority to solemnize marriages" through the states of Ohio and Illinois. I am a registered Ghost Hunter through the International Ghost Hunters Society, and have recently served on the Photo Analysis Committee of the Spiritseekers of Ohio

Well "Doctor", it's clear that you reference only the most credible sources of information.

[johnb2004]

SOLA SCRIPTURA
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral tradition. Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted. 2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition. 2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation. Acts 8:30-31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures. Heb 5:12 ... need to be taught.

[4CJ]

My bad =-( Refer to post #41, (senility setting in)

ROTF!

"I see", said the blind man ;o)

[Ff--150]

"I see", said the blind man ;o)

...as he picked up his hammer and saw.......