LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM

The Coming Home Network ^ | Brian W. Harrison

[dan1123]

That is similarly fuzzy in that the standards of that test are unknown except those in judgement reckoned the apostle to be in conformity to The Old Testament. The New Testament had yet to establish it's bona fides at the time.

Of course, but the principle of testing against scripture is laid down.

I am unaware of any contention that only an "apostle can interpret scripture or test an apostle against scripture" but similarly there is no Holy Writ saying just anyone can interpret Scripture or test apostles.

I think it's considered to be a spiritual gift granted to some by the Holy Spirit.

Again, the Old Testament had been long established and needed no validation. The same can not be said for any letter floating around claiming to be from an apostle of the Lord.

Wait. Are you saying that the New Testament isn't scripture and the Tanakh is? I thought that we agreed that the New Testament was scripture with the same authority as the Old.

[annalex]

I should have said “He”, the Holy Spirit.

The point is, the author is correct when he says that whether the Holy Spirit advises a particular individual or not, that would be an extra-scriptural fact if He does.

[papertyger]

Christianity is very simple and does not need the Catholic superstructure ...

And you have tens of thousands of denominations to prove it, right?

[Petronski]

Diversity is our Strength.

[vomit]

[dan1123]

And you have tens of thousands of denominations to prove it, right?

And they make claims of exclusivity to belief. Not of membership to a human organization.

[thefrankbaum]

You have to ask yourself. If it wasn't necessary for salvation to the first Christians, why is it necessary now?

Just curious - what do you think the Church today requires for Salvation that It did not in the first days?

[papertyger]

Of course, but the principle of testing against scripture is laid down.

That's a pretty broad statement. I would agree qualifying an apostle against the OT was practiced. Further than that I'm not willing to go.

I think it's considered to be a spiritual gift granted to some by the Holy Spirit.

Validated by whom?

Wait. Are you saying that the New Testament isn't scripture and the Tanakh is? I thought that we agreed that the New Testament was scripture with the same authority as the Old.,p>We agree that it is "now."

We know from Scripture that there were forgeries of apostlic letters floating about, and cautioned about them by St. Paul. St. Peter also cautioned us against those that twist the writings of St. Paul.

There is no reason to warn against deception if there were no chance of deception.

[fortheDeclaration]

Affirmed by the Church Universal at large in the world 300-400 years after the writing of it . . .

Do you agree with all of the statement?

The church Councils only acknowledged the Canon that had long been accepted by the local churches.

[dan1123]

"(1) Whenever Peter is referred to in this passage it is in the second person ("you"), but "this rock" is in the third person. (2) "Peter" (petros) is a masculine singular term and "rock" (petra) is feminine singular. Hence, they do not have the same referent. And even if Jesus did speak these words in Aramaic (which does not distinguish genders), the inspired Greek original does make such distinctions. (3) What is more, the same authority Jesus gave to Peter (Matt. 16:18) is given later to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). (4) Great authorities, some Catholic, can be cited in agreement with this interpretation, including John Chrysostom and St. Augustine. The latter wrote: "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built."[13]"

source

[papertyger]

And they make claims of exclusivity to belief. Not of membership to a human organization.

Huh?

[dan1123]

Validated by whom?

Why even bother arguing if you don't trust yourself to interpret the Bible?

[dan1123]

Just curious - what do you think the Church today requires for Salvation that It did not in the first days?

Confessions to a priest, prayers to dead saints, baptism into the Catholic Church (that didn't exist yet), confessions of certain sins over others, confessions of any sin (remembered, realized or not) as a requirement to keep your salvation.

[dan1123]

There is no reason to warn against deception if there were no chance of deception.

Are you saying there is no chance of deception now that the New Testament has been canonized?

[Petronski]

...baptism into the Catholic Church (that didn't exist yet)...

Why? Because YOU say so?

LOL   Riiiiight.

[dan1123]

Why? Because YOU say so?

LOL Riiiiight.

Maybe you can go back in time and tell the Messianics celebrating Passover, speaking in Greek, being persecuted by Rome, that they were baptized into the Roman Catholic Church (and that they weren't attending Latin Mass like they should).

[annalex]

The authority of the Church is not based solely on the renaming of Peter episode, but also, and, in fact, primarily on

15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven

(Mt 18)

The unique authority of Peter is, of course, evident in several gospel episodes beside the renaming; he is promised the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose is first given him; Christ promises to pray for him personally at the Last Supper so that he, Peter, may not fail and convert his brethren; Peter is charged with feeding Christ's sheep; Peter converts the first Gentile and it is his vision that makes a clean break with the Jewish ceremonial and dietetic law.

But what about the renaming episode? You acknowledge that the actual conversation takes place in Aramaic and is not recorded at all, so we are dealing with the limitations of the Greek translation. The patristic Greek has only feminine for "rock", "petra"; the diminutive "petros" is not recorded in the Koine Greek. So, St. Matthew had to fit the feminine "petra" into the masculine name, so he writes "petros". Naturally, the pronouns have to agree with the word they point to and the grammar of the phrase (like in any language), so since Jesus is talking to Peter about a rock (and not to a rock about Peter), the pronouns are "thou" (soi) and "this" (taute te).

This is really a first, rejecting the scripture for being too grammatical, then calling the normative interpretation "ungrammatical - take a cigar.

[papertyger]

Why even bother arguing if you don't trust yourself to interpret the Bible?

Because the Bible is not the sum of my relationship to Jesus Christ.

[Petronski]

The distinction “Roman” came later. Christ founded the Catholic Church. Luther didn’t tear that part out of your Bible, did he?

[Petronski]

You acknowledge that the actual conversation takes place in Aramaic and is not recorded at all, so we are dealing with the limitations of the Greek translation.

That's more convenient than sliced bread.

[papertyger]

Are you saying there is no chance of deception now that the New Testament has been canonized?

Not the same deceptions possible before it was codified.