Is the Bible God's Word? (Do you believe the Bible is the only word of God?)

Looking at this passage in context, we can see plainly and clearly that, by referencing Peter's name, which means "rock," he says that He will make Peter the rock or foundation of His Church.

No, we can't see 'clearly' what you see.

Is Peter the 'FOUNDATION' of the Church?

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

As Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., has demonstrated, we can use a series of several simple propositions to argue that Eastern Orthodoxy's account of how the Church transmits revelation is vitiated by a circular argument, and so cannot be true.

Circular argument is a LOGIC fallacy. Use of it in NO way determines the TRUTHFULNESS of the conclusion.

Can't be of much worth if no one is willing to talk about it.

At mine, we DEDICATE babies to the Lord.

Actually 'baptism' is reserved to those (of any age) that make the claim they realize what 'baptism' means.

Ouch!

I believe that God still speaks through teaching and prophecy. And Jesus taught us how to discern who was really speaking in His name.

That's an easy one: because Christ Himself instituted it.

No; He did not.

HE had taken part in the PASSOVER meal every year of His human existance. HE knew how often it was done.

When He said, "WHENEVER", He knew EXACTLY what He was talking about.

1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

But ~~the valid interpretation~~ AN interpretation is that the Lord is the rock, and by the authority of the Lord, so too Peter becomes the rock.

The Scripture is clear on this: Peter is given the keys to the Kingdom by Christ Himself.

Just what ARE these 'keys'?

Symbolic or literal?

Yes, this is a wonderful passage, because it helps to illustrate what the Church really means by the infallibility of Peter and his successors. That you quote this passage suggests to me that you do not understand the true meaning of the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.

Is THIS an example of circular logic?

BTTT

No, we can't see 'clearly' what you see.

You highlight this passage in blue:

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Why do you believe the above passage refutes the Catholic interpretation that Peter is the rock? This statement does not take away from what Christ does. As Christ, the Son of the living God, Christ has the authority to give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter -- which is exactly what He does!

Why do you believe your private interpretation of this passage has more authority than the Early Church Fathers who lived very close in time to the Apostles who directly witnessed these events? The same Church Fathers that the Church used to canonize the Bible, the only reason these particular books were put together into one volume???

Also, again, look at the passage in the context of all the other places in the NT where Peter is clearly designated the leader of the disciples. Consider also the passage where Christ asks Peter to feed his sheep! It's all there if you have the eyes to see it.

How do you know that the Ekklesia existed earlier than Deut 4:10 ?

To the beginning of time ?

Begining of salvation history ?

See Genesis.

Circular argument is a LOGIC fallacy. Use of it in NO way determines the TRUTHFULNESS of the conclusion.

That's a good point. Let me re-phrase:

As Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., has demonstrated, we can use a series of several simple propositions to argue that Eastern Orthodoxy's account of how the Church transmits revelation is vitiated by a circular argument, and therefore undermines the grounds for, and therefore the validity of, the Orthodox Church's claim to authority.

No; He did not.

HE had taken part in the PASSOVER meal every year of His human existance. HE knew how often it was done.

When He said, "WHENEVER", He knew EXACTLY what He was talking about.

Christ did not specify how often the faithful should communicate or celebrate the Eucharist. He simply bids us eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and warns us, that if we do not do so, we shall not have life in us (John 6, etc.). The fact, however, that His Body and Blood were to be received under the appearances of bread and wine, the ordinary daily food and drink of His hearers, would point, to the frequent and even daily reception of the Sacrament. The manna, too, with which He compared "the bread which He would give", was daily partaken of by the Israelites. Moreover, though the petition "give us this day our daily bread" does not primarily refer to the Eucharist, nevertheless it could not fail to lead men to believe that their souls, as well as their bodies, stood in need of daily nourishment.

In the early Church at Jerusalem the faithful received every day (Acts 2:46). Later on, however, we read that St. Paul remained at Troas for seven days, and it was only "on the first day of the week" that the faithful "assembled to break bread" (Acts 20:6-11; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2). According to the "Didache" the breaking of bread took place on "the Lord's day" (kata kyriaken, c. xiv). Pliny says that the Christians assembled "on a fixed day" (Ep. x); and St. Justin, "on the day called Sunday" (te tou heliou legomene hemera, Apol., I, lxvii, 3, 7). It is in Tertullian that we first read of the Liturgy being celebrated on any other day besides Sunday (De Orat., c. xix; De Corona, c. iii). Daily reception is mentioned by St. Cyprian (De Orat. Domin., c. xviii in P.L., IV, 531); St. Jerome (Ep. ad Damasum); St. John Chrysostom (Hom., iii in Eph.); St. Ambrose (in Ps. cxviii, viii, 26, 28 in P.L., XV, 1461, 1462); and the author of the "De Sacramentis" (V, iv, 25; P.L., XVI, 452).

__________________________________________________________

On Christ as the paschal lamb:

First, yes, of course the Passover is the time of the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist, because the Lord is to become the sacrificial lamb. The Old Convenant foreshadows the New.

But to get a little deeper, look at Revelation 5. Recall the scroll with seven seals that nobody can break open and everone is upset. John is on the brink of tears. In 5, verse 2, "A strong angel proclaimed with a loud voice, 'Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?' And no one in heaven and on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it."

What is the scroll? The word is biblion. Most likely it's a reference to a covenant document, the New Covenant document that nobody is worthy to break open. "And I wept much, but no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it," because this scroll would consummate and fulfill the promises of the Old Testament.

"Then one of the elders said to me, 'Weep not. Lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, he has conquered so that he can open the scroll and seven seals.'" You could almost feel the hallelujah rising up from within your soul. The Lion of the tribe of Judah! You turn. You look and John turns to look and what does he see in verse 6, "And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw," what? Aslan, the lion? No. David crowned with glory? No. You'd think so, a lion and a king are the words used to describe it. "I turned and I saw a lamb standing, looking as though it had been slain."

Jesus Christ is the son of David and the king of the new and heavenly Jerusalem. He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah and He is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, as it said elsewhere in Revelation. But here in heaven on the throne of glory, after His crucifixion, His resurrection, His ascension, His enthronement, He still looks like a lamb. He still looks as though He had been slain. Why not clean up the body? Why not wipe away the wounds? Why continue resembling a lamb? Because He's continuing the Passover offerings, the sacrifice. Not by dying, not by bleeding and not by suffering but by continuing to offer up Himself as the firstborn and as the unblemished lamb, as the perpetual, timeless, everlasting sacrifice of praise to the Father.

And what do the people do? They rejoice and they break out into a song. And what is the song, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals for thou was slain." Past tense, "And by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." And what has he done? He's become a priest to be sure, but for what purpose? "He has made them a kingdom and priest to our God." He has made those whom he has saved priests. And what do priests do? They offer sacrifice.

Has Christ's sacrifice ended all sacrifices? No. Christ's sacrifice has ended all ineffective, bloody animal sacrifices that never did anything anyway. Now for the first time in history we can really begin to offer sacrifice to God. Romans 12 says, "Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God." And it wouldn't be holy and acceptable except that it's united to Christ's perpetual sacrifice. He's not bleeding. He's not dying. He's not suffering, but he is offering a sacrifice as a lamb does, as a priest king does continually, forever.

And that's what it's all about. John wouldn't see a lamb looking as though it had been slain if the whole kit and caboodle was completed and done. Yes, it's completed and done, but it's still going on, and it's going to go on forever in the future. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, as Hebrews tells us.

Now, is this strange? Is this teaching novel? Well, let's take a look at 1st Corinthians and see how natural it seems to the apostle Paul. We have already looked at 1st Corinthians 5, "Christ, our Passover," that's in verse 7, "Christ, our Paschal Lamb has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." What's he talking about? Is he talking about leaven being like sin. No. He's saying let us celebrate the feast with unleavened bread. What feast? The Eucharist! The sacrifice continues because communion must be celebrated. We've got to eat the lamb, the resurrected, glorified, enthroned lamb that still looks as though he'd been slain because he's still giving himself to us.

Turn over with me now to Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 13. He says, "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings in the same way the Lord commanded. That those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." Now we might be tempted to read Corinthians 9, 13 and 14 and say, "Well, back in the Old Testament they did temple service and altar service and sacrifice, but now in the New Testament they only proclaim the word."

The problem with that is that Paul goes on to say, Corinthians 11, as we will see, how Christ's death is proclaimed. Take a look with me at 1st Corinthians, 11:23-26. "For I received from the Lord what I shall deliver to you." Interesting, he received it not from Peter and the apostles. When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus or perhaps at some other time, what did Jesus deliver to Paul? Instructions for the Eucharist. "I received from the Lord what I also deliver to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup after supper saying, 'This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this." Commandment, imperative tense. "As often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

You proclaim the gospel. Let's go back then to Corinthians 9, verse 14, "In the same way the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." How does Paul proclaim the gospel? Just by preaching? Or by celebrating the Eucharist? "As often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." That's the gospel. Paul is talking in verses 13 and 14 about how he should be supported as an apostle and he does so in conjunction with temple service at an altar where there is sacrificial offerings which he as an apostle has the right to receive from. What's he talking about? A New Covenant temple? A New Covenant altar? A New Covenant sacrifice where he proclaims the gospel by celebrating the Eucharist.

Now let's go on to Corinthians 10 and get things straight really quickly here because Corinthians 10, gives us a proper warning. In the first ten verses of Corinthians 10, Paul says that back in the Old Testament with Moses, verse 3, "They all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink." The water from the rock and the manna in the wilderness and both, Paul says in a sense, were signs of Christ's presence among them. Nevertheless, verse 5, "with most of them God was not pleased for they were overthrown in the wilderness."

In the next three verses he describes the Golden Calf incident where thousands of them died. In other words just because you receive supernatural food and drink doesn't mean you've got it made in the shade. You have to set things right with God and keep things right with the Lord. Verse 11, "Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction upon whom the end of the ages has come." We now have a greater and much more supernatural food and drink. So we can relax? No. We've got to be even more circumspect in searching out our hearts and making sure we are right with God.

He goes on in verse 16, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a coenia, a communion, a participation in the blood of Christ?" Not a symbol. But a share, a communion. The bread which we break , is it not a coenia, a communion in the body of Christ. "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body for we all partake of the one bread." He doesn't mean to say that there's one enormous loaf that we all take a piece from. There are many loaves of bread. There are many breads in that earthly sense, but there's only one bread in the heavenly sense, and that's Christ. Because we receive from one bread Christ, the Bread of Life, we who are many become one body, namely, the Body of Christ. He's suggesting that we become what we eat.

He goes on to contrast our sacrifice with other sacrifices and he says, verse 18, "Consider the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" What he is saying is back then when you eat the sacrifice, you have a communion in the altar of those animals. Now we have a communion on all of our altars in the New Covenant with Christ, the Lamb of God. Verse 21, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord with jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" For some reason God takes this with the utmost seriousness. Why?

Corinthians 11, he spells it out even clearer. We've already read verses 23 through 26. Now we can conclude with verse 27 where he says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord." Now that language is actually like civil judicial language. Somebody who's practically guilty of murder or capital offense is guilty of the body and blood. Now if it's only a symbol, he might be guilty in some lesser sense, but when you profane the Lord's Supper, you actually become guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. "Let a man examine himself, therefore, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning," -- the symbolism? No. "...the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Now is he just speaking metaphorically? He couldn't be because in the next verse he says, "That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died." To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is playing with fire of the worst sort. He goes on in chapter 12, verse 12, "For just as the body is one," the Church, that is, "...and has many members and all the members of the body though many are one body, so it is with Christ for by one Spirit we were all baptized in the one body." When we received the water of Baptism, we received the Spirit of God. "And all were made to drink of the one Spirit." When we receive Eucharist, Communion, we receive the Spirit as well as the flesh and the blood and the body, soul, humanity and divinity of Christ.

This is significant, very significant. This, in fact, gives us the whole interpretive key to the Book of Revelation. Many non-Catholic as well as Catholic scholars have noticed that the whole structure of Revelation is a big Passover liturgy where Christ, the Priest King, the firstborn Son and the Lamb looking as though it's been slain conducts and celebrates the heavenly liturgy. And the earthly liturgy is meant to be a reflection in that, a participation in that, and the early Church took it for granted. There is the Lamb looking as though it's been slain and making all of the people in heaven priests so they can assist in the offering of the firstborn son of God to the Father and join themselves with it.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now, that's the Bible. And also, in the Bible, as we have discussed, Christ confers the Authority to teach the gospel to His disciples. What do they do with this authority? See Acts 2:42. They celebrated the Eucharist.

Is there anywhere we can find more detail on precisely how the disciples celebrated the Eucharist? Yes. The Didache, aka, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," which caused a sensation when it was discovered around 1885.

Lost for over a thousand years, this anonymous Greek writing appears to have taken its final form around 125AD in Alexandria Egypt, but is composed of two earlier documents that could date back to the time of the apostles themselves. Thought the author is not known, the work itself is reckoned among the Apostolic Fathers, the earliest Fathers of the Church. This excerpt is on the celebration of the Eucharist (9:1 - 10:6; 14:1-3):

Celebrate the Eucharist as follows: Say over the cup: “we give you thanks, Father, for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory for ever”.

Over the broken bread say: “we give you thanks, Father, for the life and the knowledge which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory for ever. As this broken bread scattered on the mountains was gathered and became one, so too, may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For glory and power are yours through Jesus Christ for ever”.

Do not let anyone eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For the statement of the Lord applies here also: Do not give to dogs what is holy.

When you finish the meal, offer thanks in this manner: “We thank you, holy Father, for your name which you enshrined in our hearts. We thank you for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be glory for ever. Almighty ruler, you created all things for the sake of your name; you gave men food and drink to enjoy so that they might give you thanks. Now you have favored us through Jesus your servant with spiritual food and drink as well as with eternal life. Above all we thank you because you are mighty. To you be glory for ever.

“Remember, Lord, your Church and deliver her from all evil. Perfect her in your love; and, once she has been sanctified, gather her together from the four winds into the kingdom which you have prepared for her. For power and glory are yours for ever.

“May grace come and this world pass away! Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen”.

On the Lord’s day, when you have been gathered together, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your offering may be pure. If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled. Your sacrifice must not be defiled. In this regard, the Lord has said: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice. I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is great among the nations.

__________________________________________________________

But the valid interpretation AN interpretation is that the Lord is the rock, and by the authority of the Lord, so too Peter becomes the rock.

But you know the problem here, Elsie. You just keeping quoting the same text, highlighting this or that, and I comment on how, using that same text, the Catholic interpretation is valid. You see the Catholic interpretation as just one interpretation among others. Ok, fine. But in that case, you are saying the text is ambiguous and open to interpretation, even by those who sincerely wish to interpret its true meaning. This is not consistent with Sola Scriptura! And remember that is the main point of this discussion.

If it were true that Scripture is "self-authenticating," as Sola Scriptura must hold, then the Bible would have no ambiguity. There would not be so many different interpretations among the various denominations of Christians. And yet they are many, many interpretations of the Bible.

Protestants do not have a satisfying answer to the question of how the canon of the bible was determined, and so the next line of argument is to say, as you have said, that Scripture is self-authenticating -- that is, the books of the Bible witness to themsleves that they are inspired of God. The major problem with this assertion is imply that even a cursory examination of ecclesial history demonstrates it to be utterly untrue!

For example, several book from the New Testament--James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation--were disputed in terms of the canonical status for quite some time. In certain places they were accepted, while simultaneously in others they were rejected. Even spiritual giants like St. Athanasius (297-373), St. Jerome (c. 342-420) and St. Augustine (354-430) had drawn up lists of New Testament books which witnessed to what was generally acknowledged as inspired in their times and places, but none of these lists corresponds exactly to the New Testament canon that was eventually identified by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century and which is identical to the canon that Catholics have today.

If Scripture were actually "self-authenticating," why was there so much disagreement at all? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if its books were allegedly so readily discernable? The answer that one is compelled to accept in this regard is simply that the Bible is not self-authenticating at all.

And just as Sola Scriptura falls flat because the Bible is not self-authenticating, likewise, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not allow for a final, definitive interpretation of any given passage of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura maintains that the individual believer needs only the Bible as a rule of faith and that he can obtain a true interpretation of a given Scripture passage simply by comparing it with what the rest of what the Bible teaches. In practice, however, as discussions about the Bible demonstrate repeatedly -- including this one -- this approach creates more problems than it solves, and it ultimately prevents the believer from knowing definitively and with certainty how any given passage from the Bible should be interpreted.

The Protestant, in reality, interprets the Bible from a standpoint of subjective opinion rather than objective truth. For example, say Protestant person A studies a Scripture passage and concludes interpretation X. Protestant B studies the identical passage and concludes Interpretation Y. Lastly, Protestant C studies the same passage and concludes Interpretation Z. Interpretations X and Y and Z are mutually contradictory. Yet each of these people, from the Protestant perspective, can consider his or her interpretation to be "correct" because each one has "compared Scripture with Scripture."

Now there are only two possible determinations for these three Protestants: (a) each of them is incorrect in his interpretation, or (b) only one of them is correct--since three contradictory interpretations cannot simutaneously be true. The problem here is that, without the existence of an infallible authority to tell the three Protestants which of their respective interpretations is correct (i.e. objectively true), there is no way for each of them to know with certainty and definitively if his particular interpretation is the correct one. Each Protestant is ultimately left to an individual interpretation based on mere personal opinion--study and research into the matter notwithstanding. Each Protestant thus becomes his own final authority--or, if you will, his own "pope."

Protestantism in practice bears out this fact. Since the Bible alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith (if it were, our three Protestants would be in complete accord in their interpretations), every believer and denomination within Protestantism must necessarily arrive at his/her/its own interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, if there are many possible interpretations of Scripture, by definition there is no ultimate interpretation. And if there is no ultimate interpretation, then a person cannot know whether or not his own interpretation is objectively true.

A good comparison would be the moral law. If each person relied on his own opinion to determine what was right or wrong, we would have nothing more than moral relativism, and each person could rightly assert his own set of standards. However, since God has clearly defined moral absolutes for us (in addition to those we can know by reason from the natural law), we can assess any given action and determine how morally good or bad it is. This would be impossible without moral absolutes.

Of course any given denomination within Protestantism would probably maintain that is particular interpretations are the correct ones--at least in practice, if not formally. If it did not, its adherents would be changing denominations! However, if any given denomination claims that its interpretations are correct above those of the other denominations, it has effectively set itself up as a final authority. The problem here is that such an act violates Sola Scriptura, setting up an authority outside Scripture.

On the other hand, if any given denomination would grant that its interpretations are not more correct than those of other denominations, then we are back to the original dilemma of never knowing which interpretation is correct and thus never having the definitive truth. But Our Lord said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6). The predicament here is that each and every denomination within Protestantism makes the same claim--either effectively or formally--regarding its interpretations being "correct." What we are left with are thousands of different denominations, each claiming to have the Scriptural "truth." The result is an inability to obtain a definitive, authoritative and final interpretation of any given Scripture passage. In other words, the Protestant can never say that "the buck stops here" with regard to any given interpretation for any given passage of the Bible.

Do you not see the problem with this state of affairs?

Just WHAT are these keys? Symbolic or literal?

In Revelation, Jesus declares that he has the "keys of death and hell." Now you tell me. What ARE these keys? Symbolic or literal?

The key?

ACTS 2:38

There is the key.

Is THIS an example of circular logic?

No. If you think it is, you will have to demonstrate the circularity.

Christ did not specify how often the faithful should communicate or celebrate the Eucharist.

Of course not. The Church invented it!

HE ate a PASSOVER meal and REFFERED to the Passover meal.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can add; and those who can't.