Posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
Question answered. You don’t like answer? So be it.
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
“Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.” —Martin Luther
I didn't know Luther preached one sentence sermons. I'm sure that you take Paul the same way? Thought not, but as a Catholic I guess you might.
“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
Jesus, acknowledging that the Rome claim of 'Church' is false. Where did Jesus add issues requiring belief to be saved that are not recorded in scripture? The Word of God is a sure defense in issues of church discipline, unless you are Catholic.
Of course, that quote by Jesus from Matthew 18 is also taken out of context.
It was part of His discourse on dealing with an unrepentant brother, not to give any church absolute, totalitarian authority over every believer on the planet.
However, since Catholics like to quote that so much as non_Catholics, one has to wonder why they don’t actually enforce that within their own ranks. Between the liberal pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage politicians and the homosexual minor molesting clergy, they have plenty of opportunity to practice what they preach.
Instead they are too busy pointing out other’s shortcomings.
Jesus also had something to say about motes and beams.
St Thomas, you are by far and away one of the most courteous and reasonable Catholic posters and I appreciate that we can dialog without it degenerating into a spitting contest. However, it appears that you have a blind spot, as do many Catholics, to the shortcomings of your denomination.
I’ve never seen a group of people so reluctant to admit error by the leadership within their church.
IMO, ANY church is fair game. Find me a non-Catholic church that is off in morals or teaching and I will point that out too, and I have. If you’ve ever seen my posts regarding the charismatic movement, you’ll know that that is true.
-— It was part of His discourse on dealing with an unrepentant brother, not to give any church absolute, totalitarian authority over every believer on the planet -—
Many conclusions follow from Jesus’ statement with logical necessity.
First, Jesus could have issued the command, “take it to Me.” But He chose to say, “take it to the church.” So this church must discipline, adjudicate and teach with His Authority.
Secondly, the church could only be His church, the Church that Christ founded.
This church must be visible, since one cannot take a dispute to an invisible church.
Fourth, this church cannot be any gathering of believers, since for a church to authoritatively settle disputes regarding sins amongst Christians, it must possess a unified, non-contradictory body of doctrine. Otherwise, disputes would never be settled, rendering Christ’s command void.
So we know that in Christ’s lifetime, His visible Church, possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrines, existed and taught with Christ’s Authority, apart from Him.
We must presume that this visible Church still exists, since history bears this out, and there is no evidence in Scripture that the gates of hell would prevail against it.
Finally, while the Church teaches with the authority of Christ, it does not possess the Mind of Christ, but it infallibly interprets divine revelation.
Every time they treat Luther as if we held him as a pope by invoking some obscure quote or support for something of Rome, or as if he was a maverick in doubting or rejecting apocryphal books, it reveal their desperation or carelessness in parroting polemics.
Luther actually said enough things that we disagree with to exclude him being our pope, while RCs are too willing to be like atheists who invoke such things as the Lord commending the unjust steward or calling a seeker a dog, or Paul saying the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies, (Titus 1:12) in order to misconstrue what was meant. And Luther engaged in much hyperbole and highly polemical language. Not that i agree with it all.
I have recommended that they search Swan's collection for such quotes, so at least they would understand the polemical context of such. But that would leave them more desperate.
Christ's command is in scripture. When scripture isn't taken as the inerrant Word of God, anything is possible. Like doctrine and dogma without scriptural warrant. BUT, when convenient, look at the red letters, wait, that doesn't work for Jonah or Noah. Nevermind.
We must presume that this visible Church still exists, since history bears this out, and there is no evidence in Scripture that the gates of hell would prevail against it.
It did exist, and now exists as the invisible Church of believers in Christ. An examination of the church fathers vs current Catholic practice shows the drift. Trent's proclamation clearly is against Paul's teaching re: justification. Is Christ divided? No.
Finally, while the Church teaches with the authority of Christ, it does not possess the Mind of Christ, but it infallibly interprets divine revelation.
It doesn't even correctly interpret the books it claims to have written. It engages in 'makeadoctrine' or in the case of its Mariology 'makeadogma'. With the Catholic focus on Mary in general, it's amazing it took 1800 odd years to get around to her dogma. Pity the Catholics that didn't make it to heaven because they didn't follow a necessary dogma for salvation because it came after their deaths. There's always purgatory. Catholics assert they are the 'Church', fruit-wise says something different.
Luther's biggest problem was re-asserting Christ's role as the Head of the Church. That and the requirement to use scripture in the formulation of doctrine.
That’s a “wow” source. Thanks.
““Peter, you are rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church””
Hey Kansas, are you deliberately misquoting what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 to make your point?
Peter means ‘stone’ (think pebble). Jesus Himself is the Rock on which He built/is building His church.
And lest someone say I am quoting below from a ‘Protestant’ Bible, this is from the 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible...
Matthew 16:13-19 DRB “And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? (14) But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. (15) Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? (16) Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. (18) And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Peter = rock?
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Thanks, ‘mom’...I like the way to think...and post :)
Welcome....
It’s interesting. For all Catholics rail about *poor* translations, here they build an entire theology on a (drum roll) poor translation.
The Greek simply does not support their doctrine. In the English the distinction is lost and here they are, building their doctrine on it.
In Matthew 16:18 there is the Greek play upon the words, “thou art Peter [Greek, “petros” — literally ‘a little rock]’, and upon this rock [Greek, “Petra”] I will build my church.” He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter is careful to tell us in 1 Peter 2:4-9. See Peter’s words in this passage, quoted below, again from Douay-Rheims…
1 Peter 2:4-9 DRB “Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: (5) Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded. (7) To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: (8) And a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. (9) But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light”
It is obvious from this that Peter himself testifies to the fact that Jesus, is Himself the the Chief Corner Stone on which the ecclesia, the called ones, as living stones are built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, etc. It is also obvious that Peter considers himself just to be one of the living stones built up on the Chief Corner Stone, Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Your extrapolation effort to establish Rome as being the OTC is irretrievably fallacious.
He chose to say, “take it to the church.” So this church must discipline, adjudicate and teach with His Authority. Indeed, but which does not translate into a perpetual infallible magisterium, which Rome infallibly decrees she is, and as Scripture nowhere promises nor requires this, no matter how much effort RCs try to extrapolate it from such texts as Mt. 18, then a church which claims this cannot be the OTC, and in fact it is cultic.
In order argue otherwise you must establish from Scripture - that being the transcendent supreme material standard for Truth, as if abundantly evidenced , that such a magisterium was necessary for assurance of Truth, and to recognize and establish both writings as well as men of God as being so, thus those it rejects must be rejected.
Let me know when you want to try.
"Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," (Rm. 15:4) and Mt. 18:15-18 follows the OT model of judgment, in which Moses took "wise men, and understanding," as judges, and charged them as judges, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him." (see Deuteronomy 1:13-18) Matter too hard for them went to the supreme court if you will, with dissent from it being a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) And it also was mandated that the king be given a copy of the Law to live and judge by. (Dt. 18:18.19)
And thus we see apostolic instruction for the local church to choose wise men from among themselves to judge temporal matters, (1Cor. 6:1-6) and wise men full of the Holy Spirit as deacons, (Acts 6:3) and the ecumenical council for larger issues. However, none of these required or inferred perpetual assured (conditional) infallibility of office, which Rome claims. And the manner in which God preserved Truth was to often raise up men from without the magisterium ("prophets, wise men, and scribes:" Mt. 23:34) to reprove it. And thus the church began in dissent from the Scribes and Pharisees, who likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above that which Scripture afforded them, while the church began upon Scriptural
Yes because that is Rome's problem. Actually, the second is not a problem because she does not require actual scriptural warrant for her doctrines, as she yourself as the supreme authority, and thus she Christ cannot be the head of her church.
Yes because that is Rome's problem. Actually, the second is not a problem because she does not require actual scriptural warrant for her doctrines, as she herself is the supreme authority, and thus she Christ cannot be the head of her church.
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.