Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
"Indeed the Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect... Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it." (Calvin's Institutes 3.2.34.)
Although we can have a reasonable certainty of our own salvation if we possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, none of us knows the names of the elect. However, we do have a good indicator in a man's good fruits of the Holy Spirit. Good fruits come from a good tree, planted and nurtured by God. A corrupt tree produces evil fruit and will eventually be dug up and destroyed by God.
"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." -- Matthew 15:13
You call thousands of denominations "content?"
What non-scriptural excuses are you writing about?
A good example is all the rhetorical cartwheels that have to used to deny petrine supremacy.
The unsolvable problem for protestants is they can't simultaneously claim anyone can interpret the scriptures while denying the catholic interpretation. Has it never occurred to you that the Matthew 16 passage doesn't make a peep about all the things protestants have to bring into the discussion to "understand" verse 18?
The closest protestants can get is insisting on goofy, non-scriptural, totally conjectural, conclusions that "disqualify" peter because he gets slapped down soon after.
I'd be glad to as soon as you repudiate the rhetorical absurdity protestants engage in with Matthew 16:18. If you can approve of that kind of pettifogging, discussion would be pointless.
As such, it is very close to the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. All the confessions of the Reformation stood solidly on Scripture which is "given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."
How does your agreement with this NOT repudiate “once saved?”
I’ve already posted on Matthew 16 - and 18, and John 20. It is hardly ‘rhetorical cartwheels’ to compare 3 sections that use such similar wording.
It is pretty common and certainly not contrary to scripture or reason to use passages in scripture to flesh out and explain a paragraph in another.
I see no sign that Peter was made Supreme above the other Apostles. Matthew 16 doesn’t say that, nor does it say that any favor Peter had would be passed on to any who followed him.
If anything, James would seem to have been ‘highest’ among the Apostles in scripture. Peter wouldn’t fear the followers of James if he was above James in rank.
You can call this “goofy, non-scriptural, totally conjectural, conclusions” - but I give quotes and reasons. I don’t know how else to hold a rational debate.
“I’d be glad to as soon as you repudiate the rhetorical absurdity protestants engage in with Matthew 16:18. If you can approve of that kind of pettifogging, discussion would be pointless.”
Post 768. Since I cannot refute what I wrote, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Or, you can explain WHY you disagree.
But if all you have is, “The Pope disagrees, so you are wrong” - well, we cannot discuss that.
Better to disagree with heterodox interpretations of the role of the Holy Spirit than openly deny the Body and Blood of Christ himself!
Advert, Papists, and consider how Satan has blinded you; you do manifestly lie, and do not espy the same. You do blaspheme God at every word, and can you not repent? "...O Papists! where shall you hide from the presence of the Lord? You have perverted his law; you have taken away his ordinances; you have placed up your own statutes instead of his. Woe and damnation abide you! Albeit that the apostles had made laws other than the express word commanded, what appertains that to you? Have you the Spirit of truth and knowledge in abundance as they had? Was the kirk of Christ left imperfect after the apostles' days? Bring yourselves to mind, and be ashamed of your vanity. For all men, whose eyes Satan has not blinded, may espy that neither wisdom nor authority of man may change or set up anything in the religion of God, without his own express commandment and word..."
Agreed.
Knox is wrong.
There is no mystery or shock to this.
I worship in the Church founded by Christ, you worship in a church founded by men like Cauvin, Knox, Machen, etc.
For the record, I was agreeing with 964. I do not consider Mass to be idolatry...
It is when you do so because you don't like the clear and obvious meaning of the original passage. There is no reason to go beyond Matthew 16 to understand Matthew 16 unless you are trying to make it say something other than what it says.
I mean really...the rhetorical device is so obvious it survives translation into another language!
If anything, James would seem to have been ‘highest’ among the Apostles in scripture. Peter wouldn’t fear the followers of James if he was above James in rank.
James was certainly the local Bishop, and as such chose the local implementation, but note the controversy was settled after Peter stood up and spoke, not after James ruled.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Occam's razor.
But if all you have is, “The Pope disagrees, so you are wrong” - well, we cannot discuss that.
The pope has nothing to do with it.I reject it because the ONLY reason to not give assent to the clear and obvious meaning is because it contradicts definitive tenets of protestant doctrine.
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified... Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10: 12-14,18"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
The RCC keeps re-sacrificing Him so that it can tell its members it holds some power of administration over them. That's why ex-Roman Catholics are so angry. They know they were hoodwinked. Faith alone in Christ alone according to God's grace alone as revealed through His word alone for the glory of God alone.
And note that Peter was afraid of the delegation from James, and that Paul called James (first in the list), Peter and John ‘so-called pillars’. And that his statement is found in writings the Catholic Church agrees is inspired by God.
Thus, I reject the ‘establishing the Papacy’ interpretation for the ones I mentioned previously.
The Catholic interpretation cannot be shown false, but it seems highly unlikely, given the statements and history found elsewhere in the Bible.
That “you” was intended as third person, but thanks.
Actually, that's preaching Michael S. Horton alone.
The RCC keeps re-sacrificing Him...
But the Catholic Church does not.
I agree.
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.