Posted on 08/31/2013 3:38:44 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Elsie, You do realize that those references to Peter were written years after the events described, right? Therefore, Simon was not ALREADY called Peter when those events unfolded. He was called Peter later and was known as Peter when the events were written about.
You have already demonstrated that what you see is not necessarily reality, while you fail to see here that your question was not "do some Protestants act differently" regarding what i stated Rome does, but “does any Protestant act differently," and they do, and in fact, they must. For they cannot claim assured infallibility, but instead any claim to be right must be based on exegetical appeal to evidence, not the premise of perpetual assured veracity so that the only interpretation that ever has authority is theirs.
If they do claim so then you can consider them as acting more like Catholics, who have great liberty to adopt passages of Scripture to support Rome, and can insist such things as that abundant life given to believers and judging angels translates into support for praying to departed saints.
a Protestant once who insisted Mary was not at the foot of the cross. When I pointed out that John says otherwise in his gospel, the Protestant insisted he didn’t have to believe that because John is but one witness and scripture demands two for the sake of proof. That’s Protestantism - make it up and claim you got it from scripture.
Presuming what you allege is the case, what some may do does not make this what historical principles of Protestant exegesis examples, as seen by classic evangelical commentators (like Matthew Henry , Jamieson, Fausset and David Brown, Gill, Clarke, Barnes, Poole, etc.), who, if not infallible, affirm such unambiguous explicit statements. (Jn.19:25-27) And or see a typical evangelical teaching on Biblical exegesis. Basing doctrines on what is most clearly and consistently taught, and not on speculation based on what might be, is what RCs attack evangelicals for doing, as it negates such things as PTDS , the Assumption of Mary, etc. Making it up and claiming scripture teaches it is more a specialty of RC apologetics.
“Sure, there are plenty who deny Peter was the rock referred to in Mt. 16:18, based on not only on scholarly analysis of Scripture, but of history, and in which we find Catholic scholar of substance concurring.”
No. First, there is no scriptural evidence that Peter is not the Rock.
Of course RCs see none, for the same reason the car thieves cannot find a police station. Moreover, your defense is a weak argument from silence, while what is needed is affirmation not only for the Roman position on Mt.16:18, that Peter is the rock upon which the church is founded, but also that he was looked to by all the church as its supreme assuredly infallible head, and whose chair and assured infallibility would be perpetuated.
But for which Scripture provides zero actual confirmation. Never is Peter stated to be the rock upon which the church is built, or assuredly infallible (conditionally as per the Roman doctrine), nor were the churches taught to look to him as their supreme assuredly infallible head, nor did he claim he be either. Neither is there any record of apostolic succession (even after James was martyred) except to maintain the original number of foundational apostles (by lot, not as Rome does) after the death of the immoral Christ-betrayer Judas, while Rome herself has elected immoral, unfit men to the papacy and not removed them.
This does not disallow that Peter was the initial servant leader among brethren, in which no one person was singularly exalted as the supreme ruler, and who had a general pastoral rule, and was the first to use the keys of the kingdom, preaching the gospel by which souls enter the kingdom, both Jews and Gentiles.
But Peter and his role in Scripture is in stark contrast to the demigod status Rome has and can give to her popes.
In contrast, the support for Christ being the rock is what RCs can only wish was given to Peter. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8). And who only refers to himself as "an elder," "a servant and an apostle." (1Pt. 5:1; 2Pt. 1:1)
Only those who wish to deny the authority of the papacy deny that Peter is the Rock. There are no arguments from history that Peter is not the Rock.
That is absurd, and you are protesting like a novice. Even some so-called church fathers (not that i hold them as determinative of doctrine) apparently understood Mt. 16:18 as teaching that which it seems you seem to deny, that Christ built his Church on the rock of this faith confessed by Peter, and thus by extension it is built on Christ Himself.
And about Catholic scholars denying Peter is the Rock - I would be happy to see the evidence of that as soon as you deal with the Protestants scholars about which I posted earlier.
There is nothing to really deal with. You mentioned some anonymous Protestants who see Peter as being the rock, which refers to Mt. 16:18, but which does not translate into them supporting what Rome means by that, so now are you ready for Catholic views in Mt. 16:18 as regards Peter being the rock? I do not think you will be happy?
Something tells me I might never see anything about those Catholic scholars.
Vladimir, it is me who practices substantiating things, which is why you wrongly protested, as indeed Manning was upholding Rome as being the only authoritative voice on what constitutes antiquity, having defined herself as being so. Thus you resorted asking if any Protestant act differently then you just suggested the Church acts, in which you were wrong, as despite some anonymous posts tothe contrary, arguing you are right based upon substantiation (which cannot be the basis for your real assurance) is what is taught, and is not the same as claiming assured veracity as per Rome.
And thus i will gladly gather teachings of Catholics scholars as regards history and Peter being the rock, but if true, will you dismiss them if they uphold a different opinion than yours, as i said RCs do?
“Let me know when you want them, but RCs are not encouraged to enage in subjective examination to ascertain the truth,”
We are encouraged to make objective examinations.
to ascertain the truth. Then that would make you as an evangelical, but you are not encouraged to do so as regards Catholic doctrines. As said in this approved work,
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit.
And if he believes, as he should and does believe, that revealed truth comes, and can come, only by way of external authority, and not by way of private judgment and investigation, he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature and listening to all kinds of heretical sermons. If he does not this, he is false to his principles; he contradicts himself by accepting and not accepting an infallible Church; he knocks his religious props from under himself and stands—nowhere.
And if he believes, as he should and does believe, that revealed truth comes, and can come, only by way of external authority, and not by way of private judgment and investigation, he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature and listening to all kinds of heretical sermons. If he does not this, he is false to his principles; he contradicts himself by accepting and not accepting an infallible Church; he knocks his religious props from under himself and stands—nowhere.
The attitude of the Catholic, therefore, is logical and necessary. Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII , "The consistent believer. " (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Thus as revealed truth (as in Catholic doctrines) is said to only come by way of external authority, that being Rome, which gives him all there is to be had and all else is counterfeit, therefore objective examination Protestant sources in order to ascertain the veracity of Catholic doctrines is rejected, and the former is necessarily false and heretical if contrary to Catholic doctrine, and liberal reading or listening to Protestant preaching is discouraged. The Pharisees would have said likewise regarding Christ and His church.
“as they believe Rome’s version, and that (as said) the corporate entity that was the instrument of Divine revelation and steward of it, and inheritor of Divine promises of God’s presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is necessarily the infallible interpreter of it. But which is not the case.”
Actually it is the case. You keep proving it.
Actually it is NOT the case, and you have proved it, as by affirming this premise then you effectively nuke the church as it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) .
Thus according to the RC model, the people should not have listened to a holy anointed man in the desert who ate insects, and an itinerant Preacher from Galilee who reproved them by Scripture, and whose authority they rejected. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Yet before there was even a church in Rome, truth was preserved, and assurance of faith was realized in the light of Scriptural substantiation in text and in power, upon which the Lord and His church established their Truth claims. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12.)
Oh ya think? The list would be too long for this forum to list all the things the RCC has adapted from the pagans to entice them into their religion. That’s conforming to this world.
>>Now, CynicalBear, you show a text where God said NOT to transform a pagan thing and use it to serve him. Use specific book, chapter and verse please.<<
I have done so multiple times. Here it is again.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God
The RCC specifically states that taking something from the pagans to worship God is exactly what they did.
“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).
>>(By the way, CynicalBear, do you really believe that God did not tell people to use "writing" to "write things" that were later included in the Bible, even though "writing" was first used by pagans?)<<
Prove that writing was first used by pagans. Catholics always try those tactics. Writing wasn’t specifically used in the worship of God. I breath air like the pagans do also. God said don’t look to see how they served their gods and we will do likewise. By their own words that is exactly what the RCC did. Claiming “they are beautiful customs” is simply saying “we will do likewise”. Catholics need to know that all the pagan customs that the RCC adapted are in direct disobedience to God.
That is a result of a new creation, not reformation as in Christianizing something God did not originally institute. And the transformed mind will honor God according to His assured word, the Scriptures, which do not mention annual feasts on the day of the Lord's birth. There is nothing wrong with having a day to celebrate/remember the Lord's birth, but not by Christianizing a distinctly pagan feast. And under the New Cov., the church is not shown falling into ritualism, only censures the annual observance of “days, and months, and times, and years.” (Galatians 4:10)
As the Catholic Encyclopedia>Christmas informs,
Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods.(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm)
Likwise Biblical Archaeology.org:
Celebrations of Jesus’ Nativity are not mentioned in the Gospels or Acts; the date is not given, not even the time of year. The biblical reference to shepherds tending their flocks at night when they hear the news of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8) might suggest the spring lambing season; in the cold month of December, on the other hand, sheep might well have been corralled
he extrabiblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/
In England, Christmas was forbidden by Act of Parliament in 1644; the day was to be a fast and a market day; shops were compelled to be open; plum puddings and mince pies condemned as heathen. - http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/
Lacking actual support, the Catholic is left with arguing from silence, as they do with certain other things, but which is weak and not a sound basis for doctrine.
show a text where God said NOT to transform a pagan thing and use it to serve him. Use specific book, chapter and verse please.
That is easy. For one, do a study on the "high places" in Scripture. The LORD strictly forbade the planting of a grove of any trees near the altar of God, or the setting up of any images on their own (Dt.16:21) and commanded the children of Israel to utterly “destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places” (Num. 33:52) - not convert them for their use.
However, in times of spiritual declension Israel turned to idols and worshiping upon the high places, but sometimes in periods of some restoration they sought to turn the "groves and high places" of the idolatrous nations into places of Jehovistic worship. (1Kg.15:14; 2Chr.33:17 ) Yet to be consistent with the Lord's decrees, they should have destroyed them (Ex. 23:24; Dt. 7:5), and which sometimes they accomplished (2Chr.17:6; 31:1; 34:3). Such attempts to reform that which God had not initially wrought served to keep such things alive, enabling them to more easily revert back to their original idolatry. (1Kg.12:31; 13:33; 14:23; 2Kg.15:35; 16:4; 17:10-19, 31-34; 2Chr.21:11; 28:4; Is.57:5).
Likewise, by "Christianizing" a pagan feast, it has prevented it from dying of neglect like many others, and enabled it to more easily revert into an idolatrous form.
However, it is the heart behind this all that is most critical, and i do not say i am better than others who observe Christ-mass, but must walk in the light i see, as we are to worship God in spirit and in Truth, for He is worthy. May i do so more and better.
Which is exactly what happened with Israel. God knows human nature well enough to know what men will do. And look at what has happened to Christmas and Easter in the last few decades. Commercialization and Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.
Making something new means it has no pagan ties at all.
Well of course! And the RCC a renounced what they say a thousand times right? Right? …….right?……..Hmmm……..crickets.
>>I may have to start quoting from other prominent Protestants to you,<<
LOL I’m thinking you got a problem with that one. Protestants aren’t one single organization who make claims that all who call themselves thusly must adhere to a single code such as the RCC does. Besides, I extracted myself from Protestantism many years ago. The Protestant churches are after all simply daughters of the RCC aren’t they.
Do you ever read and study scripture?
Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
The natural will of man is sinful and does not seek after God. God is the one who initiates that call and opens the eyes and ears to accept. So in that regard, yes, God saves men against their natural will. Oh, and by the way, I don’t expect you to understand that.
>>What is the penalty of sin?<<
Only those who have not accepted Jesus alone as their savior and Lord and as the only mediator between God and man should worry about that. God says we are not under that penalty.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—
Jesus paid the price for us and we are hidden in His righteousness.
>>Really? Show me where that is said by Catholics?<<
God says.
John 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
So once we believe we have eternal life with Him. But Catholics say no, that man can loose that somehow so it must not be eternal for “whosoever believes in Him”. Like I said, Catholics believe it’s not eternal but temporary depending on what man does.
>>No, that’s not what any Catholic has ever said about the Holy Spirit,<<
Catholics never say that man can separate themselves from the Holy Spirit? Really? So tell me, how does on lose their salvation if they don't seperate themselves from the Holy Spirit?
It’s astonishing isn’t it? I honestly feel sorry for them. It becomes so vividly clear why scripture is the only base for truth.
Excellent post daniel1212! If you don’t mind I may send people back to that post when fit to do so.
Now, you rightly claim that you keep posting the following fragmented text, and claiming it means you should not use anything or methods that pagans have used in their worship.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy GodOf course, the pagans also used altars, and also made sacrifices on those altars in their worship. Do you think God was telling the Childen of Israel that they should not use altars, or make sacrifices on those altars, because the pagans used altars and offered sacrifices on them?
If He did, God was contradicting himself, as He said this elsewhere in the Bible:
"An altar of earth you shall make for me, and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you." Exodus 20:24So we know for sure that God was not telling them not to use altars like the pagans used, or not to make sacrifices on the altars, in the quote you provided. So what could possibly be meant by that quote you provided?
What you keep refusing to post, of course, are the full texts of that passage, which take those partial texts you keep misapplying, and put them in their true, honest context. Let's take a more honest look at that context right now.
"When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take heed that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do likewise.' You shall not do so to the Lord your God; for every abominable thing which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Deuteronomy 12:29-31(See how the true, full, honest context totally changes that passage, and shows you much more clearly what it really, truly means than the misleading fragment you keep posting?)
When you cut that part off, it is reminiscent of the atheist who claims that the Bible says there is no God by using this truncated quote: "There is no God." Psalm 14:1 Of course, the whole text actually says: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. Psalm 14:1 (Thanks to Fr. Mitch Pacwa's homily for that quote.)
Then you keep quoting this passage from some guy's book which is most certainly NOT a book about the teachings/beliefs/doctrines of the Catholic Church:
"When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the 'peace on earth' which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow" (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).Then you say this about it:
"The RCC specifically states that taking something from the pagans to worship God is exactly what they did."No they most certainly do not say that anywhere in that passage, or anywhere else! Where the heck do you see that?!?!?
It is merely saying that you can use things like Christmas wreaths today to help inspire us (and our neighbors) with the spirit of 'good will to men', just like "the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the 'peace on earth' which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow".
That is not at all talking about using any of those decorations for any kind of worship, and you should rapidly flee from any one who tries to tell you it is, because they are obviously not speaking truthfully.
The real, honest truth is that Catholics worship through the Mass and prayer and song, not through using Christmas decorations, or other wintry cheerful decorations (which may have been used for other purposes by others in the distant past).
Don't forget that -- it is the truth.
With that, I bid you good afternoon, as I have to do something else right now.
One can clearly see in your responses why the RCC incorporated so much paganism. And no, I don’t expect you to understand. I didn’t include all of the scripture and reasoning. Both daniel1212 and Alamo-Girl added additional information but you still persist in supporting the incorporation of paganism. The RCC has adopted Holidays, rituals, vestments and other vestiges of paganism which God clearly called “whoring around with other gods”. But, suit yourself. Stiff necked comes to mind.
Ooops meant to ping daniel1212 and Alamo-Girl to 372.
Now THAT is a cage match I'd pay to see!
Yes; I do: faulty RCC teachings; of course.
It ain't a 'gift' if you have to do SOMETHING to get it.
Keep grasping that straw.
Do you REALLY wanna go down this road?
So you are trying to claim that the writer, after an event (Duh! when else!!), would FAIL to provide the correct information about what took place?
EXCEPT Mary; of course...
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.