Are you infallible?

One Fold ^ | December 10, 2013 | Brian Culliton

[Iscool]

Aaaaaahhhhh. Gotcha. :)

Well you didn't get me...I didn't write the stories...Numerous researchers into actual history revealed this stuff...Most of those people know that at least many of the writings of Ignatius are forgeries and some figure they are all forged...

Just like the rest of your religion's forged history...Even Catholics admit to that...

If I was a Catholic I'd seriously research this stuff to make sure I wasn't blindly following a false religion...

[paladinan]

Fine... I'll let the "rocky" example in Matthew 13:5 go to you, for this time. My point was that "Petros" (which is unknown in Koine Greek, in which the New Testament was written) is the masculinized version of the feminine word "petra", since the name was being applied to a man. Had Jesus applied it (hypothetically) to a woman, it woulnd't have needed to be changed.

But let me pursue your idea, here:

Of course Jesus wasn't slighting Peter...He complimented Peter by calling him a little rock...

(*wry look*) Mm-hmm. Quite the "compliment", here. I'm afraid that's sounding very much like an interpretation based on preconceptions and wishful thinking; this doesn't make even a modicum of sense. More, below.

No other apostles got that distinction...

No other Apostles got the distinction of being called "satan", either--but that wasn't a compliment, was it?

And lest you be tempted down the tiresome road of saying, "Aha! Thank you for proving that Jesus found Peter unqualified to be the foundation of His Church!", please see my previous comment to editor-surveyor on that point.

Jesus did however contrast that little rock with the mountain of a rock...

Can we examine that supposition, for a moment? Because this is one of the anti-Catholic-Church claims which has me most profoundly scratching my head...

Are you claiming (as I've heard claimed before, by anti-Catholic-Church people) that Jesus renamed renamed Simon as "rock" for the purpose of pointing out Peter's SMALLNESS? Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus essentially said, "Blessed are you, Simon, [etc.]; you are rock, and upon Myself ALONE--the TRUE rock--I will build My Church"? (I note with some wry fatigue that the word "ALONE" is causing trouble, yet again... as is the case with the vast majority of anti-Catholic-Church claims and beliefs. The idea of "BOTH/AND" seems alien to the minds of people who can't stand the Catholic Church, for some reason.)

I submit to you that you're attributing a statement of almost complete NONSENSE to Our Lord. I can't fathom any motivation for renaming Simon as "rock", only to say, "Psyche! I'm going to build on a rock, but not on you, and I renamed you "rick" simply for the fun of the pun, as they say... and to put you in your place!" That would be bizarre... and nothing else in the Gospels suggests that Jesus would ever derange common sense and grammar and logic to that extent.

Let me put it another way: your comments seem to put a great deal of weight on the fact that Peter is a "little pebble" (though there's already a word for that--lithos, which is used repeatedly throughout the NT, whereas "petros" is used only to refer to St. Peter in the Greek OT [Septuagint] and NT--which should make one suspicious of the "petros = little pebble" hypothesis, as it is). But let me ask this: why is it impossible for Christ to build His Church on a little pebble? Why would it even be un-"fitting"? Is not Christ known for taking meager materials and doing wondrous things with them? Is not "power made perfect in weakness"? On what basis do you (or anyone else) deny the foundation of the Church on St. Peter simply because some people don't care for the idea that Christ might build His Church on a "rock" which they find to be insignificant and unworthy? There's the $64,000 question, for the moment, I think.

[Iscool]

I didn't put St. Peter in that position, FRiend; Jesus did. Read Matthew 16:18. I didn't force Jesus to give St. Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; nor did I force Him to rename Simon as "rock". Why is this so difficult? Why tie oneself into pretzels trying to deny the plain sense of the Scripture? Jesus renamed Simon "rock"--whether huge or small, it makes no nevermind--and then promised to build His Church on that rock (i.e. on Peter).

Makes a huge difference since we can see the existence of your religion which follows Peter...

Sure Jesus made Peter a little rock...But Jesus distinguished between that little rock and the rock of Gibraltar...He built the church on that mountain of a rock, not a stone...

[paladinan]

Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.

...and the first two of those five were invented by "men alone"...

[paladinan]

Pointing out what scripture says is NOT interpretation.

No, you're right: that would be called "quoting" or "cutting and pasting". But when you go on to say what something "MEANS", then you're interpreting. Don't take my word for it; check the dictionary! As an illustration:

=====
Preacher: "Jesus said, 'Amen, I say to you... unless you be born of water and Spirit, you shall not enter the Kingdom of God!'"

Listener: "Wow! Um... but what does that mean?"

Preacher: "Well... it means... um... (hm... I can't go beyond what is written!).. it means, 'Amen, I say to you... unless you be born of water and Spirit, you shall not enter the Kingdom of God!'"

Listener: (confused) "Yes, I heard you the first time, but I don't understand. What does that MEAN?"

Preacher: (frustrated) "It means, "'Amen, I say to you... unless you be born of water and Spirit, you shall not enter the Kingdom of God!'"

Listener: "I know what He SAID! What does He MEAN??"

Preacher: "Look, you...! We're told NOT to go beyond what is written, in 1 Corinthians 4:6! Either you understand it, or you don't! If you don't understand the clear meaning of Scripture, then the Holy Spirit must not be in you! You must not be saved! Either repent and believe on Jesus, or get thee from me, thou unwashed heathen!!"
=====

:) Do you see my point?

[Iscool]

(I think especially of Luther inserting the word "alone" in Romans 3:28, in order to prop up his new fiction about being "saved by faith alone"... but I digress),

New fiction???

Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Looks pretty ancient to me...

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

It ought to be readily apparent just by believing God that He didn't wait around to see when we did enough good works to make it into heaven spiritually...

[MamaB]

So, y’all do not believe the Bible has everything in it to be saved and lead a Christian life? Just what else is needed? Traditions is not an answer.

[MamaB]

That is so easy to understand. If that is the only answer y’all have, I feel sorry for y’all.

[editor-surveyor]

.
It is without question Satan that breeds the kind of deception that catholic ‘theology’ brings about.

Truth always helps every conversation about God’s word.
.

[roamer_1]

The glaringly broad-brush nature of your statement aside[...]

I don't think it to be a broad brush at all - Look into the known insertions and forgeries, and it is easy to conclude the motive. That it is institutional in nature goes without saying too. I tried to give your traditional history a fair shake, I really did, spending a year or better proving and proofing your tradition and catechism, at a time when my motive was a pure quest for truth... Needless to say, I didn't find it there.

tell me: how I am supposed to be sure that any ancient text was actually penned by the author to which it is attributed, especially since the original manuscripts have all perished?

There are several means, but lets get right down to the Bible itself, eh? isn't that where you are going? 'If I don't believe your church, how can I believe the Bible?'... Isn't that the play?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Are you infallible?

What kind of a dumb question is that? We are all sinners.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “since you have no one “final authority” by which you can say which Protestant interpretation of Scripture is *correct*” <<

.
I guess catholics will never get it.

All “interpretations” of the word are false. All interpretations are “Private.”

It is the plain word itself, without the padding men insist on stuffing around it, that is truth.
.

[CynicalBear]

Let's make this real simple.

1. God's infallible word is recorded in scripture just as He directed it to be.

2. The Holy Spirit was given to born again individual to be able to infallibly determine what those words mean.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

Now, if the Holy Spirit was given us that we might "understand" would you still suggest it's fallible? Would you still suggest it's unnkowable? Would you still say it's "by human authority" when scripture says those who have been born again have been born of the Spirit and it is He would gives us understanding?

Stop putting the Catholic Church in the place of the Holy Spirit where it doesn't belong.

[MamaB]

If we have accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are not lost. Have you accepted Him?

[CynicalBear]

>>Perhaps you might explain why Jesus referred to "building His Church" in the *singular* (ekklesia), not in the plural (ekklesiai)?<<

I will repeat it here.

Only those called by God, born from above, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit are part of the ekklesia of Christ. It includes all of those "called out" throughout history. That is the invisible ekklesia as only God knows who they all are. The local "assemblies" are members of the universal ekklesia and are the visible part of that ekklesia. Christ is the head of that ekklesia and present with them when meeting with as few as two or three. There is no single earthly organized hierarchical structure such as the Catholic Church would have you believe.

[MamaB]

You must be talking about some of the Catholics on here. Some are very, very arrogant. You need prayers.

[MamaB]

What else is more important than God’s Word? Just because men started traditions does not make them right.

[CynicalBear]

>>Do you see my point?<<

If your point was to illustrate the lack of understanding of the preacher yes I do. It's preachers like that who don't know scripture that lead people into all kinds of error. The answer to the man's question was right in the same passage.

When Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again Nicodemus immediately asked how he could enter the womb and be born a second time. It's at that point that Jesus said "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit" but He didn't stop there. He continued by re-phrasing it saying "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit". Being born in the flesh is a water birth. The amniotic fluid is water. "Her water broke" is a common phrase meaning birth is eminent. Obviously we need to be born of the flesh in order to be born again from above.

So yes, I see your point. That preacher has no business being a preacher. And those who would claim "being born of the water" is something else are false teachers because Jesus clearly stated what it meant.

[MHGinTN]

I often think we would do well in opposing abortion on demand to point to the fact that the new life builds in the water world the body they will use in the air world, then point to Jesus confirmation of this reality and it’s importance in coming to the Grace of God to see His Kingdom. Look at how many our age has denied the opportunity.

[CynicalBear]

Those who support abortion and those who support those who support abortion will have hell to pay.