Posted on 06/18/2017 2:09:43 PM PDT by narses
Thanks for your excerpt, but it doesn't sway me from a Biblical viewpoint. Luther was a reformer of Catholicism, but he simply did not carry it far enough, and therefore fell short, IMHO.
This is just illogical and inconsistent.
Jesus' Blood cannot have been shed at the Last Supper, then at Calvary, then at every instance of the Remembrance supper. It was shed once for all, as was His body given once for all. Read Hebrews 9:23-28 thru 10:14 again. If it doesn't sink in, again. And continue until you have confidence in your sin-debt being paid once for all time, forever, and go forward living in freedom from guilt as well as from the burden of erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures respecting this matter.
Believe me, I hate to have to say this, but you need to rethink your position on this affair, else we cannot have unity of thought in any dimension of the four ordinances particular to the Christ-centered disciple.
Reality shows that Jesus' inauguration of this memorial requires the emblems of the real consequences of His one-time suffering for our sins had to be symbolic, His words in figurative-literal meaning, not plain literal. Neither can you certify why you think they are not symbolic.
And why the disciples, trained in interpreting His parables, and not yet having experienced or imagined the events to shortly occur to the Messiah they thought was (but was not) about to establish His earthly Kingdom--why would they not clearly assume that this was symbolic in nature? Did they truly eat roasted flesh (no)? drink freshly drawn blood (no)? They would have spit it out if they thought it was human substance. Like the ritual of water baptism, they obviously must have thought that it was symbolic in nature.
Anything else would have been insane and enslaving, not intelligent and freedom-granting.
Excellent use of the 1 Corinthians citation regarding schismatic leadership!
If not flat-out a misrepresentation of the Matthew 16:18, it is an error in understanding grammatically what Jesus was saying in that verse.
First, you need to show that this sobriquet for Simon bar Jona was not a new one just given at the time Jesus was speaking. Rather, this nickname had been in common use amongst the group for about two and a half years previous, when Jesus called him "Kefas" the first time He saw Simon, at the beginning of His public ministry (Jn. 1:42), and his fellow disciples saw it exactly fit to apply to his personality characteristics.
Secondly, this word is not Hebrew; it is of Chaldean origin, and appears only twice in the OT (Job 30:6, Jer. 4:29). As compared to the other OT words for stone or rock, it is never used to refer to God or His attributes, and thus separates the qualities of Simon as not comparative to those of The Christ.
Thirdly, you have to realize that this was an unusual kind of stone--a hollow one--sort of like a geode, I suppose, in this case.
Fourth, the word for this special rock is masculine in gender, and thus when translated, must be of the masculine gender in the Greek word translating it. "Petros" in Jn. 1:42 and Mt. 16:18 is not made masculine because Simon is a male; it is a masculine noun selected for Simon because he is male.
Fifth, the nickname is not applied by Jesus to Simon as a sign of rock-like strength, steadiness, reliability, and imperturbability, as most would like to imagine. That would require a different word than Kefas, or Petros. No, that name Kephas, a hollow rock, speaks not of the qualities of a rock, but of the composition of stone: the density, the impenetrability of Simon's mental capabilities, that result in his insensitivity to the abstract, the stolidity of insisting on exercising his will over that of others, of fickleness when a thought consumed him, and of lack of spiritual depth compensated for only when the Spirit of God came over Him; a "rock-head," so to speak.
On the other hand, the Greek word "petra" is of the feminine gender, and differentiates it as a massive outcropping escarpment whose qualities represent those of God and Christ, repeated over and over again in the OT Scriptures. Though of the feminine gender in Greek, it could refer to the Christ (a male) because of its qualities. Or it may refer to the foundational saying verbalized by Peter, not from his own mental processes, but placed in His mind supernaturally. The disciples obviously did not have the New Testament, but the were very well aware that "petra" did not refer to Simon, whose characteristics they were also quite familiar with, as a "kefa/petros."
In fact, when Simon came out with the statement, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!", doubtless it was an utter surprise to him (who had not so far admitted this concept) as it was to the others present (who had already voiced this truth). And actually Simon was so dense that Jesus remarked the unlikeliness of him saying such a thing:
"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood(neither your reasoning nor of those about you) hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven!"
However, since that foundational statement was a clear, concise, and complete prophecy, He went on and announced:
"And I say also unto thee, (On the one hand)That thou art Peter(the "hollow rock"), and (on the other hand)upon this rock(this foundational statement) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (my interpretive superscripts). This agrees with what the ante-Nicene fathers said, also, IIRC.
Your interpretation does not, grammatically, historically, contextually, or theologically make any sense.
GMTA
That doesn't mean you can IGNORE the fact that Christ Himself called Peter SATAN!!
I ain't the pope!
Speaking of which; How's YOUR love for the one you have NOW??
Sad to see that you FAIL to acknowledge what your own Early Church Fathers taught is DIFFERENT than what your chosen religion teaches today.
Luke 23:40-43
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
It says it was NOT found in the seven CATHOLIC churches mentioned in Revelation.
Where does Scripture PROVE that Catholkic teaching is SEVERELY lacking??
Oh yeah: them 7 churches again.
Where does the BOOK that Rome assembled say that MARY is to be a co-mediatrix?
Oh yeah; it doesn't.
Now I admit that THIS one WAS Rome supplied.
Too bad so many of it's believers actually NEED one!
We can't just show where Rome's teaching is WRONG using common sense?
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Scripture and Tradition , FatherofFive wrote:
(If I were a Catholic; I'd try to slither away from TRADTION as well; knowing that the BOOK I purport to follow will show something different.)
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.