| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/09/2020 1:17:58 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childishness, locked Posters, please review your posts to see what is not allowed in the Religion Forum. |
Posted on 08/09/2020 7:46:24 AM PDT by MurphsLaw
We should stop trying to evangelize Protestants, some Catholics say. “Let’s get our own house clean first, before we invite our fellow Christians in,” someone commented on a recent article of mine that presented a Catholic rejoinder to a prominent Baptist theologian. Another reader argued that, rather than trying to persuade Protestants to become Catholic, we should “help each other spread God’s love in this world that seems to be falling to pieces before our eyes.” As a convert from Protestantism, actively engaged in ecumenical dialogue, I’ve heard this kind of thinking quite frequently. And it’s dead wrong.
One common argument in favor of scrapping Catholic evangelism towards Protestants is that the Catholic Church, mired in sex-abuse and corruption scandals, liturgical abuses, heretical movements, and uneven catechesis, is such a mess that it is not, at least for the moment, a place suitable for welcoming other Christians.
There are many problems with this. For starters, when has the Church not been plagued by internal crises? In the fourth century, a majority of bishops were deceived by the Arian heresy. The medieval Church suffered under the weight of simony and a lax priesthood, as well as the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, culminating in three men claiming, simultaneously, to be pope. The Counter-Reformation, for all its catechetical, missionary and aesthetic glories, was still marred by corruption and heresies (Jansenism). Catholicism has never been able to escape such trials. That didn’t stop St. Martin of Tours, St. Boniface, St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius Loyola, or St. Teresa of Calcutta from their missionary efforts.
The “Catholics clean house” argument also undermines our own theology. Is the Eucharist the “source and summit of the Christian life,” as Lumen Gentium preaches, or not? If it is, how could we in good conscience not direct other Christians to its salvific power? Jesus Himself declared: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) Was our Lord misrepresenting the Eucharist?
Or what of the fact that most Protestant churches allow contraception, a mortal sin? Or that Protestants have no recourse to the sacraments of penance or last rites? To claim Protestants aren’t in need of these essential parts of the Catholic faith is to implicitly suggest we don’t need them either.
* Moreover, in the generations since the Reformation, Rome has been able to win many Protestants back to the fold who have made incalculable contributions to the Church. St. John Henry Newman’s conversion ushered in a Catholic revival in England, and gave us a robust articulation of the concept of doctrinal development. The conversion of French Lutheran pastor Louis Bouyer influenced the teachings of Vatican II. Biblical scholar Scott Hahn’s conversion in the 1980s revitalized lay study of Holy Scripture.
Another popular argument in favor of limiting evangelization of Protestants involves the culture war. Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants, some claim, share significant common ground on various issues: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, euthanasia, religious freedom, etc. Secularism, the sexual revolution, and anti-religious progressives represent an existential threat to the survival of both Catholics and Protestants, and thus we must work together, not debate one another. “Let’s hold back any criticism of them,” a person commenting on my article wrote. “Believe me, in the times that we are in, we need to all hang together, or we will definitely hang separately on gallows outside our own churches.”
This line of thought certainly has rhetorical force: we don’t have the luxury of debating with Protestants when the progressivists are planning our imminent demise! Ecumenical debate is a distraction from self-preservation. One problem with this argument is that it reduces our Christian witness to a zero-sum game – we have to focus all our efforts on fighting secular progressivism, or we’ll fail. Yet the Church has many missions in the public square – that Catholics invest great energy in the pro-life movement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also focus our efforts on other important matters: health-care, education, ensuring religious freedom, or fighting poverty and environmental degradation. All of these, in different ways, are a part of human flourishing. Even if we consider some questions more urgent than others, none of them should be ignored.
Besides, there is a vast difference between mere polemics and charitable, fruitful discussions aimed at resolving disagreements. The former can certainly cause bad blood. The latter, however, can actually foster unity and clarity regarding our purposes. Consider how much more fruitful our fight against the devastation of the sexual revolution would be if we persuaded Protestants that they need to reject things like contraception and the more permissive stance towards divorce that they have allowed to seep into their churches. Consider how non-Christians could learn from charitable ecumenical conversations that don’t devolve into name-calling and vilification.
Finally, abandoning or minimizing the evangelizing of Protestants is to fail to recognize how their theological and philosophical premises have contributed to the very problems we now confront. As Brad Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation demonstrates, the very nature of Protestantism has contributed to the individualism, secularism, and moral relativism of our age. A crucial component to our Catholic witness, then, is helping Protestants to recognize this, since even when they have the best intentions, their very paradigm undermines their contributions to collaborating with us in the culture war.
I for one am very grateful that Catholics – many of them former Protestants – persuaded me to see the problems inherent to Protestantism, and the indisputable truths of Catholicism. My salvation was at stake. I also found and married a devout Catholic woman, and am raising Catholic children. The Catholic tradition taught me how to pray, worship, and think in an entirely different way. It pains me to think what my life would be like if I hadn’t converted to Catholicism.
Why bother to evangelize devout Protestants? Because they are people like me.
The person who’s been misrepresenting things in our conversation is you.
Since you say that don’t believe that you are, but I am, and this is a basic matter of bearing honest witness, then go ask some Protestants AND also some Catholics here about how any one of them would interpret your remark. It’s hard for me to believe that even one other Catholic here would support what you’ve claimed about your “40,000 versions of His truth” comment and our exchange about it. And given this concerns honesty, this is an important matter that should be brought before other Christians.
I’ve had to wonder, too, if many of today’s devout Catholics would have accepted Jesus for who He claimed to be in the days of His earthly ministry, or if their unquestioned faith would have been in their ancient religious system as controlled by their leadership, who wrongfully and faithlessly rejected Him and determined He should die.
On Catholicism departing from God’s Word, there’s no New Testament office of priest, for one thing.
In the fullness of time God brought about the Protestant churches. Even the faithful one’s aren’t perfect, but neither was the Roman Catholic either. Or the Orthodox, for that matter. The perfection is in the Good Shepherd, and simple Gospel message of believing on Him to save us from the eternal consequences of our sin against God.
And on Creation, do you believe that Genesis is a true and accurate and literal history of how God created man and the universe, and of our fall from grace? And you didn’t even begin to answer on what your church believes.
What’s more, so what if Scripture is read at mass. I’ve never been Catholic and I know that. But I don’t believe, IIRC, that it was in the old Latin mass, at least in the vernacular. And Scripture must really be learned, by effort, which is why evangelical Christians have emphasized reading it, studying it and memorizing it.
Biblical faith is confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant, and which is what is behind decisions we make every day, varying in degree of evidential warrant. We choose to marry someone based upon a degree of evidence that "this is the one," and reality, that of objective (based on observable evidence or valid authority established upon the same) and subjective (sense, feelings) either confirms this or not, with the subjective testimony being subject to the objective. Likewise we may take health supplements based on a degree of evidence. Souls did not believe Moses upon blind faith, nor the disciples in Christ. However, warrant for faith need not be conclusive objective warrant for it must be valid. Thus no matter how much one lauds a person or thing, if the did evidence clearly shows the contrary, then faith is unwarranted.
Scripture warrants faith, along with the observable changes of the regenerate who believe in it, for those who take a warranted step of personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus as destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just judgment and gain eternal life, and not as souls saved by their merits or that of their church, realize the birth of the Spirit with its basic profound transformational changes in heart and in life, and which correspond to the claims of Scripture. Likewise negative effects can be seen by disobedience which correspond to the warnings of Scripture.
As regards the Cath interpretation of the Lord's supper, the objective authority is infallible Scripture, not the church, whose claim to infallibility is based upon her own decree that she is infallible. And Scripture does not show that the Cath interpretation of the Lord's supper is that of of Catholicism, while only the metaphorical understanding of the Lord's supper easily conforms to Scripture overall.
Neither does the overall weight of observable evidence testify to Catholic claims for their "Real Presence," as instead (and a I speak as a former weekly Mass-going altar boy, CCD teacher and lector, with two uncles who were priests), from the first communion to the last, Catholics overall fail to manifest regeneration, being just as spiritually dead after Communion (which is not that of 1 Co. 11) as before.
Meanwhile, the so-called plain literal interpretation of the Lord's supper is hardly that, for if "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you," (1 Corinthians 11:24) and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:27-28) means that physical bread was transformed into His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, then it would manifestly be the same manifestly physical body and blood that proved Jesus Christ came in the flesh, crucified body and shed blood of Christ - which looked, smelled, behaved and would scientifically test as being real human flesh - and which John emphasized (That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 1:1; 5:6) , in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was. (For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist: 2 John 7)
What this "true body and blood of Christ" would not be then is inanimate objects, bread and wine - which look, smell, behave and would scientifically test as being simply bread and wine - and yet in Catholic theology not longer even exist when the priest utters the "words of consecration, Christ taking their place. Until that is, the non-existent bread or wine manifest decay, corruption, at which point the Eucharistic Christ no longer exist exist under the mode either.
And which manifestly physical body Cath priests can only wish they could confect, for since (apart from a few purported Eucharistic miracles) Catholic priests cannot perform a literal change of bread and or wine into the same manifestly physical body and blood of Christ, then Catholicism had to appeal to faith in Catholicism (under the premise that God is behind it), and attempt to explain it with a contrived metaphysical explanation.
If you get any response, prepare for more of the same.
Just like a leftist “protester” shouting slogans, the understanding is only skin deep, and will resist any attempt to talk deeper.
“If It’s doctrine that was only created 1500 years after Christ then there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY it came from him. There is someone it came from. And you know who that is.”
Read through the Augsburg confession, and the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, and you’d see that no doctrine was created 1500 years after Christ.
http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php
http://bookofconcord.org/defense_greeting.php
Why? Because as in the next chapter, the "body" being referred to is that of the church, which Corinthians were not recognizing by selfishly eating and drinking and ignoring those who had nothing in this supposedly communal meal, by which inclusive sharing they were supposed to be effectually remembering the Lord death, by which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) by showing unity with the Lord and each other via this communal meal.
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. (1 Corinthians 11:17-18)
Context: Unity.
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. (1 Corinthians 11:20)
Note: the Corinthians were sppdly coming together to eat the Lord's super, but they were not. Just how comes next:
For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:21-22)
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Meaning the cause of Paul's censure was hypocritically and sacrilegiously coming together for a communal meal (which "feast of charity" as Jude calls it was not a mere bit of bread and wine) which was to show/proclaim the Lord's death which made them brethren of the Lord and each other. For as the previous chapters states, "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread," (1 Corinthians 10:17) yet many Corinthians were treating believers for whom Christ died as if they were outcasts.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
Contextually the "unworthily" aspect "not discerning the Lord’s body" refers to their hypocritical and sacrilegious sin described above. While Paul reiterates the words of Christ instituting the Lord's supper - which by themselves neither supports the semi-literal Catholic or the metaphorical position - nothing is said about some failure to believe in transubstantiation, and contextually the failure to recognize the Lord's body can only refer to not effectually recognizing others as members of the body of Christ for whom He died.
And since the sin was that of not to truly eating the Lord’s supper because some taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken, thus effectually despising the church of God, and shaming them that have not, (1 Corinthians 11:20-23) then the remedy given is not that of some lesson in transubstantiation, but,
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
Again, this coming "not together unto condemnation" was as described, acting contrary to what effectually remembering the Lord's death is to show, that of unity with the Lord and each other as believers bought by Christ's sinless shed blood. Yet in Catholic churches the focus is on the elements consumed, not the body of Christ the Lord bought by His atonement, and thus Catholic pretty much ignore each other, and some heading right out the door after they supposedly ate the body of Christ.
Meanwhile it seems in most Protestant church the focus is on mentally remembering the Lord's death, rather abstractly from recognizing each other by sharing in a dedicatory meal. Not that I failing in treating members of the body of Christ as should myself.
Rather, it is those who continue to ignore God’s Truth, that continually parrotting RC propaganda - works of Satan - after being refuted multiple times and not interacting with it, but simply continuing to post the same again and again like a bot. Do you think this will obtain an indulgence for those who do so?
Who knows how you define “sola scriptura.” Some think that sola scriptura (SS) means we must dispense with the teaching office of the church, and conclusions of synods and commentaries, etc. but which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS reasonable means. But if instead they mean how can Scripture alone be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, then it is because,
1. Scripture was the standard by which even the veracity of the preaching of apostles was subject to:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
2. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes ans ecumenical councils do.
3. Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.
4. We can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.
Questions for those who argue for the alternative of :sola ecclesia.
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
“Jesus is missing and they think we did it!”
Faith alone?????
Where have we heard these words before?????
Funny, isn't it, that we cant take something breathed out by God in inspired Scripture on *faith alone*, but Catholics are expected to take some fabricated, unscriptural nonsense about wheat turning into Jesus by *faith alone*.
What rank hypocrisy.
“ Faith alone????? Where have we heard these words before?????”
.........
Blahahaha!!!!!
Indeed, small "c" catholic, and which simply cannot be the Roman or Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church for distinctive Catholic teachings (some distinctively RC) are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
and not the protestant versions so that every protestant can have their own personal opinion of the truth.
Using the term "protestant" is invalid since it is far too broad and no one here is defending Protestantism, but unlike so much the latter, we overall do strongly esteem Scripture as alone being the sure and sufficient supreme standard as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic. Such testify to being far more unified in polled core beliefs and values than overall those whom Rome counts as members in life and in death. All the while being an unholy amalgamation of liberals and conservatives with conflicting interpretations of what valid church teaching is and means. We have many here who even deny pope Francis. But you seem to be new here..
Catholics also have Sacred Tradition that oral teaching was passed down by Jesus and the Apostles and early Catholics and scholars to fully understand the teachings of Jesus
Invalid: as stated before, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), which neither popes and councils claim to do to speaking or writing what they assert is the word of God, while even the veracity preaching of apostles was subject to testing by Scripture (Acts 17:11; cf. Lk. 24:27,44,45) as the supreme established standard.
The Mass and the Eucharist were established and actively participated by Catholics before any written form of the New Testament was available.
Absurd. The NT church was definitely not Catholic based upon the supreme standard as the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive record of how they understood the OT and the gospels, Acts - Rev. in which the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle. And as shown , by the grace of God, the "body" they failed to recognize was the church as the body of Christ.
Catholics also have the Magisterium (Councils) which is infallible in matters of faith and morals to resolve any conflicts or disagreements within the Church.
Now that is wishful thinking, "any conflicts or disagreements" must ignore the fact that even how many and which, and which parts thereof of magisterial are infallible are subject to disagreements, as are their meanings (do you have an infallible list of all infallible teaching, and their meanings?) and what magisterial level others belong to. Thus the schisms many RC sects.
And while exalting the Magisterium, many Catholics are in essence like Bible Christians in that they determine the validity of modern RC teaching based upon their judgment of what past church teaching is and means (but for us this means the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed)
For example the circumcision issue in Acts and in 393 and 397 to approve the books of the Bible.
I think you should should know better than that. Rather than settling the canon, in reality not infallible definition was issued, thus scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books could and did continue down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
There are positive aspects of Protestantism believing in Jesus,
Again, who here is preaching whatever is called Protestantism? Much of that is liberal, and most are those closest to Rome.
but their changing or rejecting God’s truth and their prideful insistence that they know God’s truth is contrary to true faith.
Your recourse to pychopolemics and logical fallacy only further degrades your desperate responses, for rather than prideful insistence most converts to evangelical faith say they do so due to Catholicism being spiritually deficient, and which is why I, as a former weekly Mass-going altar boy, CCD teacher and lector,sincerely prayed to God that if He wanted me to go to a different church then he would show me. Which He quickly surely and manifestly did, leading me into evangelical fellowship, thanks be to God. I have no personal animus, and would like to go to a RC church but esteem for the Scriptures and what it teaches has enabled me to see even more that the Catholic church is not a true church, but a false one with many true teachings.
And while as a whole, the corporate church of today stands in contrast to the prima NT church in purity, power and passion, and which saw its unity under manifest apostles of God. (1Co. 6:4-10) And while much can be said about the current state of the evangelical church (and of my need for greater Christ-likeness), yet it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular with its distinctive teachings that is the most manifest church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction. Sadly.
Protestant belief that they have guaranteed assurance of salvation before their death is not God’s Truth< St Paul told us to work out our own salvation (Phil 2:12) that our final salvation depends on a lifetime of keeping the faith (2 Tim 4:7-8), following the commandments (Math 19:17), preserving in good works (Rom 2:7), striving for holiness (Heb 12:14), praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17), and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11), and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13).
I do not agree salvation is guaranteed, but which ensured salvation most Catholics basically assume since Rome manifestly considers even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (Teddy K RCs) to be members in life and in death, while Scripture provides for presently knowing you possess eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13) And following the commandments (Math 19:17), preserving in good works (Rom 2:7), striving for holiness (Heb 12:14), praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17), and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11), and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13) describes faith, and is consistent with sola fide, as shown. In contrast to RC teaching on salvation via becoming actually good enough to enter Heaven via Purgatory. .
Which your own CCC agrees with along with the Peter=rock view, while linguistical debates never end:
David Garland (“Reading Matthew”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) contending that there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay. And this “changed wordplay” greatly advances the (already likely) scenario that Peter is not “the rock” of that verse.Following on what Garland pointed out, Everett Ferguson, in his “The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), also affirms that in the Syriac language, which is a later form of Aramaic, does indeed make the “kepha/tnra” distinction in existing Syriac translations of the Gospel of Matthew:... More, by the grace of God.
Meanwhile, when we look at who is ID as this rock, then 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) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
And that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church (esp. from Rome) is not what we see manifest in the record of the NT church and which even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against.
Likewise, in Revelation 21 we read that the city of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ, i.e., the Church, is said to have twelve foundations—these are clearly linked with the Apostles. .
However, they are not the foundation, for the church is the body of Christ made up of believers who "are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Ephesians 2:20)
Another assertion of ignorance or deception. Forsake the use of "protestants" unless you are debating one that supports what all that broad term includes as describing them, while as for the class you are actually trying to indoctrinate with your argument by assertion lectures, see RC-Stats_vs._Evang as to which class testifies to living faith the most.
By this time i trust your ignorance on Rm. 3:28 has exposed, while the argument "the Bible nowhere uses the expressions “justification by faith alone” or “salvation by faith alone,”' is sophistry, akin to stating that God nowhere condemns father/daughter incest, even though that is covered under "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 18:6)
For while the phrase "justification by faith alone" nowhere appears, the exclusion of works being the means/instrument of justification does, such as in,
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
And neither restrict works to being those of the law, as if works of charity could merit salvation, and while the law is used in Rm. 4, yet that is the highest system of salvation by actual merit, "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)
Arguing that works done by grace merit salvation does not help, since one who sought salvation under the law could do so under the premise that this was by the grace of God.
However, neither can faith be separate from works, as meaning faith that is alone, with "faith alone" Luther himself stating such truths as that "Faith cannot help doing good works constantly..." "if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit..." "where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith... there are no good works." "Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both." 'if obedience and God's commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil's own doings..."
Nor does it mean that believers cannot be saved due to being found "worthy," (Revelation 3:4) as meaning they manifest salvific faith.
However, what is false is that of Rome's salvation by actually becoming good enough to be with God via baptism and then (for most) RC Purgatory.
More assertions of what you can only wish was what the NT church believed as shown in the supreme standard as the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive record of what the NT church believed. Which was not that of the Cath Eucharist. In which nowhere is the Cath Eucharist said to be spiritual food, but instead it is faith in the word of God but which souls obtain spiritual life, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and it is the word that is called both "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat" (Heb. 5:12,14) whereby the recipients are nourished (1 Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
Thus showing that "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing [as food]: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63) For "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me" (John 6:57) and thus the Lord Jesus said man is to live by every word, (Mt. 4:4) and thus His "meat" was to do the will of the Father, (Jn. 4:24) not eat His body.
Good point!
Seriously.
Can you believe it?
And believers are also to offer their bodies as a sacrifice, (Rm. 12:1) and thereby "the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." (Hebrews 13:15) For anything we give in faith and love to God is a sacrifice, and that includes all we dedicate to Him, including the Lord's supper, and in which we show union with Him and each other, as explained before, even like as pagans do so with their god in their dedicatory feasts. (Thus Corinthians were warned, "that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." (1 Corinthians 10:20)
However, this fellowship was not by literally eating the flesh of the one the feasts were dedicated to and showing union with, and neither is the Lord's supper ever said to be a sacrifice for sin, nor restricted to the pastor conducting it, much less non-scriptural Cath priests.
Meanwhile the list of Scripture in the Didache does not contain any of the deuterocanonical books, and it has other problems that i need not mention here.
Sproul presents it this way:
Faith = Salvation + works
vs
Faith + works = Salvation
Thanks. Pass it onto the Texas guy.
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.