"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[ThatTrueLight]

I believe Jesus and he walked the Earth as a man and I accept the apostles and they were men. Men wrote the holy scriptures too.

Now don't forget that the men in your assembly can't be wrong, they can turn bread into God's flesh, and wine into His blood.

Don't sell yourself short here.

 

[FireDragon76]

Albion, the passage says that Christ's church cannot fail in its purpose. So what is its purpose?

If the Gospel of Protestantism is correct, then where was the Church for 1400 years before? How does the Protestant Reformation account for Christ's words in this passage? Christ doesn't say the Gospel is going to be lost, that would be the equivalent of Hell winning.

 

[FireDragon76]

Now don't forget that the men in your assembly can't be wrong, they can turn bread into God's flesh, and wine into His blood.
.

You don't have any arguments, just ridicule. We'll know them by their fruits.

 

[Albion]

I'd bet you would believe men if they told you that some guy turns bread into God's flesh and that the wine is turned into His blood.. and that it's ok if anyone gets sick, it only lasts 15 minutes or so.

Give it a rest. We were duly impressed the first dozen times that wording was used to shock and offend us. That should be enough.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

You don't have any arguments, just ridicule.

Quite the contrary, I want to make sure you're giving credit where credit is due.

Not all men can turn bread into God's flesh or wine into blood..

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Give it a rest. We were duly impressed the first dozen times that wording was used to shock and offend us. That should be enough.

Don't worry about offending anyone who doesn't believe that nonsense. They don't matter, I know.

 

[Albion]

Albion, the passage says that Christ's church cannot fail in its purpose. So what is its purpose?[

Perhaps I misunderstood you (and others). When the claim was made that this wording from this passage of scripture proves the "indefectibility" of the church, did you not mean to say that this guaranteed that the church would not err?

If the Gospel of Protestantism is correct, then where was the Church for 1400 years before?

Same place it always was. But it was making some mistakes along the way that needed to be culled out. Remember the words of an Archbishop of Canterbury when he was asked where his church was before the Reformation--

"Where was your face before you washed it?''

How does the Protestant Reformation account for Christ's words in this passage? Christ doesn't say the Gospel is going to be lost, that would be the equivalent of Hell winning.

Correct, but the promise is NOT that it would be infallible, just that it would prevail. I'd say that it has.

 

[seekingsolace]

Philippians 2:12-13: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Chap. XIII - The commandments issued with respect to natural life are published to the multitude; but those that are suited for living well, and from which eternal life springs, we have to consider, as in a sketch, as we read them out of the Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, Book I.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi FD,

When we look to see if the 'gates of hell' have prevailed against the 'church', we're going to need to define exactly what 'church' refers to. Is the 'church' some worldly defined group of people who gather together for a particular worship service, or is 'church' the body of people who are born again? If we define 'church' by the second definition, then we are assured that the gates of hell have not prevailed against them. It has always been my understanding that 'church' is translated from ekkelesia and that means those called out from a larger group. Therefore, I don't consider the catholic organization or the baptist organization or the methodist organization or the presbyterian organization to be the 'church' that Jesus and the new covenant authors were writing to and about. For me, the church is all those who have been born of the Spirit of God. There will be some of those in many of the denominations and the gates of hell have not prevailed against them. They have certainly tried, but they have not prevailed.

If we use the first definition, then yes, the visible, worldly body of people who gather under the name of some denomination has certainly been splintered, but they do still stand and so neither have the gates of hell prevailed against them.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Jesus only instituted one Church, though. And the gates of hell have not destroyed the Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have heard a translation that says "upon this Rock" is Jesus referring to Himself.

It is possible, but he was speaking to Peter. It can be both, right?

Secondly the sacraments were not given for salvation - When Jesus said, "it is finished" it really was. His blood sacrifice once and for all. You do not need to take the sacrifice again and again. You are forgiven, adopted by Gods Grace and Agape love into His family. Jesus said, 'Do this in remembrance of me', it also says, 'For as often as you take the cup and eat the bread you proclaim the lords death till he comes again'. What a wonderful way to remember what Jesus did for us and to show the world we believe it and have not forgotten. Salvation is a free gift and its once and for all. You cannot re-sacrifice Christ each Sunday by actions of taking communion - you can just remember His sacrifice with a thankful heart. It is finished!

Well, re-sacrifice is not what we do. We participate in the SAME sacrifice. Also, remember what the Jews had to do when they remembered the Passover? They had to do exactly what Moses and the Hebrews did-they had to sacrifice an unblemished lamb and eat it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Perhaps I misunderstood you (and others). When the claim was made that this wording from this passage of scripture proves the "indefectibility" of the church, did you not mean to say that this guaranteed that the church would not err?

Are you saying Christ instituted an imperfect Church???

Same place it always was. But it was making some mistakes along the way that needed to be culled out. Remember the words of an Archbishop of Canterbury when he was asked where his church was before the Reformation--

"Where was your face before you washed it?''

Funny you should mention the Archbishop of Canterbury-today is the feast of St Augustine of Canterbury-the first archbishop of Canterbury in 597. Sorry for the digression.

Correct, but the promise is NOT that it would be infallible, just that it would prevail. I'd say that it has.

Again, implying that Christ created an imperfect Church. Which he did not. A perfect Church run by imperfect men, except when the Holy Spirit speaks through them.

 

[Open Heart]

I have heard a translation that says "upon this Rock" is Jesus referring to Himself.

No translation includes a direct reference to whom Jesus is referring. You have to figure it out from the context, i.e. that Jesus is speaking to Peter, that he has just called Peter the rock, etc. What you might have is a translation where the translators have included their personal opinion in the footnotes. Most Protestants simply can't accept the obvious.

 

[Open Heart]

When Jesus said, "it is finished" it really was. His blood sacrifice once and for all. You do not need to take the sacrifice again and again.

We don't do this. We participate in the original sacrifice. It's much the same as how Jews participate in the original exodus each year on passover with a Seder meal that recreates the events.

 

[Albion]

We don't do this. We participate in the original sacrifice.

That sounds good, but the church's own idea of it being a sacrifice puts the damper on that theory. If it is the original sacrifice of the Cross--and if that were even possible--it would not earn merit because the original did all that it was supposed to do. You cannot remember a previous sacrifice--or reuse one by resacrificing the same victim--and obtain from the supposed sacrifice the same benefit as if it were a new sacrifice. Imagine the temple priests of the OT trying that trick! Yet that is what is claimed.

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps I did you not mean to say that this guaranteed that the church would not err?


Same place it always was. But it was making some mistakes along the way that needed to be culled out. .

Where in the Scriptures does it suggest the Church can err? If anything, I understand the verse in Matthew to indicate the church will not err, at least not in terms of keeping the faith alive. By Church, I am not strictly referring to a magisterium. I'm talking about the body of believers that are faithful to the Gospel and the sacraments ordained by the Lord. If that dies out at any point in history, then there is no salvation on Earth anymore, short of some miraculous intervention, because I agree with St. Cyprian that without the Church, there is no salvation.

 

[Albion]

Where in the Scriptures does it suggest the Church can err?

Where in the Scriptures does it suggest that the church is infallible? That is what we were working on.

If anything, I understand the verse in Matthew to indicate the church will not err

But it doesn't say that or hint at it, and what it does say is quite clear and sensible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That sounds good, but the church's own idea of it being a sacrifice puts the damper on that theory. If it is the original sacrifice of the Cross--and if that were even possible--it would not earn merit because the original did all that it was supposed to do. You cannot remember a previous sacrifice--or reuse one by resacrificing the same victim--and obtain from the supposed sacrifice the same benefit as if it were a new sacrifice. Imagine the temple priests of the OT trying that trick! Yet that is what is claimed.

This is what happens when you think in temporal terms. If you think in heavenly terms, there is no time in heaven. We can participate in that sacrifice. Ever heard the hymn "Were you there when they crucified my Lord"? It suggests that we could be there.
All of that which you wrote after "You cannot remember..." is true, and we don't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where in the Scriptures does it suggest that the church is infallible? That is what we were working on.

Anything instituted by God is completely good and perfect. From Genesis 1 to the institution of the Church.

But it doesn't say that or hint at it, and what it does say is quite clear and sensible.

But it is implied. but thinking in temporal terms, you can believe what you want.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

"Get thee behind me, satan".

I guess the pope is satan, and the RCC has satan as its head, according to your own eisegesis, right?

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Quite the contrary, I want to make sure you're giving credit where credit is due.

Not all men can turn bread into God's flesh or wine into blood..

No man can in and of himself. But God, through the Office of the Holy Ministry, has chosen this as one of the ways He is present with his Church.
You can yell all you want about how how Jesus must have been a liar when He said: "This is my body ... this is my blood".