Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[MoreCoffee]

I don't recall saying the scripture was illogical. I said that about your claims. There is a difference.

Peter can't be the rock because the only foundation the church can stand on is Christ. It just makes sense. Peter is fallen. Christ is not. Peter was shifty. Christ was not. Peter would fail. Christ did not. The basis of all that we believe is centered in Christ and Him crucified. What other foundation could we have? Again, this is not to say that Peter wasn't a rock in the church. It's to say that Peter wasn't the Rock, of the church.

This would be plain to see but unfortunately you can't even entertain the idea, because in so doing you'd be going against your holy tradition. No Rock = No Pope. No Pope = No papal system. I can see how that would be problematic for you.

No one expects you to concede this point because to do so would be to go against the teaching of your denomination. For me it is a matter of interest only because the obvious meaning of the words in Matthew 18:16 is denied by yourself. Even some commentators among the Protestants recognise that teaching of Matthew 16:18 to be that Peter is the rock upon which Christ purposes to build his church. I'd cite a few, quote one or two if it would make a difference but I am confident that no amount of evidence will change the matters I've mentioned above. So I shall simply say what I've said and leave you to your own opinions. Truth is true regardless of the spin a denomination puts on the teaching of Christ. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Simple grammar would be "upon you, Peter, I will build my church". What you propose is not simple grammar.

Simple American grammar in 2013, true. But the words were spoken in Aramaic in AD30 or so. So we don't know the grammatical style of the day.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Just some Hawaiian steak and lobster for thought, ie, my rendition: "Moreover, I, too, say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church,..."

IIetros, the person of Peter, and aute e petra, "this rock," are not =. I don't have teeth and have to gum the former.

Just ol' old Jack

Well the issue isn't Petros/Petra. It's Kepha/Kepha.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm no architect, and I'm far from an engineer or contractor, but I'm pretty sure that when you build something, the thing upon which you build is called the foundation. A sure foundation is necessary for the construction of a sound building. With that being the case, in Christ's illustration, we see Him speaking about the foundation upon which the church would be built. The only sure foundation would be the truth that Christ is the Son of God. That'st the truth you build upon. Peter, as you said, wasn't a sure foundation. Indeed God used Him mightly at Pentecost, but that doesn't prove that God made Him the leader, or the one who stood in Christ's stead. In fact, Christ already said who would stand in His stead when He left, and it wasn't Peter, but the Holy Spirit. Peter was likely very prominent in the work of the Apostles, I wouldn't doubt that at all, but when it comes to a sure foundation, the only option we have is Christ.



So our definition is the same. Good.



When you throw "properly understood" in there, it makes it possible to keep anything from being a contradiction, especially when you believe the institution teaching you is infalliable.



I'm good with a PM, and in truth I don't think I've read any of the ECF's outside of what someone may have presented here.

There's a invisible(spiritual) foundation, Christ, and a visible (physical) foundation, the hierarchy, headed by Peter.

Regarding properly understood, vs improperly understood...the Church considers that she's been given the deposit of faith to safeguard. And definitions don't change. So when we define "the Church" it means what Jesus meant by "the Church". The universal body of Christians. Granted, some in the Church may not have understood "the Church" to mean that. And even if someone said "the Church" and didn't mean the universal body of Christians, when we properly understand what it means, we get the full, robust meaning.

Another example of 'properly understood', what does 'pro-choice' really mean?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'd like to think that it was the Holy Spirit working through Peter And I wasn't trying to diminish Peter. I'm certain he had a strong role in the early work.

We believe that it absolutely was the Holy Spirit working through Peter. Peter, of his own accord, was impetuous, denied the person he recognized as God. The Holy Spirit works through the Church. That's what we know. Even with Pope Francis, the Holy Spirit is working through him.

 

[shturt678]

No one expects you to concede this point because to do so would be to go against the teaching of your denomination. For me it is a matter of interest only because the obvious meaning of the words in Matthew 18:16 is denied by yourself. Even some commentators among the Protestants recognise that teaching of Matthew 16:18 to be that Peter is the rock upon which Christ purposes to build his church. I'd cite a few, quote one or two if it would make a difference but I am confident that no amount of evidence will change the matters I've mentioned above. So I shall simply say what I've said and leave you to your own opinions. Truth is true regardless of the spin a denomination puts on the teaching of Christ. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church.

Seriously, my grandma, who raised me, kept saying "Boy, uv got rocks in ur hed," ie, she was from the South. I wonder if Jesus didn't tell Peter at times the same? Did she mean literal rocks? Oh, well, good morning my friend - up and at um, just ol' old Jack still trying to shake those rocks out.

 

[Stryder06]

No one expects you to concede this point because to do so would be to go against the teaching of your denomination.

Hate to break it to you, but I don't believe what I do because my denomination tells me to. If it were true, I'd believe it. I don't because it's not.

For me it is a matter of interest only because the obvious meaning of the words in Matthew 18:16 is denied by yourself.

The sheer irony of this is so unbelievable I can hardly take it You try to speak of the obvious meaning seen here, only because you have to defend this teaching. However, let something just as obvious be presented to you that goes contrary to your teachings, and you make it your duty to explain the "deeper" truths of the text. I can't with this...I'm sorry

Even some commentators among the Protestants recognise that teaching of Matthew 16:18 to be that Peter is the rock upon which Christ purposes to build his church. I'd cite a few, quote one or two if it would make a difference but I am confident that no amount of evidence will change the matters I've mentioned above.

You wouldn't need to go any further than the bible.

So I shall simply say what I've said and leave you to your own opinions. Truth is true regardless of the spin a denomination puts on the teaching of Christ. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church.

More of the irony. Oh please, I can't take it.

 

[Stryder06]

There's a invisible(spiritual) foundation, Christ, and a visible (physical) foundation, the hierarchy, headed by Peter.

Why is the only proof of this found in the tradition of your church?

Regarding properly understood, vs improperly understood...the Church considers that she's been given the deposit of faith to safeguard. And definitions don't change. So when we define "the Church" it means what Jesus meant by "the Church". The universal body of Christians. Granted, some in the Church may not have understood "the Church" to mean that. And even if someone said "the Church" and didn't mean the universal body of Christians, when we properly understand what it means, we get the full, robust meaning.

Your church considers a great deal about herself, none of which can be justified within the scripture. She isn't guardian of the deposit of faith since she doesn't teach in accordance with the text that the apostles faith was based upon.

The word of God specifically warns about taking heed to the doctrines of man over His given word, and that's exactly what your church suggests you do. It may teach that it does not elevate tradition above scripture, but if your tradition goes against what the scripture says, and you accept the explanation given by tradition, guess what you're doing?

Another example of 'properly understood', what does 'pro-choice' really mean?

Not sure where you're going with this. Pro-Choice is suppose to be those who are in favor of allowing a woman the right to choose what to do with the child she carries in her womb, wether to allow it to live, or to abort it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Blessed is the man who has not followed the counsel of the impious, and has not remained in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the chair of scoffers. ...

May this blessedness come to us all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You find the most interesting parallels while missing the most obvious ones. This never ceases to amaze me. Abraham is the father of the faithful, because we are all his seed, as promised by God. What Abraham wasn't is the foundation of the faithful.

I wouldn't doubt for a moment that Peter had a heavy burden to carry, but that isn't what this is about. Peter was not made the foundation upon which the Church was built, nor was he charged to carry it. In truth, if any apostle is shown in scripture to have had a heavy burden, it would be Paul.

Logic dictates that the only sound foundation we could have is Christ. But you're not employing logic, your simply echoing the traditions of your church.

Paul's charism was different than Peters. In fact, Paul got imprisoned so many times partly because he was considered a troublemaker, to the extent that teaching the truth to those who don't want to hear it is such a thing. Paul's charism was to spread the Gospel, Peter's was to be the foundation of the Church.

 

[Stryder06]

Blessed is the man who has not followed the counsel of the impious, and has not remained in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the chair of scoffers. ...

May this blessedness come to us all.

Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhhhh can I do the next verse? Please?

*Ahem*

But his delight is the law of the Lord. And in his law, doth he meditate day and night.

Thank you

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't recall saying the scripture was illogical. I said that about your claims. There is a difference.

Peter can't be the rock because the only foundation the church can stand on is Christ. It just makes sense. Peter is fallen. Christ is not. Peter was shifty. Christ was not. Peter would fail. Christ did not. The basis of all that we believe is centered in Christ and Him crucified. What other foundation could we have? Again, this is not to say that Peter wasn't a rock in the church. It's to say that Peter wasn't the Rock, of the church.

This would be plain to see but unfortunately you can't even entertain the idea, because in so doing you'd be going against your holy tradition. No Rock = No Pope. No Pope = No papal system. I can see how that would be problematic for you.

Who said that only Christ can be the foundation of the Church? And even if he is, and I am not saying he's not, a foundation has the seen component, the concrete, and the unseen component, the rebar. The Triune God is the rebar. The seen component, the concrete, is Peter.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Seriously, my grandma, who raised me, kept saying "Boy, uv got rocks in ur hed," ie, she was from the South. I wonder if Jesus didn't tell Peter at times the same? Did she mean literal rocks? Oh, well, good morning my friend - up and at um, just ol' old Jack still trying to shake those rocks out.

Peter was chided and prodded, and immediately after Jesus said his Matt 16:18 statement, the told Peter "Get behind me Satan." So what?

 

[Stryder06]

Who said that only Christ can be the foundation of the Church? And even if he is, and I am not saying he's not, a foundation has the seen component, the concrete, and the unseen component, the rebar. The Triune God is the rebar. The seen component, the concrete, is Peter.

Do your really think they were using rebar then? Come on now. And the rebar isn't the foundation, but part of the work that goes in to making the foundation more secure.

What I really need to understand is this obcession with a "seen" component. Why would it be necessary for Christ to leave a visible leader?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hate to break it to you, but I don't believe what I do because my denomination tells me to. If it were true, I'd believe it. I don't because it's not.



The sheer irony of this is so unbelievable I can hardly take it You try to speak of the obvious meaning seen here, only because you have to defend this teaching. However, let something just as obvious be presented to you that goes contrary to your teachings, and you make it your duty to explain the "deeper" truths of the text. I can't with this...I'm sorry



You wouldn't need to go any further than the bible.



More of the irony. Oh please, I can't take it.

So you base your opinion upon fallible human thought? Ironic, if a church teaches error, it's not the Church of Christ. Cuz Christ cannot teach lies, right? So the words must be true. You guys always say that Jesus spoke in parables, and take that to mean that JEsus didn't mean what he said in John 6. Well, even the points of the parables were true. Jesus told his apostles "Receive the Holy Spirit", and so they did. Therefore, they could not err regarding the Faith.

 

[Stryder06]

So you base your opinion upon fallible human thought?

No sir. And it's not my opinion i'm expressing.

Ironic, if a church teaches error, it's not the Church of Christ.

Your words not mine

Cuz Christ cannot teach lies, right? So the words must be true. You guys always say that Jesus spoke in parables, and take that to mean that JEsus didn't mean what he said in John 6.

Did Jesus always speak in parables? Not always, but mostly. It's what is said because it's what we see from the scripture.

Well, even the points of the parables were true. Jesus told his apostles "Receive the Holy Spirit", and so they did. Therefore, they could not err regarding the Faith.

We're not talking about the Apostles though, we're talking about, as you call them, the successors of the Apostles. Men who claim to have received their teaching directly from a predecessor who goes back to the origianl 11. That sir is where we have issues. The things being taught by your church go directly against the very scripture the disciples based their faith off of.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why is the only proof of this found in the tradition of your church?

You mean why is it only found in the original Church Christ founded, the one that existed from Pentecost until today, but had many off-shoots later on? The one who has existed and continued and continues to grow, just as Jesus said?

Your church considers a great deal about herself, none of which can be justified within the scripture. She isn't guardian of the deposit of faith since she doesn't teach in accordance with the text that the apostles faith was based upon.

IT is totally justified in Scripture. But answer this question: Who did Jesus bestow the deposit of the faith upon?

The word of God specifically warns about taking heed to the doctrines of man over His given word, and that's exactly what your church suggests you do. It may teach that it does not elevate tradition above scripture, but if your tradition goes against what the scripture says, and you accept the explanation given by tradition, guess what you're doing?

Where does our tradition go against what Scripture says???

Not sure where you're going with this. Pro-Choice is suppose to be those who are in favor of allowing a woman the right to choose what to do with the child she carries in her womb, wether to allow it to live, or to abort it.

I'm showing you how changing a phrase lessens the impact of what is actually meant.

So you agree that "pro-choice" means "pro-abortion". So why is it that people get all fuzzy when they say they're pro-choice, when what is really true is that they support a human's 'right' to kill another human? Not to debate that here, but just to show how changing the meaning of words from the original meaning diffuses the original meaning. That when you say "salvation" and when I say "salvation" it can mean different things.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do your really think they were using rebar then? Come on now. And the rebar isn't the foundation, but part of the work that goes in to making the foundation more secure.

What I really need to understand is this obcession with a "seen" component. Why would it be necessary for Christ to leave a visible leader?

Well, I didn't say my analogy was perfect, and I didn't say it was ancient, either.

But you still got the point.

The rebar is the part of the foundation that makes it strong. The concrete itself cannot do it.

Why must there be a seen component? Read the OT. Constantly, because there was no visible component of God, the Hebrews constantly strayed, even to the point of exile, even to the point of killing Jesus.

Otherwise, because Jesus said so.

 

[Stryder06]

You mean why is it only found in the original Church Christ founded, the one that existed from Pentecost until today, but had many off-shoots later on? The one who has existed and continued and continues to grow, just as Jesus said?

No. I mean why is this only found in your church? Hate to break it to you but your church does not teach what Christ taught.

IT is totally justified in Scripture. But answer this question: Who did Jesus bestow the deposit of the faith upon?

I don't recall the deposit of faith being given away lol. All who hear His voice and come are given a measure of faith. The truth is in the writen word, and that word is to be taught by faithful men. All who hear and walk accordingly are a part of the church.

Where does our tradition go against what Scripture says???

Sunday Sacredness
Veneration of Saints
Eucharist
Papal System
Immortality of the Soul

I do believe that sums them up nicely. I may be missing a few but I'm certain they'd fit in there somewhere.

I'm showing you how changing a phrase lessens the impact of what is actually meant.

Ok.

So you agree that "pro-choice" means "pro-abortion". So why is it that people get all fuzzy when they say they're pro-choice, when what is really true is that they support a human's 'right' to kill another human? Not to debate that here, but just to show how changing the meaning of words from the original meaning diffuses the original meaning. That when you say "salvation" and when I say "salvation" it can mean different things.

People get fuzzy because people don't want to be politically correct. In some cases though it is possible to say the same thing, have two different meanings, and both be correct. That however is seldom true when it comes to doctrinal differences. We have one word. We serve One God. It simply isn't possible for all of us to have such a variety about what a single text means, and we all be correct.

 

[Stryder06]

Well, I didn't say my analogy was perfect, and I didn't say it was ancient, either.

But you still got the point.

The rebar is the part of the foundation that makes it strong. The concrete itself cannot do it.

This doens't work for the time Jesus was in. They didn't have rebar lol. And even still the foundation isn't the rebar. You can lay a foundation without using rebar.

Why must there be a seen component? Read the OT. Constantly, because there was no visible component of God, the Hebrews constantly strayed, even to the point of exile, even to the point of killing Jesus.

What visible component for God did Israel have? And I have read the OT. The reason why Israel was constantly falling away from God wasn't because there wasn't a visible presence, it was because they discarded His law. Let that sink in for a second.

Otherwise, because Jesus said so.

Where? As already stated, when Christ left, the representative that replaced Him was the Holy Spirit.