A few questions for Protestants

[Fidelibus]

Oh good grief!

Charlie Brown!

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying no denomination is the one true church. The one true church is all real believers regardless of where they gather. In a church pew or a boat or a chicken coop, or a basement. It makes no difference.

Hmmm... what it sounds like to me then, (If you recall, it's what I thought you would say on post#738) is that you are saying Christ's church is an invisible church, right? And that all Protestant/Christian, bible alone believing churches and religions are as good as one another, right?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

We don't know who is genuine in any fellowship. So we gather and we study the bible and those who are sincere grow in faith.
"You Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” The Samaritan woman was speaking of the visible church. Jesus however defined the invisible church: “Believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. "

As a Catholic, I believe the bible 100%, including these two passages you posted from John chapter four. However, I do not necessarily agree with your fallible interpretation of them. I also believe, to get the full perspective of these two verses, one must include verses 19, 22,23,24, and 25.

I would be more than happy to give you my reasons why from my Catholic Bible studies if you'd like.


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Oh, let's not.

It figures.

He explained it quite well.

Well, I disagree. However, how about you explaining on, and answering the questions from my non-hypothetical post # 739 where you and a few other Protestant sola scripturists seem to have some disagreements on certain scripture passages? Here, I'll repost it for you.

It has been quite interesting following some of our Protestant posters conversing here as of late on the past few pages of this thread regarding Matt 16:19, (" I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.( "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”) and 1 Tim. 3:15, (But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.) What is the true meaning of "the Way" etc.

What I find interesting is that these posters are self-proclaimed sola scripturists, but cannot seem to agree on the meanings or interpretations of these passages. Now I could understand the Catholic/Protestant different understanding/ interpretation of these passages but Protestants disagreeing with Protestants on these passages? I find this very interesting!

So, being this is a thread about asking Protestant/non-denominationally believers questions, I'd like to ask these posters to please explain to us why? Why, if you are studying, learning believing from the same bible, are you have such different interpretations and beliefs in these scripture passages?
When you all study, read, and learn from the bible, are you not doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? When you all post your interpretations, beliefs, and understandings of scripture, is it your belief you are doing so under the guidance and truth from the Holy Spirit? Now, I am sure you all would agree there is no way the Holy Spirit would teach you error, right? Well, there is only one truth.

So, which one of you has the truth, and which of you do not? Is it you that has the truth Albion? Or is it you timothyu that has the truth? Hmm.... maybe its you renniks that has the truth? Could it be YeshuaFan has the truth? If you all can't agree, you all cannot be correct in your understanding, belief, and interpretation.

So.....the big question is to you all, if you can't agree which one of you is correct, and the others are not, to whom or what can you turn to make that decision? One thing for sure, it cannot be the bible because that is what you are disagreeing about! Quite the conundrum I must say!

Hey Albion, if you don't think you can, maybe the other posters mentioned might have the sand to do so.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

As in Isaiah, the keys to the kingdom are a sign that the prime minister's word rules when the king is absent. So says the Word of God.

There was no prime minister (or even its equivalent) in Isaiah's day; and what was given was a "key," So when Peter was given keyS, that's not the same...and of course the position or job he was given was not that of a prime minister.

Otherwise, the two are exactly alike. Yeh, right.

 

[Albion]

Hey Albion, if you don't think you can, maybe the other posters mentioned might have the sand to do so.

We've all explained this stuff to you a number of times already.

But if you insist upon retracing all of that, start with the fact that Sola Scriptura doesn't refer to a particular interpretation of Scripture.

That beginning point to all of this must have been explained in posts here at least a dozen times recently, and yet the same mischaracterization of it appears in your post again ("...you and a few other Protestant sola scripturists seem to have some disagreements on certain scripture passages?").

 

[Fidelibus]

We've all explained this stuff to you a number of times already.

I don't recall you and the other posters I mentioned coming to an agreement which one of you are correct and who is not regarding Matt 16:19, 1 Tim. 3:15, and the true meaning of the term, "the way."

So, once again, which one of you has the truth, and which of you do not? Is it you that has the truth Albion? Or is it you timothyu that has the truth? Could it be YeshuaFan has the truth? If you all can't agree, you all cannot be correct in your understanding, belief, and interpretation. Who decides? To whom or what authority can you and they turn to decide?

But if you insist upon retracing all of that, start with the fact that Sola Scriptura doesn't refer to a particular interpretation of Scripture.

So, then what does it refer too?

No wait! Better yet Albion, to save time, let's refer to the discussion you and my fellow Catholic 'Swag365' are having on the last two pages of the "The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture alone" thread on the 'General Theology' I've been following. Especially his last post to you (782),

Again, most amusing.

First you say “that definition of Sola Scriptura is not correct”.

I respond with “OK provide your definition”.

Do you respond with an actual definition? Of course not. Only more “well you see there are different ways of defining it” smoke and mirrors.

Hell will freeze over before you provide a definition, because both you and I know plenty well that if you provide a definition, it will be easily refuted.

from last Sunday that he (and the rest of us) is still waiting for your response. It will be like shattering two clay pigeons with one shot! If you have the 'sand' that is.

That beginning point to all of this must have been explained in posts here at least a dozen times recently, and yet the same mischaracterization of it appears in your post again ("...you and a few other Protestant sola scripturists seem to have some disagreements on certain scripture passages?").

So, are you denying the fact you and these other Protestant, sola scriptura adherent posters are in disagreement of the scripture passages I mentioned?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

I don't recall you and the other posters I mentioned coming to an agreement which one of you are correct and who is not regarding Matt 16:19, 1 Tim. 3:15, and the true meaning of the term, "the way."

So, once again, which one of you has the truth, and which of you do not?

I thought you wanted to discuss Sola Scriptura. No??

 

[Fidelibus]

I thought you wanted to discuss Sola Scriptura. No??

How about you answering the last sentence of my quote you posted, and then address what I had to say about your discussion with Swag365.

 

[Fidelibus]

How about you answering the last sentence of my quote you posted, and then address what I had to day about your discussion with Swag365.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that Jesus is a big rock, a mountain, while peter is a pebble!

Why did Jesus directly address Simon Peter in Matt 16:18?
"And I tell you, you are Peter ..."

It means there must be something in v.18-19 that applies to Peter only.

 

[Albion]

Okay. Apparently, you do NOT want to acknowledge the meaning of the term Sola Scriptura. If that's so, the other posted comments you are so concerned about are irrelevant since you seem to think, wrongly, that they are related to Sola Scriptura in some way.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that Jesus is a big rock, a mountain, while peter is a pebble!

Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name "Kephas" in John 1:42. How come "Kephas" does not translate as "pebble", but as "rock"?

Greek has a word for 'small stone,' lithos, and so does Aramaic - "evna". Jesus did not change Simon's name to "Evna", but to "Kephas", which translates as Petros in Koine Greek, and means "rock".

 

[Fidelibus]

Okay. Apparently, you do NOT want to acknowledge the meaning of the term Sola Scriptura. If that's so, the other posted comments you are so concerned about are irrelevant since you seem to think, wrongly, that they are related to Sola Scriptura in some way.

Apparently you do not have the sand, so you have to deflect.

Go figure!

 

[eleos1954]

Jesus can give power to whom ever he wishes, and has, including the Apostles:
Luke 9
Then Jesus a]">[a] called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. 3 He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic. 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there, and leave from there. 5 Wherever they do not welcome you, as you are leaving that town shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” 6 They departed and went through the villages, bringing the good news and curing diseases everywhere.

authority over all demons and to cure diseases,

not forgiveness unto salvation, only Jesus can do that

 

[Albion]

Apparently you do not have the sand, so you have to deflect.

Go figure!

Maybe the first time that an appeal for sticking to the subject has been called a "deflect."

You have a nice day now.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that Jesus is a big rock, a mountain, while peter is a pebble!

"Petros" is masculine; "Petra" is feminine. So "Peter" - a MAN - can only be translated (in the Greek language) as the MASCULINE "Petros".
To translate "Peter" as the feminine "Petra" would be as grammatically incorrect as addressing a man as "Madam".

Even Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.*
The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros.

*[Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.]

 

[Fidelibus]

Maybe the first time that an appeal for sticking to the subject has been called a "deflect."

You have a nice day now.

Maybe if you had the sand to actually answer a question, you wouldn't get called out for deflecting.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Buzzard3]

From the Holy Spirit. As the verse says.
"the Spirit of truth, is come,"

In which Church or individual is found "all truth" that comes from the Holy Spirit (John 16:13)?

 

[Buzzard3]

Right and the church is the body of believers.... in places like China you're much better off gathering with true believers in a basement then going to some ritualistic church that doesn't teach the truth.

What is "the truth"? Your interpretation of the Bible?

 

[timothyu]

It means there must be something in v.18-19 that applies to Peter only.

Yes , he was the only one who in answering His question, spoke truth from God while the rest parroted as is typical, what other man had said.