Peter Is Not The Rock!

[archierieus]

Sure! Seems like not many are interested in it. That thread is still there garnering cobwebs
oh wait, there has been a few recent post on there. I forgot about it LOL

Then I shall repair to that thread, and look forward to participating--although not to abandon this one. I am intrigued by Monsieur Lionroar0's statements about salvation. Should like to explore that a bit more.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

I am going to delete all my post that were not on topic and I apologize for straying from it. Peace

Oh, come now, your posts are most interesting! This thread has wandered a bit, but it is the nature of the activity. We don't want to all be marching in lock-step!

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh, come now, your posts are most interesting! This thread has wandered a bit, but it is the nature of the activity. We don't want to all be marching in lock-step!

Dave

Ok. I have a question. Where was Jesus standing when He made this quote. This predicate still interest me as one is also used in the "mountain of faith" passage like He is referring to a specific mountain. I just now saw that earlier. I may be grasping at straws here but who knows.

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art petroV and upon this/tauth <3778>, the petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the 0ut-called, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing/katiscusousin <2729> (5692) of her;

Notice here the wording with the greek word #5129 after the word mountain. Never really noticed this before till today. Thoughts?

Matthew 21:21 Answering yet the Jesus said to them, "Verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having Faith, and no ye may be doubting, not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to the Mountain, this/toutw <5129>, ye may saying, 'Be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea', it shall be becoming"; [Revelation 8:8]

Textus Rec.) Matthew 21:21 apokriqeiV de o ihsouV eipen autoiV amhn legw umin ean echte pistin kai mh diakriqhte ou monon to thV sukhV poihsete alla kan tw orei toutw eiphte arqhti kai blhqhti eiV thn qalassan genhsetai

 

[archierieus]

Ok. I have a question. Where was Jesus standing when He made this quote. This predicate still interest me as one is also used in the "mountain of faith" passage like He is referring to a specific mountain. I just now saw that earlier. I may be grasping at straws here but who knows.

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art petroV and upon this/tauth <3778>, the petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the 0ut-called, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing/katiscusousin <2729> (5692) of her;

Notice here the wording with the greek word #5129 after the word mountain. Never really noticed this before till today. Thoughts?

Matthew 21:21 Answering yet the Jesus said to them, "Verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having Faith, and no ye may be doubting, not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to the Mountain, this/toutw <5129>, ye may saying, 'Be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea', it shall be becoming"; [Revelation 8:8]

Textus Rec.) Matthew 21:21 apokriqeiV de o ihsouV eipen autoiV amhn legw umin ean echte pistin kai mh diakriqhte ou monon to thV sukhV poihsete alla kan tw orei toutw eiphte arqhti kai blhqhti eiV thn qalassan genhsetai

Interesting thought. So as I understand it, are you thinking of a possible connection between tauth ta petra and tw orei toutw?

Looking again at the Greek, another thought comes to mind in the process. I note a distinction between two great systems of belief, illustrated by the treatment of the Mt. 16 passage. One focuses on Christ as the Rock, the foundation, the sum total, the focus. The other focuses upon man. I believe the difference is significant in a number of ways.

But as to the question you raised, let me think about that. I am about to nod off here at the keyboard, and had better turn in!

Dave

 

[beamishboy]

BB, my young friend, you make a very good point. Indeed, the differences are quite distinct. The Protestant gospel is different from the RC gospel. As well, the Protestant doctrinal authority--the holy Bible, is different from that of the RC and EO--Church tradition, the 'Fathers,' the Councils. And so forth. In today's culture, it seems 'PC' to say we should all come together. Indeed, there is some common ground. Yet the fundamentals are significantly different. And the only basis on which the RCC woud accept 'coming together' would be recognition of the 'Roman pontiff' as supreme, and of the RCC as the only true Church. With requirements lik that, unity is not feasible, either Scripturally or practically.

Dave

The beamishboy calls a spade a spade. Political correctness does not feature in the beamishboy's speech. I'm also appealing to the RCs who think they are right to show them that unification is not in line with Paul's teachings. One of us has the correct gospel - the RCs or the Protestants. The other one of us has the "other gospel". I believe with all my heart and soul that Protestants have the correct gospel. Most RCs similarly believe they've got it right.

Either way, a unification is quite unapostolic for either party. Hence we should go our separate ways, each party respecting the other party as a different religious group. That way, there'll be less acrimony between the two religions.

 

[archierieus]

There are differences but it seems to me that maybe most of them are probably just semantic. After many years of being apart each camp has come up with it's on version of christianese.

I say tomato, you say "tomato." I say "tomato, you say tomato.


I'll try my best to translate.

What Catholics mean by "good works"= Christ working through us.

Evangilizing, taking care of the poor, feeding the hungry, praying.. ect..

No one can do the Father's will with out Grace.

I should like to inquire a bit further about this. Please indicate which of the following options more clearly approximates the RC concept of salvation and, if possible, cite to the catechism:

1) Salvation is based entirely upon what Christ did on Calvary, accepted by faith by the believer.

or

2) Salvation is based upon what Christ did on Calvary, accepted by faith by the believer, and upon the believer's good works, that is Chrst working through us, doing the Father's will by His grace.

Thank-you.

Dave

 

[lionroar0]

I should like to inquire a bit further about this. Please indicate which of the following options more clearly approximates the RC concept of salvation and, if possible, cite to the catechism:

1) Salvation is based entirely upon what Christ did on Calvary, accepted by faith by the believer.

or

2) Salvation is based upon what Christ did on Calvary, accepted by faith by the believer, and upon the believer's good works, that is Chrst working through us, doing the Father's will by His grace.

Thank-you.

Dave

I think this is what you are looking for. It's rather long and will not fit in one response.

I will post the web address so that it can be read.

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications...&subSecNum=0&headernum=0&ParNum=142&ParType=3

This next web address is the results I got when I searched for "salvation."

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications/cis/catechism/search.cfm

Number two is closest but still not quite right.

Salvation for Catholics means three things. Accepting God's free gift. That acceptance is based on faith and then enduring in that faith.

As a person can come to Christ at their death bed. Very much like the thief on the cross.

A person can come to Christ after living to a ripe old age and enduring in the faith.

Salvation rests on God's grace alone. That is unmerrited favor and God favors whom He will.

Also a person that has never heard of the Gospel may also be saved. Due to God's grace.

Peace

 

[archierieus]

I think this is what you are looking for. It's rather long and will not fit in one response.

I will post the web address so that it can be read.

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications...&subSecNum=0&headernum=0&ParNum=142&ParType=3

I looked at the article, but note that it pertains specifically to 'faith.' Faith certainly is involved in salvation, "by grace are ye saved through faith," but it is a separate topic and concept from salvation.

This next web address is the results I got when I searched for "salvation."

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications/cis/catechism/search.cfm

Here is what showed up when I clicked on this link:

"Variable PHRASE is undefined."

However, by using the search box in the publication, I did find several articles. From there, I went to the catechism, and did additional research.

Number two is closest but still not quite right.

That matches my findings. Number two does appear to approximate the general teaching. I notice references to the sacraments, and participation in them as integral to the experience of salvation.

Salvation for Catholics means three things. Accepting God's free gift. That acceptance is based on faith and then enduring in that faith.

And the response, the enduring is where the faith-led good works come in, as I understand the position.

As a person can come to Christ at their death bed. Very much like the thief on the cross.

Without a doubt.

A person can come to Christ after living to a ripe old age and enduring in the faith.

IOW a person can be a member of a church but not really come to Christ until later in life, correct?

Salvation rests on God's grace alone. That is unmerrited favor and God favors whom He will.

I think I understand what you are intending to say. Sounds like aspects of the Calvinist position.

Also a person that has never heard of the Gospel may also be saved. Due to God's grace.

Agreed. God is in the business of saving people.

This dialog has indeed been helpful. I see some important common ground, and I also recognize some important differences. Permit me to explain and clarify those differences.

To a Protestant Christian, salvation is 100% based on the completed perfect work of Christ on Calvary. That is a constant, and is true at the beginning of one's Christian experience, and at every step of the way. 'Good works' are not part of the equation. 'Salvation' means being 'justified.' The Gk. word means, 'acquitted.' Believers receive their title to heaven based solely on the completed, perfect work of Christ, and not on any works of their own. A person is saved on the basis of being 'in Christ,' covered by His perfect righteousness, pardoned by His complete atonement. There is no need for penance, for example. 'Jesus paid it all.' Ours is to accept what is freely offered.

Therein lie some significant, indeed fundamental differences.

Dave

 

[prodromos]

To a Protestant Christian, salvation is 100% based on the completed perfect work of Christ on Calvary. That is a constant, and is true at the beginning of one's Christian experience, and at every step of the way. 'Good works' are not part of the equation. 'Salvation' means being 'justified.' The Gk. word means, 'acquitted.' Believers receive their title to heaven based solely on the completed, perfect work of Christ, and not on any works of their own. A person is saved on the basis of being 'in Christ,' covered by His perfect righteousness, pardoned by His complete atonement. There is no need for penance, for example. 'Jesus paid it all.' Ours is to accept what is freely offered.

What do you make of Matthew 22:8-14 then?

8 Then he says to his bondmen, The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy; 9 go therefore into the thoroughfares of the highways, and as many as ye shall find invite to the wedding feast. 10 And those bondmen went out into the highways, and brought together all as many as they found, both evil and good; and the wedding feast was furnished with guests. 11 And the king, having gone in to see the guests, beheld there a man not clothed with a wedding garment. 12 And he says to him, [My] friend, how camest thou in here not having on a wedding garment? But he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him feet and hands, and take him away, and cast him out into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called ones, but few chosen ones.​

To us, this is a perfect example of the synergy of salvation. God brings us to the wedding feast (the Church) but it incumbent on us to take advantage of the resources provided in the King's house to put to death the 'old' man and put on Christ, so that when the King sees us we are found to be wearing a wedding garment. The parable of the sheep and the goats is another example (they are judged by what they have done for Christ, not by what Christ did for them) as is the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (the oil symbolising their good deeds and virtues) and the parable of the talents.

John

 

[prodromos]

'Salvation' means being 'justified.' The Gk. word means, 'acquitted.'

Not in the lexicons I've seen. It is only in the Latin translations that the language appears to fit a courtroom scenario. Not so in the Greek.

John

 

[MamaZ]

And what are the garments of the wedding feast?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Not in the lexicons I've seen. It is only in the Latin translations that the language appears to fit a courtroom scenario. Not so in the Greek.

John

I love how the Orthodox church uses their Greek translations and tries very hard to adhere to the teachings as unblemished as possible. The use of ECFs and Tradition is almost untouched in the Orthodox church. Very commendable.

In the RCC church they try to stay very adherant to such things too. There is a major concern to never change anything deposited from the Apostles. The RCC will use Greek and Latin and Hebrew and Aramaic texts to try and come to the best possible translation. So it is not like the RCC only uses the Latin translation from the Vulgate.

 

[prodromos]

I love how the Orthodox church uses their Greek translations

Ahem. The Greek is not a translation

 

[beamishboy]

I love how the Protestant church adheres strictly to apostolic teachings and abandoning any post-apostolic tradition and doctrines particularly where they conflict with the spirit of apostolic writings. Praise be to God!

 

[prodromos]

And what are the garments of the wedding feast?

Christ's nature? What do you think?

 

[archierieus]

Not in the lexicons I've seen. It is only in the Latin translations that the language appears to fit a courtroom scenario. Not so in the Greek.

John

The root word, and related forms, occur in a number of contexts and settings. Louw-Nida (Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains) can help a student recognize the semantic domains. As used in Romans 3, etc., the word does indeed have such legal implications.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Christ's nature? What do you think?

The wedding garment is a symbol of Christ's righteousness. It covers our filthy rags. Isaiah, a prophet and a righteous man, said, "All our righteousness is as filthy rags." (ch. 59:2) All our efforts, all our good works are as filthy rags. For the believer in Jesus, the garment of Christ's perfect righteousness covers his filthy rags. The guy without the wedding garments illustrates those who try to get to heaven on their own merits. 'Fig-leaf garments,' man's attempts to be righteous. We are sinners, and everything we do, every breath we take, every thought that runs through our minds, is tainted with sin and with self. Jesus Christ alone is pure, holy, spotless, undefiled. The robe of His perfect righteousness is offered to everyone who puts their trust in Him, and in Him alone.

Dave

 

[beamishboy]

The wedding garment is a symbol of Christ's righteousness. Isaiah, a prophet and a righteous man, said, "All our righteousness is as filthy rags." All our efforts, all our good works are as filthy rags. For the believer in Jesus, the garment of Christ's perfect righteousness covers his filthy rags. The guy without the wedding garments illustrates those who try to get to heaven on their own merits. 'Fig-leaf garments,' man's attempts to be righteous. We are sinners, and everything we do, every breath we take, every thought that runs through our minds, is tainted with sin and with self. Jesus Christ alone is pure, holy, spotless, undefiled. The robe of His perfect righteousness is offered to everyone who puts their trust in Him, and in Him alone.

Dave

The beamishboy is mighty impressed. You have an answer for everything!!!!!!!!! You're the Great Protestant Theologian in CF. I hope to encourage you because you are doing a great piece of work defending God's truth!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What do you make of Matthew 22:8-14 then?

8 Then he says to his bondmen, The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy; 9 go therefore into the thoroughfares of the highways, and as many as ye shall find invite to the wedding feast. 10 And those bondmen went out into the highways, and brought together all as many as they found, both evil and good; and the wedding feast was furnished with guests. 11 And the king, having gone in to see the guests, beheld there a man not clothed with a wedding garment. 12 And he says to him, [My] friend, how camest thou in here not having on a wedding garment? But he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him feet and hands, and take him away, and cast him out into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called ones, but few chosen ones.
​

To us, this is a perfect example of the synergy of salvation. God brings us to the wedding feast (the Church) but it incumbent on us to take advantage of the resources provided in the King's house to put to death the 'old' man and put on Christ, so that when the King sees us we are found to be wearing a wedding garment. The parable of the sheep and the goats is another example (they are judged by what they have done for Christ, not by what Christ did for them) as is the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (the oil symbolising their good deeds and virtues) and the parable of the talents.

John

Greetings. I relate that man to the one in Luke 16:19. I have a good study on that. He is dressed like that Queen in Revelation it seems.

Luke 16:19 A-Man, yet any, was rich and clothed/enedidu-sketo <1737> (5710) porfuran <4209> and busson <1040> making-merry down to a-day, shiningly [Matt 22:11]

Matthew 22:11 And into coming yet the King, to gaze of the ones the reclining at table, he saw there a Man not in-clothed/endedu-menon <1746> cothing/enduma <1742> of wedding-feast: [Luke 16:19/Zeph 1:7]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings. I relate that man to the one in Luke 16:19. I have a good study on that. He is dressed like that Queen in Revelation it seems.

Luke 16:19 A-Man, yet any, was rich and clothed/enedidu-sketo <1737> (5710) porfuran <4209> and busson <1040> making-merry down to a-day, shiningly [Matt 22:11]

Matthew 22:11 And into coming yet the King, to gaze of the ones the reclining at table, he saw there a Man not in-clothed/endedu-menon <1746> cothing/enduma <1742> of wedding-feast: [Luke 16:19/Zeph 1:7]

He also appears to be a type of "Judas/betrayer". I found this interesting

Matt 26:49 "Then Judas quickly stepped up to Jesus and said, "Hello, Rabbi!" and kissed him."50 "The yet Jesus said to him, "comrade/friend/etaire <2083>, why are thou here?" Then toward-coming , they on-casted the hands upon the Jesus, and they hold/seize Him."

Matt 22:12 And He is saying to him: " Comrade/friend/etaire <2083>! how thou entered here no having garment of marriage-feast"? The yet was speechless.