• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Protestant errors and inventions (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Thank you for the clarification



That sound was writien down though. It wasn't just taught orally (although I do believe that is how things used to be pre-flood)



I was going with what a Christian truly is. One who follows Christ before His advent is no different than one who follows post advent. That's imo though. And the message being writen after it was spoken is neither here nor there. I believe the reason why we are to trust the writen word, is because it helps to keep us from deception.

Stryder, I'm just explaining what was meant to be used as God's word-it's not just what was written about him. IT's also what was meant by what he said. There's a lot of things Christ said that are head-scratchers. One is our doctrine of the Eucharist. John 6 leaves people going "Huh?" So does the parable of the dishonest steward. Many of Jesus' parables require explanation. That's why we say there's four senses of Scripture, and that's why I often say to you "I agree with you, but that's not the only thing it means." For example, yes, Christ is the Rock of Ages. Peter, though, is the Rock of the Church. There's others, and I hope you see where I'm going with all this.

But Scripture is never placed beneath tradition. In fact, if any Tradition contradicts Scripture, it's not Tradition. Same is true witht the third leg of the stool-the Magisterial Authority of the Church. Can never contradict Scripture. Has never contradicted Scripture. Will never contradict Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Stryder, I'm just explaining what was meant to be used as God's word-it's not just what was written about him. IT's also what was meant by what he said. There's a lot of things Christ said that are head-scratchers. One is our doctrine of the Eucharist. John 6 leaves people going "Huh?" So does the parable of the dishonest steward. Many of Jesus' parables require explanation. That's why we say there's four senses of Scripture, and that's why I often say to you "I agree with you, but that's not the only thing it means." For example, yes, Christ is the Rock of Ages. Peter, though, is the Rock of the Church. There's others, and I hope you see where I'm going with all this.

But Scripture is never placed beneath tradition. In fact, if any Tradition contradicts Scripture, it's not Tradition. Same is true witht the third leg of the stool-the Magisterial Authority of the Church. Can never contradict Scripture. Has never contradicted Scripture. Will never contradict Scripture.

Let me begin by saying I appreciate how forward you are with your explanations. It makes for very enjoyable conversations. That being said...;)

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what it means to contradict scripture. From where I stand, I look at what someone teaches, and I must compare it to the whole of scripture. I've not subscribed to the NT Canon only/supersedes school of thought. This is why I constantly quote Isa 8:20. Many of what is being taught fully goes against the word of the law and the prophets.

I will agree that Jesus said many a thing that left people going :confused:, but that was as foretold: "Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not." What Christ did was employ a method that separated the true believer from the false. So John 6 we see Christ doing this. The reason why many left was because they thought Christ was calling them to sin, which would obviously disqualify Him from being the Messiah. They couldn't see past their own understanding.

And I do believe that many verses have dual applications, but not all. Christ could not be referring to Peter as the rock upon which He would be His church, because the sentence is speaking about the foundation. We see the parable where the wise man built His house upon a Rock, while the foolish man built his house upon the sand. No one would dare to say that the rock in that parable was Peter, so why would Christ suddenly use the same illustration to refer to anyone other than Himself?
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Let me begin by saying I appreciate how forward you are with your explanations. It makes for very enjoyable conversations. That being said...;)

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what it means to contradict scripture. From where I stand, I look at what someone teaches, and I must compare it to the whole of scripture. I've not subscribed to the NT Canon only/supersedes school of thought. This is why I constantly quote Isa 8:20. Many of what is being taught fully goes against the word of the law and the prophets.

I will agree that Jesus said many a thing that left people going :confused:, but that was as foretold: "Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not." What Christ did was employ a method that separated the true believer from the false. So John 6 we see Christ doing this. The reason why many left was because they thought Christ was calling them to sin, which would obviously disqualify Him from being the Messiah. They couldn't see past their own understanding.

And I do believe that many verses have dual applications, but not all. Christ could not be referring to Peter as the rock upon which He would be His church, because the sentence is speaking about the foundation. We see the parable where the wise man built His house upon a Rock, while the foolish man built his house upon the sand. No one would dare to say that the rock in that parable was Peter, so why would Christ suddenly use the same illustration to refer to anyone other than Himself?

In your last example, why do you think Christ was referring to Himself? He was specifically saying "he who listens to my words and acts on them will be like the wise man who builds on rock". He referred to his words. The rock of the Church is the doctrine. Jesus is the rock of the universe. This also shows that the Rock is the one who guards the doctrine. Peter Himself, I'll grant you, wasn't very rock-like during Christ's earthly ministry, but at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled him. He still had human frailty to deal with, as we all do. But in doctrine and faith, Peter was the first of the representatives, those who stood in Christ's stead.

Regarding contradictions, I'm speaking of cases where the Bible says X, but we disagree with that, we believe Y.

For example, We believe that Mary had no other children, and you say she did because it says somewhere "They came to Jesus and said your mother and your brothers are here for you". But our belief does not contradict this, rightly understood. Jesus could have brothers, in the Christian sense, but also in the familial sense, without Mary ever having had a child. I have grandchildren, though I have no children. Hard, maybe, to understand, but very possible.

At any rate, the Tradition of the Church explains these things, how they can be. You already know, I know you've read at least some of the ECF. But even that can be wrong-the ECF were not infallible.

If you'd like to take some of the others, let's, by PM or another thread.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
...

And I do believe that many verses have dual applications, but not all. Christ could not be referring to Peter as the rock upon which He would be His church, because the sentence is speaking about the foundation. We see the parable where the wise man built His house upon a Rock, while the foolish man built his house upon the sand. No one would dare to say that the rock in that parable was Peter, so why would Christ suddenly use the same illustration to refer to anyone other than Himself?

Peter is the rock because that is what the name Jesus gave to him means. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church. It's simple grammar.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,592
14,013
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,405,017.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Peter is the rock because that is what the name Jesus gave to him means. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church. It's simple grammar.
Simple grammar would be "upon you, Peter, I will build my church". What you propose is not simple grammar.
 
Upvote 0

shturt678

Senior Veteran
Feb 1, 2013
5,280
103
Hawaii
✟28,428.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Peter is the rock because that is what the name Jesus gave to him means. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church. It's simple grammar.

Climb down off that limb with haste, ie, didn't state, "on thee, Peter.." nor "on thee..." Great, see you climbing down, ie, Eph.2:20 makes all the apostles the "founddation" of the Church (not, indeed, their persons persons or their faith but their inspired preaching and writing.

You had me worried ol' coffee drinker friend. Have some cold chai tea awaiting you. Just ol' old tea totler Jack
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Climb down off that limb with haste, ie, didn't state, "on thee, Peter.." nor "on thee..." Great, see you climbing down, ie, Eph.2:20 makes all the apostles the "founddation" of the Church (not, indeed, their persons persons or their faith but their inspired preaching and writing.

You had me worried ol' coffee drinker friend. Have some cold chai tea awaiting you. Just ol' old tea totler Jack
Don't hold your breath, Ol' Jack.:sorry:
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Simple grammar would be "upon you, Peter, I will build my church". What you propose is not simple grammar.
I've often wondered the same.
Jesus goes from a presumably personal interaction with Peter at the begining of the sentence, but refers to him impersonaly in the last part of the sentence (& upon this...). It doesn't make sense to me that the impersonal pronoun "this" would refer to a person, rather to the previous object, which is the truth of who Jesus is, according to Peter in the immediately previous verse.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Peter is the rock because that is what the name Jesus gave to him means. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church. It's simple grammar.

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

The text in red says that. You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church.

One does not get a new name given by God every day, you know, so the occasion needs some remark and that is what the scripture gives. And I say to you, that you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)
 
Upvote 0

shturt678

Senior Veteran
Feb 1, 2013
5,280
103
Hawaii
✟28,428.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
The text in red says that. You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church.

One does not get a new name given by God every day, you know, so the occasion needs some remark and that is what the scripture gives. And I say to you, that you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

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
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In your last example, why do you think Christ was referring to Himself? He was specifically saying "he who listens to my words and acts on them will be like the wise man who builds on rock". He referred to his words. The rock of the Church is the doctrine. Jesus is the rock of the universe. This also shows that the Rock is the one who guards the doctrine. Peter Himself, I'll grant you, wasn't very rock-like during Christ's earthly ministry, but at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled him. He still had human frailty to deal with, as we all do. But in doctrine and faith, Peter was the first of the representatives, those who stood in Christ's stead.

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.

Regarding contradictions, I'm speaking of cases where the Bible says X, but we disagree with that, we believe Y.

So our definition is the same. Good.

For example, We believe that Mary had no other children, and you say she did because it says somewhere "They came to Jesus and said your mother and your brothers are here for you". But our belief does not contradict this, rightly understood. Jesus could have brothers, in the Christian sense, but also in the familial sense, without Mary ever having had a child. I have grandchildren, though I have no children. Hard, maybe, to understand, but very possible.

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.

At any rate, the Tradition of the Church explains these things, how they can be. You already know, I know you've read at least some of the ECF. But even that can be wrong-the ECF were not infallible.

If you'd like to take some of the others, let's, by PM or another thread.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Peter is the rock because that is what the name Jesus gave to him means. You are Rock, says the Lord, and upon this rock I will build my church. It's simple grammar.

Again, speaking about foundations, which Christ already showed He was, it's simple logic to see that a frail, fallen human, couldn't possibly be the rock, upon which Christ would build His church.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Again, speaking about foundations, which Christ already showed He was, it's simple logic to see that a frail, fallen human, couldn't possibly be the rock, upon which Christ would build His church.

Well, Peter brought in 3000 converts in a single day when there had been relatively few disciples previously, so I'd count that as a successful "building" project.

Perhaps the bigger point should be that although the RCC misuses this verse from the Gospel, there's no reason to diminish Peter because of it. :)
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Well, Peter brought in 3000 converts in a single day when there had been relatively few disciples previously, so I'd count that as a successful "building" project.

Perhaps the bigger point should be that although the RCC misuses this verse from the Gospel, there's no reason to diminish Peter because of it. :)

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.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'd like to think that it was the Holy Spirit working through Peter ;)
OK. That doesn't change anything.

And I wasn't trying to diminish Peter. I'm certain he had a strong role in the early work.
...strong enough for Christ to call him, informally, the "rock-ribbed" guy he was counting on? ;)

I'd say so. That's about all there is to this much-abused verse.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Again, speaking about foundations, which Christ already showed He was, it's simple logic to see that a frail, fallen human, couldn't possibly be the rock, upon which Christ would build His church.

Indeed it is so often said that a frail fallen human being couldn't carry such a heavy load as the church which Peter is charged to carry, yet what do you make of Abraham? Was he not a frail fallen human being and he is said to be the father of all the faithful and it is in his bosom that the faithful dead are said to reside awaiting the resurrection. Surely logic says he could not bear such a load.
A certain man was wealthy, and he was clothed in purple and in fine linen. And he feasted splendidly every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, covered with sores, wanting to be filled with the crumbs which were falling from the wealthy man's table. But no one gave it to him. And even the dogs came and licked his sores. Then it happened that the beggar died, and he was carried by the Angels into the bosom of Abraham. Now the wealthy man also died, and he was entombed in Hell. Then lifting up his eyes, while he was in torments, he saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. And crying out, he said: "Father Abraham, take pity on me and send Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to refresh my tongue. For I am tortured in this fire." And Abraham said to him: "Son, recall that you received good things in your life, and in comparison, Lazarus received bad things. But now he is consoled, and truly you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you a great chaos has been established, so that those who might want to cross from here to you are not able, nor can someone cross from there to here." And he said: "Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torments." And Abraham said to him: "They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them." So he said: "No, father Abraham. But if someone were to go to them from the dead, they would repent." But he said to him: "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if someone has resurrected from the dead." (Luke 16:19-31)

So then, what shall we say that Abraham had achieved, who is our father according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he would have glory, but not with God. For what does Scripture say? "Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." But for he who works, wages are not accounted according to grace, but according to debt. Yet truly, for he who does not work, but who believes in him who justifies the impious, his faith is reputed unto justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God. Similarly, David also declares the blessedness of a man, to whom God brings justice without works: "Blessed are they whose iniquities have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin." Does this blessedness, then, remain only in the circumcised, or is it even in the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was reputed to Abraham unto justice. But then how was it reputed? In circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. For he received the sign of circumcision as a symbol of the justice of that faith which exists apart from circumcision, so that he might be the father of all those who believe while uncircumcised, so that it might also be reputed to them unto justice, and he might be the father of circumcision, not only for those who are of circumcision, but even for those who follow the footsteps of that faith which is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. For the Promise to Abraham, and to his posterity, that he would inherit the world, was not through the law, but through the justice of faith. For if those who are of the law are the heirs, then faith becomes empty and the Promise is abolished. For the law works unto wrath. And where there is no law, there is no law-breaking. Because of this, it is from faith according to grace that the Promise is ensured for all posterity, not only for those who are of the law, but also for those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all before God, in whom he believed, who revives the dead and who calls those things that do not exist into existence. For it is written: "I have established you as the father of many nations." (Romans 4:1-17)
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Indeed it is so often said that a frail fallen human being couldn't carry such a heavy load as the church which Peter is charged to carry, yet what do you make of Abraham? Was he not a frail fallen human being and he is said to be the father of all the faithful and it is in his bosom that the faithful dead are said to reside awaiting the resurrection. Surely logic says he could not bear such a load.

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.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
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.

You miss the most obvious statements of sacred scripture because, you claim, they are not logical. It is not because they really lack logic but rather because the world view expressed in your post cannot allow Peter (whose very name means rock) to be the rock in Matthew 16:18.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You miss the most obvious statements of sacred scripture because, you claim, they are not logical. It is not because they really lack logic but rather because the world view expressed in your post cannot allow Peter (whose very name means rock) to be the rock in Matthew 16:18.

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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.