Submission.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

...and it was Lord Acton, a prominent Catholic, who's famous quote was spoken in opposition to the idea of papal infallibility.

Really? I didn't know that. Makes sense, though. English Catholics were usually more opposed than others. John Henry Newman, for example.

 

[concretecamper]

... well stated. Gates are DEFENSIVE.

I guess this is a more recent interpretation. However, let's look at the traditional interpretation

Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell. (i.e. Martin Luther) bolded example is mine


Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

 

[Rick Otto]

I guess this is a more recent interpretation.

And it completely ignores all the gates used offensively in battles throughout all of history.

 

[concretecamper]

And it completely ignores all the gates used offensively in battles throughout all of history.

take it up with Origen and Jerome....those silly dumb scholars

 

[Rick Otto]

take it up with Origen and Jerome....those silly dumb scholars

I can't shout loud enough for them to hear me way up there on your pedestal.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Can you be a Christian and refuse to submit to the presbyters (priests) in the church?

sure i can,

Job 32

6 So Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite said:
“I am young in years,
and you are old;
that is why I was fearful,
not daring to tell you what I know.
7 I thought, ‘Age should speak;
advanced years should teach wisdom.’
8 But it is the spirit in a person,
the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding.

 

[concretecamper]

I can't shout loud enough for them to hear me way up there on your pedestal.

Don't be sorry....just be humble.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I guess this is a more recent interpretation. However, let's look at the traditional interpretation

Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell. (i.e. Martin Luther) bolded example is mine


Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

Who cares if it's recent or traditional? Gates are defensive, and gates withstand sieges. It's about overcoming the kingdom of this world, not about corruption in the church. That's how the metaphor works in the actual text. If Origen, Jerome, and Luther didn't see that, then it's because they were working in an era when the concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy dominated all biblical hermeneutics.

 

[Rick Otto]

Don't be sorry....just be humble.

Because you name dropped, I gotta grovel?
Have a piece of gum.

 

[concretecamper]

Who cares if it's recent or traditional? Gates are defensive, and gates withstand sieges. It's about overcoming the kingdom of this world, not about corruption in the church. That's how the metaphor works in the actual text. If Origen, Jerome, and Luther didn't see that, then it's because they were working in an era when the concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy dominated all biblical hermeneutics.

Ah...the fruits of SS at its finest.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

... well stated. Gates are DEFENSIVE.
​

I guess this is a more recent interpretation. However, let's look at the traditional interpretation

Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell. (i.e. Martin Luther) bolded example is mine


Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

And it completely ignores all the gates used offensively in battles throughout all of history.

This would probably deserve it's own thread me thinks

http://www.christianforums.com/t7692724/#post61515052
The Gates of Hell

It is not a metaphor for error, it is an actual place of pagan worship at Ceasarea Philippi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx6jjjgrymo

So the context of that conversation in Matthew 16 is usualy misunderstood. The "gates of hell prevailing" does not imply the church would fall into error, it was a reference to the lies of paganism & how those errors would not prevail against the gospel.

The Jews speak of the gates of hell: sometimes of the gate of hell, in the singular number {p}; and sometimes of the gates of hell, in the plural number. They say {q}, that
"Mnhygl vy Myxtp hvlv, "hell has three gates", one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem.''

They talk {r} of "an angel that is appointed Mnhygd yert le, "over the gates of hell", whose name is Samriel; who has three keys in his hands, and opens three doors.''
And elsewhere {s} they say, that "he that is appointed over hell his name is Dumah, and many myriads of destroying angels are with him, and he stands
Mnhygd axtp le, "at the gate of hell"; and all those that keep the holy covenant in this world, he has no power to bring them in."
:world, he has no power to bring them in.''

Our Lord may allude to these notions of the Jews, and his sense be, that all the infernal principalities and powers, with all their united cunning and strength, will never be able to extirpate his Gospel, to destroy his interest, to demolish his church in general, or ruin anyone particular soul that is built upon him. Again, the gates of "Hades", or hell, sometimes seem to design no other than the gates of death, and the grave, and persons going into the state of death; see Job 38:17 where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and then the sense is, that neither death, nor the grave, shall finally, and totally prevail over the people of God, and members of Christ; but they shall be raised out of such a state, and live gloriously with him for ever. By it here is not meant Peter himself; though it is true of him, that Satan, and his posse of devils that beset him, did not prevail against him, so as to destroy his grace, hurt his estate, and hinder his salvation: nor could death, in all its frightful appearances, deter him from holding, and preaching, and maintaining the doctrine of Christ; and though death, and the grave, have now power over him, yet they shall not always detain him: but rather, it designs the doctrine Peter made a confession of which, , though it may be opposed by hell and earth, by Satan, and his emissaries, by the open force of persecutors, and the secret fraud of heretics, it may be brought into contempt by the scandalous lives of professors; and though the true professors of it may die off, yet truth itself always lives, and defies the power of death, and the grave: or else the church in general is meant, and every true believer. These words do not ascertain the continuance of anyone particular congregated church, but secures the church universal, which will continue as long as the sun and moon endure, and the perseverance of everyone of God's elect; and assure that death, and the grave, shall not always have the dominion over the saints, but that they shall be rescued from them. Once more, this "it" may refer to Christ the rock, who, though he was brought to the dust of death, by the means of Satan, and the powers of darkness, yet to the ruin of him that had the power of death; and though death, and the grave, had power over him for a while, yet could not hold him; he rose victorious over them, and ever lives, having the keys of hell and death, to open the gates thereof, and let his people out when he thinks fit.

{p} T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 39. 1. Succa, fol. 32. 2. Bava Bathra, fol. 84. 1. {q} T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. Menasseh ben Israel, Nishmat Chayim, fol, 33. 1, 2. {r} Zohar in Gen. fol. 47. 4. {s} Ib. fol. 7. 1.

-from John Gill commentary[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE].[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

exegesis - What does "gates of hell" mean in Matthew 16:18? - Christianity Stack Exchange

There are no literal gates to Hell, are there?
​

The original Greek of the verse has Jesus speaking of Ἅιδης (Hades), and that Greek word is believed to be a translation of the Hebrew concept of שאול (Sheol), which like Hades was "the place where those that had died were believed to be congregated" (Jewish Encyclopedia).
Now the Old Testament indeed does say that Sheol has gates, e.g. in Job 17:16 (NKJV quoted):

Will they go down to the gates of Sheol?
Shall we have rest together in the dust?
​

And Isaiah 38:10:

I said,
“In the prime of my life
I shall go to the gates of Sheol;
I am deprived of the remainder of my years.”
​

The 'gates of death' are also mentioned in Job 38:17 and Psalm 9:13.
If they are not in fact literal gates in the supernatural realm, the idea must be that this is the passage into the land of the dead—i.e., actual death itself. Either way it is a one-way journey—they are prison gates which do not open from the inside—but Jesus is here giving us hope that the rock and the church built upon it will one day "proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound" (Isaiah 61:1).



The Catholic Church has defined the Gates of Hell mentioned in Matthew 16 are heretics.
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:

“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 113.
​

.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Ah...the fruits of SS at its finest.

That's not sola scriptura! I don't even believe in sola scriptura except in the most tangential sense! The question isn't about authority; the question is what Scripture meant in it's time, in it's context. Catholics do this too. Raymond Brown and John P. Meier are fine examples, the latter of whom was the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

So can you actually address the point?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

... well stated. Gates are DEFENSIVE.

I guess this is a more recent interpretation

No. Fortresses had/have gates in them as an extension of the WALLS that surround them; in case of attack, they can be closed. That makes them defensive.


The promise is that the GATES of hell will not prevail over the church. It says NOTHING whatsoever about any singular, individual denomination (none is mentioned in the verse) and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any individual denomination being exempt from truthfulness or accountability. It simply reveals that hell will not be able to stop the church.


See post 28 to this point.

See post 3 to the thread.




Thank you.


pax


- Josiah

 

[tz620q]

Who cares if it's recent or traditional? Gates are defensive, and gates withstand sieges. It's about overcoming the kingdom of this world, not about corruption in the church. That's how the metaphor works in the actual text. If Origen, Jerome, and Luther didn't see that, then it's because they were working in an era when the concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy dominated all biblical hermeneutics.

As you have said, some ECF's took this phrase Gates of Hell as meaning defensive gates; but noted that the one on the defensive is Hell. They exhorted Christians to storm the Gates of Hell. I see Jesus preaching to the prisoners in hell as another point to this metaphorical meaning.

That said, I don't think we can dismiss the literal meaning, which is derived from where they were standing at the moment when Jesus said this. They might have been looking literally into the "Gates of Hell" as it would have been called by Jews in the region of Galilee. This Gate was where the Baal worshippers had conducted human sacrifices, dumping the bodies down into the cave. So in this sense, Jesus can be seen as contrasting this false worship with the worship of the church that he was founding. So I think we can see this as a promise of orthodoxy. Would you agree?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

As you have said, some ECF's took this phrase Gates of Hell as meaning defensive gates; but noted that the one on the defensive is Hell. They exhorted Christians to storm the Gates of Hell. I see Jesus preaching to the prisoners in hell as another point to this metaphorical meaning.

That said, I don't think we can dismiss the literal meaning, which is derived from where they were standing at the moment when Jesus said this. They might have been looking literally into the "Gates of Hell" as it would have been called by Jews in the region of Galilee. This Gate was where the Baal worshippers had conducted human sacrifices, dumping the bodies down into the cave. So in this sense, Jesus can be seen as contrasting this false worship with the worship of the church that he was founding. So I think we can see this as a promise of orthodoxy. Would you agree?

Honestly, I can agree up until your last sentence. I haven't done the requisite research on this question, but we certainly shouldn't dismiss the idea that the "gates of hell" imagery, while referring more generally to a siege by the people/army of the kingdom of God upon the kingdom of this world, is inspired or drawn from the immediate context at Caesarea Philipi/Banias. At present, my only hesitation- having visited Banias on two ocassions- is that the cave is really more of a recess in the rock and doesn't lead into any subterranean cavern; but whether that physical feature would have, or would not have, dissuaded associations with the underworld is not necessarily demonstrated by that observation.

However, I still really don't see how a Banias association with this particular saying of the Lord establishes any connotation of orthodoxy. If anything, the confession of Jesus as the Christ sets up an opposition between Judaism and Christianity, not between paganism and Christianity or between non-Jewish heresies and Christianity. Rather, the Messiah-ship of Jesus is promised as the foundation upon which Peter will lead the early church toward the eventual conquest of Roman society which we ultimately see fulfilled in Constantine.

 

[concretecamper]

That's not sola scriptura! I don't even believe in sola scriptura except in the most tangential sense! The question isn't about authority; the question is what Scripture meant in it's time, in it's context. Catholics do this too. Raymond Brown and John P. Meier are fine examples, the latter of whom was the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

So can you actually address the point?

The point is that His Church, for over 2,000 years, has interpreted it in the same way Jerome and Origen was quoted. As some point in history, the interpretation you posted was adopted by some. Perhaps you can tell us when? What you would have us believe is that the Holy Spirit is fickle and changed His mind on the meaning of this passage....a theory I refuse to believe.

And I never said it was SS....I said it was the fruits of SS.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is your duty to be not ignorant of who and what you submit to, and as you are well aware, the office doesn't guarantee the integrity of the person holding it.

But the Holy Spirit does guarantee that the truth will prevail. Still, we Catholics tend to believe in authority, not to follow blindly, but to honor the one who is in authority.

A few threads ago, we were talking about St. Jerome's thought about the Deuterocanon, because Protestants think he was adamantly anti-Deuterocanon. But even when he was, he submitted to the authority of the Church. And eventually came around to understand that the Deuterocanon is part of the Bible.

Coffee's point is about submission, where you humbly defer to those who have authority.

For example, I don't agree with the USCCB on what the general public understands as their 'stance' on illegal immigration (not that they have authority over such US laws...), but their real stance is that people should be treated with dignity, regardless of who or where they are, and to that point, I do humbly submit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Which presbyters? Which church? Which submission?

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Rev. 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Other than that, you bet!

In context, SU...there was only one Church...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I addressed the issue of humility, and noted the individual RC Denomination and its insistences of it itself for it itself exclusively in terms of that in post #3.





.

I guess that settles it, then...I suppose we're going to be reading about post 3 as long as this thread goes, huh???

 

[concretecamper]

The promise is that the GATES of hell will not prevail over the church.

Exactly

It says NOTHING whatsoever about any singular, individual denomination (none is mentioned in the verse)
[COLO

It is a singular Church. It cannot be those denominations started 1,500 years later!!!! We can have a debate of exactly what that Church is, but to say it doesn't mention any particular denomination is just plain silly.

and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any individual denomination being exempt from truthfulness or accountability.

accountability to who? You? No not you, accountable to God only.

It simply reveals that hell will not be able to stop the church.

It will not be able to stop His Church: the One, Holy, Catholic, apostolic Church