Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

[Buzzard3]

Was Peter or any of the OT prophets without sin? (No, they weren't without sin.) And since we know this is the case; how can your assertion here be true?

How can the Bible be the infallible Word of God? It was written by sinners!

 

[Buzzard3]

1 Timothy 3:15 is not saying the church is the foundation of truth. It's actually saying God is the foundation of truth.

It's actually saying God communicates his truth to us infallibly through his Church.

Now read Ephesians 4:12 "...For the perfecting of the saints..... (vs 13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

When are the saints "perfected", "come into the unity of the faith", "unto a perfected man", "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

That doesn't happen this side of the grave.

Oh, so the "apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" aren't on earth - they're in Heaven! They're working "for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" in Heaven. Hilarious.

That means the part about not being tossed about by "every wind of doctrine" doesn’t refer to this side of the grave either. But guess what? There's no need for doctrine in Heaven.

Your interpretation of Eph 4:11-26 is ridiculous.

So yes, because on earth there is still sin and no one has the full command of the truth; there will be differing perceptions of what people think truth is.

In that case, when Jesus said the Holy Spiirt would guide us into "all the truth" (John 16:13), he was lying.

You have no idea what "all the truth" is and you have no idea of where to find it - that much is obvious. All you can point to is the chaos and confusion of Protestantism and sola scriptura.

 

[Buzzard3]

The Greek word "key(s)" comes from the word "shut" or "shut up".

The phrase "shut up heaven" is used in 3 places besides Matthew 16:19

A drowning man clutching at straws. What a bizarre interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus did not send any of the apostles to "shut up heaven"!

 

[The Righterzpen]

That seems to be only half correct - according to the Bible Hub interlinear NT, "petra" (4074) can mean "stone" or "boulder".

Have a look at a French Bible - in Matt 16:18, "Peter" and "rock" are exactly the same word ("Pierre"). Did those French translators get it wrong?

If by, "this rock", in Matt 18:16, Jesus is referring to himself, why does he begin the sentence with "And I tell you, you are Peter"? Why would Jesus specifically address Peter, but then talk about himself? Grammatically, that makes no sense.
Furthermore, in v.19, Jesus is obviously referring to Peter, but he doesn't address Peter by name, because there's no need to - Jesus already did that in v.18. The logically conclusion is, in verses 18 and 19, Jesus is referring to Peter.

What you're saying here though; makes less sense than what I said. Think about it. The 2nd person of the Trinity; who is incarnated in human flesh with the sole purpose to atone for sin; (We know Christ is the Rock. He calls himself that and is referred to as "the Rock" several places in Scripture.) is telling Peter that Jesus will build Jesus's own church on Peter.... ????? (Pete - "Err...... say that again Lord???) And this concept you hold here clearly contradicts other parts of Scripture that say Christ is the head of the church; not Peter.

Let's take another closer look at this though:

We study Scripture by comparing it to itself. Compare all the passages where #4074 is used as opposed to #4073.
#4074 is the word "petros"
#4073 is the word "petra".
#4074 is translated "Peter" 161 times and "stone" once (John 1:42) (This number is never translated "rock". At lest in King James it isn't.)
#4073 is translated "rock" 16 times.

Now in secular usage of these particular Greek words; "petros" were stones that could be broken off of a "petra". "Petros" is masculine form and "Petra" is feminine form. According to the RCC "petros" is used because Jesus would not be giving Peter a feminine form of the version "stone". Thus why the RCC is claiming "petros" and "petra" are the same thing. In the Greek culture though; "Petra" is probably feminine form because of the notion of "mother goddess giving life". That would be the secular backdrop of why the Greek language is structured the way that it is. But the Greek language isn't the only language where masculine / feminine word forms are interchangeable. That actually happens in Hebrew too.

Which this argument doesn't stand in context of other Greek (or Hebrew) words that are feminine form describing males. "Wisdom" is a feminine form word; yet the word "wisdom" is also used as a descriptor of Christ. Proverbs 1:20 "wisdom" is calling "her" voice. Yet in the next two verses; God describes Himself as the one calling. Which raises an interesting question. Does God (who is technically sex / genderless) consider the incarnation a "feminine form" of Self; despite Christ is born a male human? Possibly?: As humanity is "the weaker vessel" of the image of God. (I don't know though, if that is the reason Scripture sometimes uses feminine form words to describe male entities.) Yet we do see that in Genesis; clearly both Adam and Eve were called "man created in the image of God".

"Petros" and "petra" are not the same thing though. "Stone" and "bolder" were not interchangeable in secular use of the Greek words and they aren't interchangeable in their use in Scripture either. Often times in Greek "petros" was a reference to smaller chucks of stone broken off of a larger rock bases. And in some secular contexts the description of "petros" meant unstable ground, "rolling stones" or "shifting sand". Although those descriptions of "petros" aren't given in Scripture. The Greek word used for "sand" in the NT doesn't come from the word "petros".

Now John 1:42 gives us a little more information. "Cephas" is a different word than "stone".
#2786 = "Cephas":
#2074 = "stone" (or "Peter").

#2786 is Aramaic (translated Cephas 6 times). This word is taken off a Hebrew word #3710 (translated 2X "rock") which comes from another Hebrew word #3721 which is translated "bow down" 4X and "bow" 1x.

But before you get all excited about #3710 being translated "rock" in Hebrew; look at the two verses it's used in. (Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:29) Both of these passages speak of hollowed out rocks. Thus assuming this is why this word's primary root means "to bow down". In the context of both Job and Jeremiah; people are hiding in the bowed down rocks. But the context of their hiding is judgement. In Job they are criminals hiding from the justice of human society. In Jeremiah, the context is Judah coming under judgement.

The Jeremiah passage though too; is likely a prophetic "forecast" of Judgement Day. The historical event this prophecy is primarily about; is describing things that happened during the crucifixion of Christ. (The sun was darkened. The rocks were rent. There were earthquakes. "Weird things" happened in the sky. etc.) All of this I think was a foreshadow of how the cosmos will "come unglued" when Christ returns; which is the precursor to Judgement Day. (I'm not a dispensationalist. I don't believe the whole pre-tribulation rapture / glorified Christ physically reigning on this corrupt earth over secular nations for a literal 1000 years; is a Scripturally sound understanding of eschatology. When Christ returns it is literally the end of time. Both the just and unjust are raised in close sequence of the same time. The redeemed inherit the incorruptible cosmos and the unregenerate, Satan and demons are cast into the Lake of Fire.)

Back on topic though:
When we string all these "petra", "petros", "rock", "bolder" details together; we get the picture that Peter is actually the "bowing stone". Who is he bowing to? (The obvious answer to that is Christ.) And to say that Peter is a "type of unstable ground" wouldn't be inaccurate either. We see this in Scripture. Pete tries, but he screws stuff up. As much as he desires to be competent in the office Christ gave him. He proves himself fallible. He's not any different than the rest of us in that regard. Peter still has sin. (So does Paul and the rest of the apostles / and the body of believers / elect of God; as a whole.)

Thus the further we go down the road of this word study; the more clear it becomes that what the RCC says this is saying; isn't actually what it's saying.

 

[Buzzard3]

Where does Scripture say "all the truth" is the "keys to the kingdom of heaven"?

Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) so "all the truth" (John 16:13) could be communicated through the Church.

 

[The Righterzpen]

How can the Bible be the infallible Word of God? It was written by sinners!

We can pose this same question about Peter; whom the RCC admits was a sinner himself. The greater question becomes: "What is the foundation of truth. And how do you know what is truth?" (Ironically Pilate asked Jesus that question. "What is truth?") Do you honestly believe every dogma and doctrine the RCC has taught over the centuries is infallible?

We could also ask: Define "infallible"?

When people talk about the Word of God being preserved by God; what does that mean? When it says "holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" what does that mean? (2 Peter 1:21)

Have there been and are there variations of words or phrases in Scripture over time? (Yes there have been.)

When Jerome (who translated the Latin Vulgate) did his translation; he had all sorts of texts in a variety of languages to translate into Latin. His Latin Vulgate was a compilation of all these other linguistic contributions. When Jerome did his Vulgate translation; the Eastern church told him not to use the Masoretic Hebrew because it was not the same as the predecessor paleo-Hebrew text. The eastern church told Jerome to use the Septuagint; because it tracked closer to the paleo-hebrew text.

And.... "dog-gone-it" when we found the Dead Sea Scrolls we discovered that the Eastern church was correct. The Septuagint tracked to the Dead Sea Scrolls better than the Masoretic Hebrew did. But the Latin Vulgate OT is translated out of the Masoretic Hebrew. (And subsequently, so are all other Bibles. Including Protestant ones.

When you get to the Reformation, you see the same thing. The King James Bible is a compilation of all the texts that came before it; Including the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, the Latin Vulgate, the Bishop's Bible, the Tyndale Bible (There were also French and Spanish translations of the Bible that were in existence at the time too. But French and Spanish is easier to translate from Latin than Germanic languages because Germanic languages are a different language base. Going east and the Slavic languages are yet another different language base. This is why German and Russian have different alphabets.

So what does it mean that God "preserves His word"? Are all these translations we have "good enough" for the purpose God intended the penning of the Scripture to be?

Does "infallible" mean "never changed"? Well, according to what we know of history and Bible translations; that isn't the case. There have been alterations. Why has God allowed those alterations to happen. Is it an "update" to the "operating system" because we know that language does change and the "original meaning" of words does get lost. And new words replace the same concepts as one travels from language to language.

So.... do you trust an institution called "the church"? A book called "the Bible" or the Holy Spirit to "lead you in all truth"?

I know there have been alterations made to the script on the page. So when I study Bible passages; I'm looking first for the main theme of "How is my understanding of what I'm discovering from the text; consistent with the overall message of the redemption plan?" (How does the death, burial and resurrection of Christ fit into this?)

There are a lot of passages in the Bible that appear to be contradictory. And this is why the entire text is written as what it is; with multiple concepts and events repeated in various formats. When I can make congruent doctrinal sense among all the formats; I've found truth. This doesn't mean that I understand all the linguistic nuances of all the passages. But what I can string together that is consistent with the main reason Scripture was written in the first place; is truth.

Now to understand the historical backdrop of a passage; can shed light on the meaning. Yet we don't always know what the historical backdrop is. So some phrases and sentences we just may not understand. They are echos from the past; wherewith we may only get the gist of what it means. That's OK though.

And this is why I say that the full revelation of all truth that God wishes to convey to redeemed humans; will never be known this side of the grave. We as the temporal time bases creatures that we are; don't have access to that level of omniscience in this life. And that's just the way that it is.

It's actually saying God communicates his truth to us infallibly through his Church.

Again, what does "infallibility" mean. How can "infallible truth" be communicated into a fallen sinful world.

Oh, so the "apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" aren't on earth - they're in Heaven! They're working "for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" in Heaven. Hilarious.

That means the part about not being tossed about by "every wind of doctrine" doesn’t refer to this side of the grave either. But guess what? There's no need for doctrine in Heaven.

Your interpretation of Eph 4:11-26 is ridiculous.

What we understand in this life is "what we see through a glass dimly". We can't see clearly through that glass because our side of the mirror is sullied by the fall and our sin.

In that case, when Jesus said the Holy Spiirt would guide us into "all the truth" (John 16:13), he was lying.

You have no idea what "all the truth" is and you have no idea of where to find it - that much is obvious. All you can point to is the chaos and confusion of Protestantism and sola scriptura.

Just because you have not the ability to understand "all the truth" in this life (because of both the fall and your own sin) doesn't make Jesus a liar. Nor does it make Scripture of no use. Nor is it to say that any of the "church fathers" (All of the knowledge of the entirety of Christendom) was all in error and thus totally useless.

All it says is that no one except God Himself holds the unity of the entirety of truth.

Gee, I'm sorry you're a frustrated sinner who can't have command of all truth "right now"! But... that "is what it is". Welcome to the human race!

A drowning man clutching at straws. What a bizarre interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus did not send any of the apostles to "shut up heaven"!

Go back and look at the root word to the word "key". That's where the interpretation of "shut up heaven" comes from. The word "key" comes from the Greek word "to shut"; or "to shut up". And the passages I quoted regarding "keys to the kingdom" the pharisees, Peter and what the passing of the keys meant is internally consistent with all the Scripture passages that speak of "key(s) to the kingdom".

 

[The Righterzpen]

Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) so "all the truth" (John 16:13) could be communicated through the Church.

How does a fallible church of sinners infallibly communicate "all truth" in the here and now of a fallen world full of sinners? Particularly when you say that written Scripture can't even do that?

I've never said the RCC lacks all understanding of truth; or that Protestantism held understanding of all truth either.

Maybe you might find it useful to be less "tribalistic".

 

[Buzzard3]

How does a fallible church of sinners infallibly communicate "all truth" in the here and now of a fallen world full of sinners? Particularly when you say that written Scripture can't even do that?

I've never said the RCC lacks all understanding of truth; or that Protestantism held understanding of all truth either.

Maybe you might find it useful to be less "tribalistic".

How can "all the truth" (John 16:13) be known? You seem to think it can't ... which makes a mockery of Jesus' promise.

 

[RDKirk]

This is also called “Initial and Final Salvation.” However, even men like John Piper who claim to believe in “Initial and Final Salvation” do not believe in proper holy living as the Bible teaches because they have a false view of the penalty of sin.

For example: John Piper (A Calvinist) falsely teaches you can sin and still be saved.

Side Note:

I do not agree with Adam (at Abide in the Word YouTube Channel) in regards to his view on denying the the 1st aspect of salvation (Which is being saved by God’s grace without works). I believe the Bible teaches two aspects of salvation.

#1. We are saved initially by God’s grace without works through faith.
#2. We are saved in the Sanctification of the Spirit (over the course of our whole life).

However, Adam does a good job at showing how many Christians today believe in a sin and still be saved type belief (Which is not what the BIble teaches). I will post a video on this in my next post.

Your position requires an extremely narrow view of what a sin might be.

If we take a broader view that sin means "missing God's target" in any aspect of your life, then, yes, we all do sin and we are inevitably going to die without having confessed some of those times we've missed God's target in some action we've taken in our lives.

 

[Buzzard3]

How does a fallible church of sinners infallibly communicate "all truth" in the here and now of a fallen world full of sinners?

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:18-19)

 

[Buzzard3]

Does "infallible" mean "never changed"?

Yes - the Church's dogmas, once declared, never change. God doesn't change the truth.

 

[Buzzard3]

We can pose this same question about Peter; whom the RCC admits was a sinner himself. The greater question becomes: "What is the foundation of truth.

The Church is the foundation of the truth (1Tim 3:15)

And how do you know what is truth?

How do you know the Bible is the truth? Faith.

Do you honestly believe every dogma and doctrine the RCC has taught over the centuries is infallible?

I believe every Catholic dogma is the infallible truth. As for doctrines, they're not dogmas, and are subject to modification.

 

[The Righterzpen]

How can "all the truth" (John 16:13) be known? You seem to think it can't ... which makes a mockery of Jesus' promise.

"All truth" can not be known in this life. What makes you think that it can?

 

[Buzzard3]

"All truth" can not be known in this life. What makes you think that it can?

John 16:13

 

[The Righterzpen]

John 16:13

Where does it say in John 16:13 that all truth will be known in this life? The passage does not say "all things will be known in this life" The passage only says the Holy Spirit will "guide into all truth". No where in this verse does it say all truth will be revealed in this life.

Sorry, it just aint there!

In order for "all truth to be known" one would have to be omniscient.

 

[The Righterzpen]

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:18-19)

And how do you know your perception of what this verse is saying is actually the correct interpretation? By faith?

Yes - the Church's dogmas, once declared, never change. God doesn't change the truth.

Do you know this by faith?

The Church is the foundation of the truth (1Tim 3:15)

How do you know this verse is saying that the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth"; and that it's not saying God is the pillar and foundation of truth? Is that also "by faith"?

How do you know the Bible is the truth? Faith.

How would the RCC know what is true or not true if the only reliable source for truth is "self"? That must be upon faith too. (Faith in self.)

I believe every Catholic dogma is the infallible truth. As for doctrines, they're not dogmas, and are subject to modification.

And how is it you know any of this is true? by faith?

 

[Buzzard3]

Where does it say in John 16:13 that all truth will be known in this life? The passage does not say "all things will be known in this life" The passage only says the Holy Spirit will "guide into all truth". No where in this verse does it say all truth will be revealed in this life.

Sorry, it just aint there!

What are you talking about? "all the truth" in John 16:13 refers to prophesy and knowledge pertaining to salvation.

 

[Buzzard3]

And how do you know your perception of what this verse is saying is actually the correct interpretation? By faith?

Do you know this by faith?

How do you know this verse is saying that the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth"; and that it's not saying God is the pillar and foundation of truth? Is that also "by faith"?

How would the RCC know what is true or not true if the only reliable source for truth is "self"? That must be upon faith too. (Faith in self.)

And how is it you know any of this is true? by faith?

Your posts are getting sillier and more irrational by the minute. They're not worth responding to. Sorry, I've got better things to do.

 

[The Righterzpen]

What are you talking about? "all the truth" in John 16:13 refers to prophesy and knowledge pertaining to salvation.

If John 16:13 is referring to prophecy and knowledge pertaining to salvation? Than what is it about salvation that has yet to be revealed by the RCC? Is the atonement yet incomplete? Did Christ somehow fail to be sufficient?

You claim the RCC has infallible authority that is given it by fallible Scripture. Yet, how is that possible?

Does "infallible" really mean "not changing" or does it mean "not failing"?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Like most Protestants, you evidently don't understand what Peter's infallibility means. It doesn't mean Peter will be perfect in his behaviour or in his leadership on a personal level - as is evident from his error at Antioch.

Jesus gave Peter authority over the Church when Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19), which includes authority over what the Church teaches. Peter's infallibility means that what he allows the Church to teach as dogma (aka "all the truth" - John 16:13) will be infallibly correct. Even if Peter turned out to be the worst sinner on earth, the Holy Spirit will still ensure that what Peter allows the Chucrh to teach as dogma will be infallibly correct.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the RCC dogma of papal infallibility applies to doctrine, does it not? If obedience to the Law of Moses is not doctrine, what is it? That was the cause for Paul's rebuke of Peter. If Peter, as the first Pope, was infallible in matters of doctrine, then Paul was a heretic in propounding a doctrine which blatantly contradicted that held and practiced by Peter. Thus, Paul ought to have been excommunicated. Why, then, did Peter commend Paul in his epistle?

If you think that dogma and doctrine are two entirely different things, then there was no dogma at all until after 1871 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was invented. At present there are only four Dogmas in the RCC - the four Marian Dogmas proclaimed in 1950. You can search the CCC in an effort to discover any other Dogmas, but you will not find them.