1 Timothy 3:15

[SteveGC]

Protestants, what do you say in regards to the Sola Scriptura, the visible church, and 1 Timothy 3:15?

Speaking as a recent convert to The Church, I will offer this possible response to your question, broski…

Some protestants wouldn’t refute the fact that the Bible didn’t just “fall out of the sky” with God’s blessing to go, read and be faithful. They would certainly accept some notion that some assembly of men that had appropriate lineage with the Apostles (and hence, unity with The Holy Spirit), properly proclaimed the inspired books which ultimately came to be known as The Holy Bible.

But, they would say, here’s the catch…that “assembly of men” had NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church. That church was a man-made bureaucratic heresy which used political power and the Word of God to control the masses, accumulate wealth, and so on. OK…maybe most protestants don’t go into the anti-Catholic left-field like that…but certainly most argue that the origin and meaning of this assembly of men is of no import, because they were only assembled by God to make the written Word proclamations, and then distribute that Word out to the ends of the earth. Along the way, others are free to come along, interpret Scripture by their own prayerful discernment (in unity with the Holy Spirit), continue the evangelical Gospel spreading, and the “essentials” of fundamental Christianity will be preserved for all time. It’s precisely “churches” like the Catholic Church, proclaiming it was The ONE and ONLY source of full truth, that led people astray, led them OUT of the Bible, and into a perilous fall.

You follow? In other words, protestants don’t protest the fact that a church (assembly) canonized scripture as we know it…they protest the fact that the Catholic Church was this assembly…or they protest that the Catholic Church did assemble it, but disintegrated into obscurity over the course of the following 1500 years, and rightly so. They (protestants) would say, finally in the 16th century, we got back to what was always intended…Bible alone, Holy Spirit-interpreted on an individual, personal basis. That’s all that is needed. “Thanks Catholic Church for answering God’s call to assemble The Book for Him…but you blew it as you sank into corruption…and now we rebuke you and leave you for our own Jesus, The Bible, & Me theology…oh, we’ll go ahead and keep the Book you gave us, though…thanks again.”

Sorry if that sounded offensive to protestants…but it was my way of dumbing down the general thinking. I don’t claim to speak for all protestants, but I wager most feel something along these lines…

Finally, as for the “church is the bulwark” verse…many protestants don’t refute that either, so long as you define “church” as they do: the body of believers. Who? The body of believers. Who’s that? Anyone who believes in Christ, acknowledges and repents (once) of their sins, and asks Christ into their hearts. So, WE, the “believers”, are the church…and YES AMEN, WE indeed DO hold up and defend the truth.

So what are we left with after all this? A debate over historical evidence of Catholic Church formation, succession, authority and continuity. As well as a debate over what the Apostles knew “the church” to actually BE. That’s where any debate should ultimately start. Those 2 questions. If protestants spent time on those 2 things alone…and really took an honest, unbiased long look at them…I think we’d be well on our way to Catholic unity.

God Bless

 

[JRKH]

(Snip)

I’ve gone with an open mind and heart and have left like something was missing. I don’t have that feeling at my church.

As an aside to my earlier post.
I note in your profile that you say “NO RELIGION”.
Yet here mention “My Church”.
May I inquire to the structure of your church?
Does it have a pastor?
Does he preach?

Peace
James

 

[Seeking12]

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the “canon of Scripture” at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pillar and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.

The Church’s compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn’t know this we could be led into error and false beliefs. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.

The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an “inspired table of contents.” Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject “Cafeteria Catholicism”).

If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said “the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.

Protestants, what do you say in regards to the Sola Scriptura, the visible church, and this verse?

**I know of no one that would interpret the “pillar and support of the truth” as being the Bible. Your premise for this thread is flawed.

A fundamental evangelical would say it is the body of Christ because that is what it says “the household of God”, which is the body of the called, which is whom Paul was addressing. It certainly is not the Catholic church, because that would be imposing your faith on the text of Scripture, which is a potentially soul harming error.

The Bible says it contains the knowledge that leads to salvation:
2 timothy 3:15 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” It also tells how that salvation comes about, through faith in Jesus.

Specifically speaking; God’s word is the truth which all things, right or wrong, are measured against to test its validity. It is not “outside truths” that define the truth of Scripture, which is exactly what many false religions do with their external rituals and traditions; this is the point of sola scriptura. It does not eliminate tradition(s), but if the tradition is not validated as biblical it is to be discarded.

As far as knowledge outside of the Bible for salvation; ask yourself the following 3 questions. Who does the Bible speak of? Who saves us from our sin? Is there any knowledge outside of the Bible that we need for the knowledge of salvation? **

 

[wisdomseeker]

**I know of no one that would interpret the “pillar and support of the truth” as being the Bible. Your premise for this thread is flawed.

A fundamental evangelical would say it is the body of Christ because that is what it says “the household of God”, which is the body of the called, which is whom Paul was addressing. It certainly is not the Catholic church, because that would be imposing your faith on the text of Scripture, which is a potentially soul harming error.

The Bible says it contains the knowledge that leads to salvation:
2 timothy 3:15 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” It also tells how that salvation comes about, through faith in Jesus.

Specifically speaking; God’s word is the truth which all things, right or wrong, are measured against to test its validity. It is not “outside truths” that define the truth of Scripture, which is exactly what many false religions do with their external rituals and traditions; this is the point of sola scriptura. It does not eliminate tradition(s), but if the tradition is not validated as biblical it is to be discarded.

As far as knowledge outside of the Bible for salvation; ask yourself the following 3 questions. Who does the Bible speak of? Who saves us from our sin? Is there any knowledge outside of the Bible that we need for the knowledge of salvation? **

do you read the history of Christianity(CC) from the beginning or do you just read what is in the Bible?

the CC says:"** we are not a people of the Book, we are a people of God."**

 

[JRKH]

**I know of no one that would interpret the “pillar and support of the truth” as being the Bible. Your premise for this thread is flawed.

A fundamental evangelical would say it is the body of Christ because that is what it says “the household of God”, which is the body of the called, which is whom Paul was addressing. It certainly is not the Catholic church, because that would be imposing your faith on the text of Scripture, which is a potentially soul harming error.

The Bible says it contains the knowledge that leads to salvation:
2 timothy 3:15 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” It also tells how that salvation comes about, through faith in Jesus.

Specifically speaking; God’s word is the truth which all things, right or wrong, are measured against to test its validity. It is not “outside truths” that define the truth of Scripture, which is exactly what many false religions do with their external rituals and traditions; this is the point of sola scriptura. It does not eliminate tradition(s), but if the tradition is not validated as biblical it is to be discarded.

As far as knowledge outside of the Bible for salvation; ask yourself the following 3 questions. Who does the Bible speak of? Who saves us from our sin? Is there any knowledge outside of the Bible that we need for the knowledge of salvation? **

Is it necessary to write everything as though you are shouting - Bolded and in larger text?

In simple answer to your questions raised since obviously we have a disagreement here.
What did Jesus tell us to do when we disagreed?
Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

You seem to want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
So how does Christ define His Church?

Matthew 16: 18-19
18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with Authority to Bind and loose. Bind and Loose What? Bind and Loose “Whatever”. This is a Pretty Broad latitude.

The early Church, the Catholic Church was built out from these positions. This is the Church of which Paul Spoke.

Peace
James

 

[broski234]

**I know of no one that would interpret the “pillar and support of the truth” as being the Bible. Your premise for this thread is flawed.

A fundamental evangelical would say it is the body of Christ because that is what it says “the household of God”, which is the body of the called, which is whom Paul was addressing. It certainly is not the Catholic church, because that would be imposing your faith on the text of Scripture, which is a potentially soul harming error.

The Bible says it contains the knowledge that leads to salvation:
2 timothy 3:15 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” It also tells how that salvation comes about, through faith in Jesus.

Specifically speaking; God’s word is the truth which all things, right or wrong, are measured against to test its validity. It is not “outside truths” that define the truth of Scripture, which is exactly what many false religions do with their external rituals and traditions; this is the point of sola scriptura. It does not eliminate tradition(s), but if the tradition is not validated as biblical it is to be discarded.

As far as knowledge outside of the Bible for salvation; ask yourself the following 3 questions. Who does the Bible speak of? Who saves us from our sin? Is there any knowledge outside of the Bible that we need for the knowledge of salvation? **

Actually Seeking, it isn’t flawed. The majority of protestants that I have asked this question have all said, that’s right, the bible. When I bring their attention to 1Tim 3:15, they usually try to justify it as the body of Christ as the Church, which they claim is an invisible Church. The bible doesn’t save us Seeking! The bible wasn’t around for 300 years after the Church was established. Why do you accept the bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God? Don’t say because the bible says so. Someone or something outside of the bible had to tell you this. Yes there is knowledge outside of the Bible that we must have “for the knowledge of salvation”. It’s called the Church. The Church is our guide. We all know what happens when people start acting as their own pope and start their own church.

 

[Seeking12]

Is it necessary to write everything as though you are shouting - Bolded and in larger text?

In simple answer to your questions raised since obviously we have a disagreement here.
What did Jesus tell us to do when we disagreed?
Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

You seem to want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
So how does Christ define His Church?

Matthew 16: 18-19
18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with Authority to Bind and loose. Bind and Loose What? Bind and Loose “Whatever”. This is a Pretty Broad latitude. Perhaps this is a problem; just glossing over???

The early Church, the Catholic Church was built out from these positions. ****"]They will stand or fall on that as well.

This is the Church of which Paul Spoke.

Peace
James

**First, I almost always use a larger font because it is easier on the eyes. If I want to scream, which I don’t it might look like “this”.

You lack understanding and are imposing your view on the texts instead of letting the Word speak for itself; this is why you had to use the Aramaic for the rock because you know if you use the Greek; then it is more difficult to defend your error. If you were to do a simple word search on stone and stones, then you could only conclude that we are the stones that are fitted together in construction of the church in which the cornerstone and foundation is Jesus Christ. No Peter could hold up this structure.

I am going to start a new thread this coming week to give a biblical perspective on those (Matt. 16:18-19) rich passages of Scripture and how it relates to all believers.

Also, you imposed you faith or misunderstanding on the text in reference to church discipline by making it a universal Catholic church, rather than the local church of believers, which the Lord is speaking of. Similar to the individual churches in Revelation; no mention of a “Roman or Catholic” church was there?

Finally, the losing and binding; what is this all about and who does it pertain to?

He said that to Peter but it wasn’t just unique to Peter. It was true of all the other Apostles, it’s true of all preachers, it’s true of all of us. And then He says this, “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And that particular statement has been misused repeatedly and confused. It’s very simple, not even complicated. The rabbis used to say, “If you don’t repent your sin is bound to you. If you do, it’s loosed from you.” That’s an old rabbinical concept. The rabbis would say, “You obey the Law, you’re free. You disobey the Law, you’re bound in sin.” Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

In other words, when you say to someone.“You won’t repent, you’re bound in your sin,” heaven is in agreement with that. You’re doing on earth what has been done in heaven, like the disciples’ (AKA: Lord’s prayer) prayer says. And if you say to someone, “You know, I want to tell you, because of your confession of faith in Jesus Christ and your affirmation that He’s your Savior and Lord, your sins are loosed from you, you are forgiven,” and when you said that you know you’re saying on earth what heaven has already said. This great eternal plan is being worked out that God ordained before time began with the Son and heaven is on schedule with it and we get to be the earthly gate keepers who act in harmony with heaven. What a privilege. **

 

[Seeking12]

Actually Seeking, it isn’t flawed. The majority of protestants that I have asked this question have all said, that’s right, the bible. When I bring their attention to 1Tim 3:15, they usually try to justify it as the body of Christ as the Church, which they claim is an invisible Church. The bible doesn’t save us Seeking! The bible wasn’t around for 300 years after the Church was established. Why do you accept the bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God? Don’t say because the bible says so. Someone or something outside of the bible had to tell you this. Yes there is knowledge outside of the Bible that we must have “for the knowledge of salvation”. It’s called the Church. The Church is our guide. We all know what happens when people start acting as their own pope and start their own church.

**
How many have you asked? Was it a statistically significant? It is interesting that when you showed the passage; they were able to conclude correctly that it was the "body of Christ, which is the church.

Invisible is not exactly the best way to describe it, maybe in a general context that we cannot see the “E” for elect, which is the true church and since so many false believers have infiltrated; it has become nearly invisible in that sense.

The Bible does not save, but the Word of God does and the Word is contained in the Bible.

Someone may tell you something about the Bible, but it is the individual’s responsibility to see if it is true; do you do that? The prophecy alone would be enough. The word “Israel” would be enough. But the best proof of the authenticity is the regenerate message it gives is true.

When you say we need the Church for salvation; you are again imposing your beliefs on the Scripture rather than viewing the Church teaching in light of what Scripture say; this is a real big mistake for many reasons.**

 

[SteveGC]

Hate to say ‘I told ya so’, but it looks like my earlier speculation about a protestant response was quite close to the mark. Indeed, there are really only two debates…what is “the church” as spoken biblically in 1 Tim., and what precisely is the history of The Catholic Church, from 33 AD to today? Hashing those things out takes much more than bantering back and forth in a forum…it takes unbiased research and study. And alot of it. I don’t claim to have done it better than others, but I did what I needed to do to help myself contemplate those issues…and today I am Catholic.

All other issues…Mary, purgatory, Real Presence, Confession…just fell into place quite easily after that.

God Bless

 

[Seeking12]

Hate to say ‘I told ya so’, but it looks like my earlier speculation about a protestant response was quite close to the mark. Indeed, there are really only two debates…what is “the church” as spoken biblically in 1 Tim., and what precisely is the history of The Catholic Church, from 33 AD to today? Hashing those things out takes much more than bantering back and forth in a forum…it takes unbiased research and study. And alot of it. I don’t claim to have done it better than others, but I did what I needed to do to help myself contemplate those issues…and today I am Catholic.

All other issues…Mary, purgatory, Real Presence, Confession…just fell into place quite easily after that.

God Bless

**What is the household of God? Of course the other things, Mary, purgatory, the Whole Catholic system hangs onto one verse in Scripture Matthew 16:18; without that one verse the whole Church crumbles. Kind of amazing that an entire system can be built upon one verse.

But to each their own and their own view; you must stick with what you believe in and be ready to give a defense and the Catholics here, for the most part, do a very good job. I could honestly say to a Catholic that if they want to grow stronger in the Catholic faith, this would be a good place to go.**

 

[SteveGC]

What is the household of God? Of course the other things, Mary, purgatory, the Whole Catholic system hangs onto one verse in Scripture Matthew 16:18; without that one verse the whole Church crumbles. Kind of amazing that an entire system can be built upon one verse.

Household of God, body of believers, Body of Christ, assemblage of men…all terms to describe the church, yes?

Catholics would agree, and maybe that surprises you…maybe it doesn’t. The difference is in how that household is represented here on earth. You don’t find the word “Catholic” in the Bible, and that troubles you, yet you don’t find the word “Trinity” (nor an explicit, clear and full understanding of its concept) in the Bible either, and yet this does NOT trouble you. You accept it wholeheartedly, while it can be argued with much success that you didn’t come to discern the essence of The Trinity (a universal, fundamental belief of Christians) on your own, with you and the Holy Spirit guiding you through Scripture. What is to be said of that?

Nevertheless, this is representative of my own personal struggles years ago. Solved ultimately by coming to an unbiased (i.e. not listening to non-Catholic rhetoric) understanding of the essence of The Church. Protestants can keep on protesting that She is man-made, and they will. Some will come to see that She is not, and as soon as one sees that, coming home is inevitable.

This is helpful reading
As is this

God Bless

 

[Seeking12]

Household of God, body of believers, Body of Christ, assemblage of men…all terms to describe the church, yes?

Catholics would agree, and maybe that surprises you…maybe it doesn’t. The difference is in how that household is represented here on earth. You don’t find the word “Catholic” in the Bible, and that troubles you, yet you don’t find the word “Trinity” (nor an explicit, clear and full understanding of its concept) in the Bible either, and yet this does NOT trouble you. You accept it wholeheartedly, while it can be argued with much success that you didn’t come to discern the essence of The Trinity (a universal, fundamental belief of Christians) on your own, with you and the Holy Spirit guiding you through Scripture. What is to be said of that?

Nevertheless, this is representative of my own personal struggles years ago. Solved ultimately by coming to an unbiased (i.e. not listening to non-Catholic rhetoric) understanding of the essence of The Church. Protestants can keep on protesting that She is man-made, and they will. Some will come to see that She is not, and as soon as one sees that, coming home is inevitable.

This is helpful reading
As is this

God Bless

**
The fact that Catholic Church is not implicit in the Bible does not trouble me at all; why would it? The Trinity is implicit throughout the Bible and no one can fully understand the Trinity; the concept is divine and infinite, but we are finite.

Only people that have been called to God can understand what the Bible teaches; I see proof of that nearly everyday. This is what God said would happen because it was His will to happen.

As far as taking an unbiased view on something; I don’t think that is possible for man when it comes to religion or lack of religion.

I can say that looking at Catholic history, modern history, the Catholics have done a lot of good things for this world; including helping the sick, clothing the poor, and feeding the hungry and much more. Many hospitals and higher education institutions have it roots from the Catholic Church; these are all good things.**

 

[WMM]

You lack understanding and are imposing your view on the texts instead of letting the Word speak for itself; this is why you had to use the Aramaic for the rock because you know if you use the Greek; then it is more difficult to defend your error.

I would say that he used Aramaic because when Jesus spoke these words to Peter, He used Aramaic, not Greek.

God bless you.

 

[Seeking12]

I would say that he used Aramaic because when Jesus spoke these words to Peter, He used Aramaic, not Greek.

God bless you.

You were there? Where is that Aramaic version given to us and preserved? Maybe the Greek was used because of the nuances the language provides; as to avoid error? Perhaps Jesus was multilingual as many were in that day? I would say Jesus was able to speak Hebrew, since He read the Scripture that He literally was fulfilling upon the reading to the Jews. He probably knew Latin since that is likely what the Romans spoke; like before Pilot for example. He probably knew Greek as well. I bet Jesus knew every language ever spoken.
Ans we know there were many languages spoken on the day of Pentecost.

 

[skeyes]

You were there? Where is that Aramaic version given to us and preserved? Maybe the Greek was used because of the nuances the language provides; as to avoid error? Perhaps Jesus was multilingual as many were in that day? I would say Jesus was able to speak Hebrew, since He read the Scripture that He literally was fulfilling upon the reading to the Jews. He probably knew Latin since that is likely what the Romans spoke; like before Pilot for example. He probably knew Greek as well. I bet Jesus knew every language ever spoken.
Ans we know there were many languages spoken on the day of Pentecost.

Weak weak. The people of Jesus’ time who he was addressing spoke Aramaic, not Greek. It is the same old same old. You must find a way to delegitimize the Holy Catholic Church, in order to promote your own poorly conceived “christianity”. So you believe the lies presented to you by decenters and come here to present this as fact. It doesn’t fly, it will not fly in the future and it surely will not fly on judgement day when Jesus ask us how we responded to the Church He founded.

It is so easy when we have no axe to grind and just accept the Church as the vehicle Jesus chose instead of trying to form our own.

In His service,
Stan

 

[wisdomseeker]

First, I almost always use a larger font because it is easier on the eyes. If I want to scream, which I don’t it might look like “this”.

You lack understanding and are imposing your view on the texts instead of letting the Word speak for itself; this is why you had to use the Aramaic for the rock because you know if you use the Greek; then it is more difficult to defend your error. If you were to do a simple word search on stone and stones, then you could only conclude that we are the stones that are fitted together in construction of the church in which the cornerstone and foundation is Jesus Christ. No Peter could hold up this structure.

I am going to start a new thread this coming week to give a biblical perspective on those (Matt. 16:18-19) rich passages of Scripture and how it relates to all believers.

Also, you imposed you faith or misunderstanding on the text in reference to church discipline by making it a universal Catholic church, rather than the local church of believers, which the Lord is speaking of. Similar to the individual churches in Revelation; no mention of a “Roman or Catholic” church was there?

Finally, the losing and binding; what is this all about and who does it pertain to?

He said that to Peter but it wasn’t just unique to Peter. It was true of all the other Apostles, it’s true of all preachers, it’s true of all of us. And then He says this, “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And that particular statement has been misused repeatedly and confused. It’s very simple, not even complicated. The rabbis used to say, “If you don’t repent your sin is bound to you. If you do, it’s loosed from you.” That’s an old rabbinical concept. The rabbis would say, “You obey the Law, you’re free. You disobey the Law, you’re bound in sin.” Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

In other words, when you say to someone.“You won’t repent, you’re bound in your sin,” heaven is in agreement with that. You’re doing on earth what has been done in heaven, like the disciples’ (AKA: Lord’s prayer) prayer says. And if you say to someone, “You know, I want to tell you, because of your confession of faith in Jesus Christ and your affirmation that He’s your Savior and Lord, your sins are loosed from you, you are forgiven,” and when you said that you know you’re saying on earth what heaven has already said. This great eternal plan is being worked out that God ordained before time began with the Son and heaven is on schedule with it and we get to be the earthly gate keepers who act in harmony with heaven. What a privilege.

instead of coming here presenting your own views about what the Church is why dont you give facts that the Church is not the Catholic Church but a bunch of local churches? give us the history of local churches as you presented here from the time of the Apostles to today.

give us the names of earlier Christians who testifies to what you belief today as the Church.

:byzsoc:

 

[WMM]

You were there? Where is that Aramaic version given to us and preserved? Maybe the Greek was used because of the nuances the language provides; as to avoid error? Perhaps Jesus was multilingual as many were in that day? I would say Jesus was able to speak Hebrew, since He read the Scripture that He literally was fulfilling upon the reading to the Jews. He probably knew Latin since that is likely what the Romans spoke; like before Pilot for example. He probably knew Greek as well. I bet Jesus knew every language ever spoken.
Ans we know there were many languages spoken on the day of Pentecost.

No, I was not there. Neither were you.

But the foster son of a carpenter would not likely speak Greek, although he may have known some Hebrew, learned in the temple.

And the Romans likely knew and used the local vernacular language with the Jews, rather than having the Jews learn the language of the Romans.

The vernacular language of that part of the world around 30 A.D. was Aramaic (for this bit of information I rely on Bible scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, who are in agreement on this point).

It is **highly unlikely **that he would have known every language ever spoken, as there is no evidence that Jesus ever attended school; I am certain that you would lose that bet!

You are correct that many languages were spoken on the day of Pentecost. Those peoples were from all over the known world.

Jesus never traveled more than 200 miles from the spot he was born, so it is very unlikely that he was ever exposed to all of those languages.

When the stories were finally written down, Greek was used because it was a universal language known the learned class.

But as we all know, things can become muddled in translation.

God love you.

 

[JRKH]

First, I almost always use a larger font because it is easier on the eyes. If I want to scream, which I don’t it might look like “this”.
Thank you for clearing that up. I apologize for jumping to a conclusion.

You lack understanding and are imposing your view on the texts instead of letting the Word speak for itself; this is why you had to use the Aramaic for the rock because you know if you use the Greek; then it is more difficult to defend your error. If you were to do a simple word search on stone and stones, then you could only conclude that we are the stones that are fitted together in construction of the church in which the cornerstone and foundation is Jesus Christ. No Peter could hold up this structure.

 

[Seeking12]

You were there? Where is that Aramaic version given to us and preserved? Maybe the Greek was used because of the nuances the language provides; as to avoid error? Perhaps Jesus was multilingual as many were in that day? I would say Jesus was able to speak Hebrew, since He read the Scripture that He literally was fulfilling upon the reading to the Jews. He probably knew Latin since that is likely what the Romans spoke; like before Pilot for example. He probably knew Greek as well. I bet Jesus knew every language ever spoken.
Ans we know there were many languages spoken on the day of Pentecost.

Weak weak. The people of Jesus’ time who he was addressing spoke Aramaic, not Greek. It is the same old same old. You must find a way to delegitimize the Holy Catholic Church, in order to promote your own poorly conceived “christianity”. So you believe the lies presented to you by decenters and come here to present this as fact. It doesn’t fly, it will not fly in the future and it surely will not fly on judgement day when Jesus ask us how we responded to the Church He founded.

It is so easy when we have no axe to grind and just accept the Church as the vehicle Jesus chose instead of trying to form our own.

In His service,
Stan

**
Weak, thanks; but only of you consider truth to be weak. Putting God into your box will do nothing to further any point. We know many languages were spoken, that is fact. We know on the day of Pentecost many languages were spoken, that is fact. We know the Romans primary language was Latin, that is fact. But facts don’t matter.
**

 

[SteveGC]

**
The fact that Catholic Church is not implicit in the Bible does not trouble me at all; why would it? The Trinity is implicit throughout the Bible and no one can fully understand the Trinity; the concept is divine and infinite, but we are finite.

Only people that have been called to God can understand what the Bible teaches; I see proof of that nearly everyday. This is what God said would happen because it was His will to happen.

As far as taking an unbiased view on something; I don’t think that is possible for man when it comes to religion or lack of religion.

I can say that looking at Catholic history, modern history, the Catholics have done a lot of good things for this world; including helping the sick, clothing the poor, and feeding the hungry and much more. Many hospitals and higher education institutions have it roots from the Catholic Church; these are all good things.**

I know you’re getting hit on all sides in here, so I won’t belabor this for you too much…but I’ll just respond to you this way…

The Catholic Church is actually quite implicit (and in some cases, explicit) in Scripture as well. You don’t find the word Catholic because other biblical terms were first used, like ONE, and UNITED, which (synonymous with “catholic”) describe Her essence, and other terms such as ROCK, KEYS, BINDING/LOOSING etc. which describe Her authority; and still other terms such as BISHOPS, BAPTISM, “THIS IS MY BODY”, which describe Her substance. If you’re searching for “Catholic” in terms of Vatican City, and you want to discover through Scripture something looking exactly like the Catholic Church in Rome, that search is futile, since that particular essence of The Church is found in the world as it has evolved over centuries. But it’s still the same original Church in the Bible. I’m sure you’ll just agree to disagree with me there, but there it is for you.

Now, you say no one can fully understand the Trinity, and I agree. But why do Christians hold it as fundamentally essential to believe in something that no one lay person discerned from reading Scripture? In other words, my point is that you believe in things about Christianity which you, yourself, did not originally come up with by reading Scripture.

This is a fundamental quandry. Ask yourself, did you come up with the concept of the triune God on your own? I presume not. Must you accept it to be a Christian? Yes. Did you then learn it from a person who taught it to you? Probably so.

Now, what does this all mean? It means you must admit that just you, God, and the Bible is not enough. It means there must be some other teaching authority. But who is granted this authority? The person in Sunday School who taught you the triune God? No. Only one Christ-approved authority on earth is possible if unity is to be possible. I’ll leave it at that for now.

God Bless