"Bible interprets itself."

[Centos]

Hi, Centos,
What is fundamentally lacking, in my opinion, is a sense of history - those first 1500 years - and the message of the Holy Spirit - are discarded only at one’s own spiritual peril.

God bless

Hi tqualey,

I agreed with your post but this (above quoted) stood out. It’s absolutely true.

When I attended Bible College we had a class on the “Acts of the Apostles” and another on Church History. Church “history” started in the 1500s. Everything between was almost completely ignored – like it didn’t exist. The assumption was that, somewhere, somehow “Bible believing” Christians (as opposed to Catholics) wound their way through history until the Reformation.

After reading documents from the early centuries I can see why Protestants would want to ignore them.

Thanks for the kind words.

May God be with you

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Centos,

You’re more then welcome.

Hi tqualey,

I agreed with your post but this (above quoted) stood out. It’s absolutely true.

When I attended Bible College we had a class on the “Acts of the Apostles” and another on Church History. Church “history” started in the 1500s. Everything between was almost completely ignored – like it didn’t exist. The assumption was that, somewhere, somehow “Bible believing” Christians (as opposed to Catholics) wound their way through history until the Reformation.

After reading documents from the early centuries I can see why Protestants would want to ignore them.

Thanks for the kind words.

May God be with you

Welcome to the CAF. I see you have a trial membership … While it is true that sometimes, some of these posts are a ‘real trial’… … you will find that this list contains numerous posts that are like a treasure chest filled with insight, wisdom and clear expressions of the Word of God and His Chruch (and, that would be the Catholic Church). If you have questions - this is the place to get them answered. And, answered with dignity and respect to you as a writer. (Now, from what I have seen, ‘running with scissors’ is never a good idea…)

As you probably guessed, I never went to Bible College, so if you would be so good in answering this question. When you were in school, was the central idea that Scripture Alone is the sole authority ever challenged in any way - and, if so, what was said? As an example, I am thinking about the First Council of Jeruslaem as recorded in Acts 15. In verses 7-11 -

**7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” **

Peter (the First Pope) makes a decision (and, he did not put it to a vote) against requiring circumcision and does not consult any Scripture (of course, it would have only been the OT that was available at this time). Was this action in any way seen as a problem? Without a scriptural reference it looks like the group is going outside of scripture for the answer. (Now, I believe we are actually seeing the Work fo the Holy Spirit in guiding the Chruch and protecting it from teaching error.) Just curious how this was covered when you were in school.

Have a great day.

God bless

 

[Centos]

Hi, Centos,

As you probably guessed, I never went to Bible College, so if you would be so good in answering this question. When you were in school, was the central idea that Scripture Alone is the sole authority ever challenged in any way - and, if so, what was said? As an example, I am thinking about the First Council of Jeruslaem as recorded in Acts 15. In verses 7-11 -
God bless

Hi again tqualey,

Thanks for the kind words – I almost missed your response (happened to see it in my email.)

To answer your question – no. We pretty much toed the Protestant line on “Bible only” doctrine. We weren’t “King James only” as some folks were/are, but the Bible was our sole authority (in theory).

I should mention that I attended the “Christian Church” which was one of the three main branches of the original Disciples of Christ (there were hundreds of splinters). We were kind of the middle group – not as strict as the “antis” (Churches of Christ) who wouldn’t allow musical instruments in their churches because they “weren’t in the Bible,” – but not as liberal as the Disciples (sometimes called Church of Christ or Christian Church as well) – women preachers, liberal theology and had gotten more into the charismatic mode (though, I’m told, the branch I used to go has gone in that direction also). It’s been over 30 years now – that can be a lifetime in a Protestant denomination.

May God be with you

 

[Protestant101]

OK, now, what ever happed to Protestant 101 and PWM 15537…? Hmmmm… maybe they misplaced the items I had asked them to address? Here is a cut 'n paste of the items that just fly in the face of the Bible interpreting itself:

OK… if the bible actually does explain itself very well… and Catholics believe that:

1.) Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18),

WHY don’t Protestants believe the clearly written words of Scripture?

What is fundamentally lacking, in my opinion, is a sense of history - those first 1500 years - and the message of the Holy Spirit - are discarded only at one’s own spiritual peril.

Lets take one item at a time then. Number 1, Mat 16:18 Why do you repeat Satan’s lie and say that Protestants “don’t believe the clearly written word of Scripture?” And let us also note that you did not quote the Scripture verse in question; you just pasted in your private interpretation of the text.

 

[mormonboy]

I’ve heard a lot of people saying that the Bible interprets itself. I personally don’t agree with this. What do you think?

The outbreak of all the many churches answers your question Wesley.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’ve heard a lot of people saying that the Bible interprets itself. I personally don’t agree with this. What do you think?

Considering that different groups have constantly quoted it to justify themselves (as evidenced in what’s already happening yet again here on this thread), I really can’t understand why people deceive others into thinking that the Bible “is easy to understand”. If it’s so absolute and simple, why have many people reached (and continued to reach) different conclusions?

The Bible actually does explain itself very well; it has nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics!! It is God’s Word, and He would not, by inspiration of The Holy Spirit, write something for us that we could not understand or obey.

Tell that to the people who tried to interpret Genesis and came up with all kinds of crazy ideas. (coughCreationismcough)

 

[ralphinal]

Lets take one item at a time then. Number 1, Mat 16:18 Why do you repeat Satan’s lie and say that Protestants “don’t believe the clearly written word of Scripture?” And let us also note that you did not quote the Scripture verse in question; you just pasted in your private interpretation of the text.

Actually, he posted the traditional interpretation of this verse. It is not his personal one.

What do you think it means? And can you show historical works that support that view?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101.

I had just about given up on you …

Now, let’s see… sure, let’s take them one at a time.

Lets take one item at a time then. Number 1, Mat 16:18 Why do you repeat Satan’s lie and say that Protestants “don’t believe the clearly written word of Scripture?” And let us also note that you did not quote the Scripture verse in question; you just pasted in your private interpretation of the text.

And, just to show you that there is truth in your own Bible, I will quote the King James Version of Matt:16:13-19.

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=50

This looks pretty clear to me, but, let me identify the points of the issue for you:

1.) Jesus challenges His Apostles to identify Him - and 11 of the 12 drop the ball.

2.) Peter, inspired by the Father, answers the question correctly.

3.) And, while still talking to Peter, Christ says that He will build His Church - and do so on Peter as the rock.

4.) This Church of Christ will be very powerful - not all the powers of hell will overcome it.

5.) Not being content to ‘just’ establish His Church - and, still talking to Peter - Christ now gives the especially brash, loud-mouth and weak ex-fisherman the power to bind and lose anything he wishes on earth and in heaven. Peter is to take the leadership role in Christ’s Church.

My challenge is this: Do you believe this as quoted? as explained? And, if not, then why not?

The above verse is clearly written. What I provided was not my own interpretation. Christ founded His Church around 33A.D - not 1500A.D. Christ is God - and knew from all eternity that His Chruch would be running into difficulties from Day 1 - but, none of these difficulties would result in defeat. Christ knew Peter - and his successors would be weak men (and some much weaker then others!) but, the power comes from the Holy Spirit - not from the men sitting in the Chair of Peter.

The Early Church Fathers recognized the Primacy of Peter - and this may best be explained by St. Augustine’s famous quote, “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” The Catholic Church, with its ‘Home Office’ made a universal decision, in this case, condemning Pelagius for false teaching. Here is a very interesting link you may enjoy reading: bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

IF Protestants believed the clearly written word of God… then they would be Catholic.

Let me know when you want to move on to the second quote.

God bless

 

[emarc]

Hi, P101.

I had just about given up on you …

Now, let’s see… sure, let’s take them one at a time.

And, just to show you that there is truth in your own Bible, I will quote the King James Version of Matt:16:13-19.

**13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” **
**14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” **
**15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” **
**16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” **
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=50

This looks pretty clear to me, but, let me identify the points of the issue for you:

1.) Jesus challenges His Apostles to identify Him - and 11 of the 12 drop the ball.

2.) Peter, inspired by the Father, answers the question correctly.

3.) And, while still talking to Peter, Christ says that He will build His Church - and do so on Peter as the rock.

4.) This Church of Christ will be very powerful - not all the powers of hell will overcome it.

5.) Not being content to ‘just’ establish His Church - and, still talking to Peter - Christ now gives the especially brash, loud-mouth and weak ex-fisherman the power to bind and lose anything he wishes on earth and in heaven. Peter is to take the leadership role in Christ’s Church.

My challenge is this: Do you believe this as quoted? as explained? And, if not, then why not?

The above verse is clearly written. What I provided was not my own interpretation. Christ founded His Church around 33A.D - not 1500A.D. Christ is God - and knew from all eternity that His Chruch would be running into difficulties from Day 1 - but, none of these difficulties would result in defeat. Christ knew Peter - and his successors would be weak men (and some much weaker then others!) but, the power comes from the Holy Spirit - not from the men sitting in the Chair of Peter.

The Early Church Fathers recognized the Primacy of Peter - and this may best be explained by St. Augustine’s famous quote, “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” The Catholic Church, with its ‘Home Office’ made a universal decision, in this case, condemning Pelagius for false teaching. Here is a very interesting link you may enjoy reading: bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

IF Protestants believed the clearly written word of God… then they would be Catholic.

Let me know when you want to move on to the second quote.

God bless

well said. i’m waiting too for his response.
God bless.

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, P101.

I had just about given up on you …

Now, let’s see… sure, let’s take them one at a time.

And, just to show you that there is truth in your own Bible, I will quote the King James Version of Matt:16:13-19.

**15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” **
**16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” **
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=50

My challenge is this: Do you believe this as quoted? as explained? And, if not, then why not?

The above verse is clearly written. What I provided was not my own interpretation. Christ founded His Church around 33A.D - not 1500A.D. Christ is God - and knew from all eternity that His Chruch would be running into difficulties from Day 1 - but, none of these difficulties would result in defeat. Christ knew Peter - and his successors would be weak men (and some much weaker then others!) but, the power comes from the Holy Spirit - not from the men sitting in the Chair of Peter.

The Early Church Fathers recognized the Primacy of Peter - and this may best be explained by St. Augustine’s famous quote, “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” The Catholic Church, with its ‘Home Office’ made a universal decision, in this case, condemning Pelagius for false teaching. Here is a very interesting link you may enjoy reading: bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

IF Protestants believed the clearly written word of God… then they would be Catholic.

Let me know when you want to move on to the second quote.

God bless

If you give up on me, you will end up being surprised!!

I believe the scriptures “as quoted” by you, but not as “explained” by you. To try and stretch that into “Protestants don’t believe Scripture” is a lie at best.

Lets take a look at how you “explained” this scripture. On what basis did you explain it? As far as I can see; you simply appealed to your church’s “authority” to say what it means. You did not use what the Bible says in other places about the same text to “rightly divide” the truth. Your church has built a whole doctrine here on just one verse. It is not the whole story, therefore, how can Catholics rightly divide this, when they don’t know the whole?

“This rock” vs 17 clearly refers to “the Christ” of vs.16, and this is clearly evidenced by many other Scriptures. The Church is/will be built on Christ the Solid Rock; not Peter, the rolling stone.

---

Psa 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

And BTW, another lie you repeat is that Protestants somehow came out from behind a rock in the 1500s all of a sudden. They have always been around - even since Genesis. The Protestant Reformation, so called, is a continuation, not a beginning of something ordained of God from day one.

Think of it this way: Lets just say you & I agreed that your denomination predates mine. If that was so; and your Church was “the genuine,” then it follows that there would also be a false. There is no counterfeight three dollar bill, because there is no such thing as a real one. If there was/is a “true church;” there has to be a false one. Who was your “false church” before Protestants? Name the denomination please, and tell us, when did this one start?

The Polarity of the two opposing sides, true church and false church is evident throughout Scripture - so to say that you were around longer than us has to be false.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

Well, I must admit…I really wasn’t going to give up… and, I am not really surprised at your response But, let’s see if we can get together on some items. This is the 1st of 2 postings… sorry to be so long-winded!

If you give up on me, you will end up being surprised!!

I believe the scriptures “as quoted” by you, but not as “explained” by you. To try and stretch that into “Protestants don’t believe Scripture” is a lie at best. Lets take a look at how you “explained” this scripture. On what basis did you explain it? As far as I can see; you simply appealed to your church’s “authority” to say what it means.

Well, this represents some change - your previous post seemed to be questioning the verse itself.

I am going to do some truly dangerous now … let’s ‘switch sides’. Let’s just pretend that you wanted to write down a set of sentences that would establish Peter as the ‘rock’ (that was cute about the ‘Rolling Stone’) on which Christ would build His Church. Just what would you say? Now, there are some limitations - you can not use the words that Christ used - because - as you say, they don’t mean that. So, come up with a convincing ‘quote’ that you would find acceptable to establish Peter as the head.

I realize this is a very unfair assignment… I know I would have trouble doing it - I mean, the words are so clear in the original that coming up with something different that means Peter is really in charge… well… good luck. You see, my part is really the easy one. All I have to say is, "Nope! It does not mean that …! and that would end it… you know, something like you just did. But, give it a try. Surprise me.

Your church has built a whole doctrine here on just one verse. It is not the whole story, therefore, how can Catholics rightly divide this, when they don’t know the whole? “This rock” vs 17 clearly refers to “the Christ” of vs.16, and this is clearly evidenced by many other Scriptures. The Church is/will be built on Christ the Solid Rock; not Peter, the rolling stone.

It appears to me that you have misjudged (again) what the Cathoic Church teaches. The problem is, you claim to know, but produce very little information besides calling something a lie - and, it must be a lie because you said it is a lie, right?! So, let’s look at this scripture the way I understand you to be talking about it and see if it holds together. Yeah, back to the ‘rock’ mine.

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (I am guessing that you agree that the 11 Apostles got the answer wrong.)
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (I am guessing that you agree that Peter got the answer right.)
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. (I am guessing that you agree that Peter was inspired by God.)
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that even though Christ has just congratulated Peter for getting the answer right - and been inspired by God to get the answer right - Christ is no longer talking to Peter - but… to … Himself? Christ is telling Peter and the 11 that He is going to build a Chruch with Himself as the rock [and cornerstone]?.)
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (I am not sure, but is Christ still talking about Himself? If so, what kind of sense does it make to have keys and give them to yourself? The Apostles were probably not really sure about their role in this new Church - prior to Pentecost - but, the keys were understood by most people [as they are today] to be symbolic of authority. Christ had the authority - He did not need a symbol of it. Peter ahd no authority prior to this - and would be acting in the place of Christ - and would have need for a symbol. Was Christ talking about Himself about binding and losing or, was He talking to Peter? If he was talking to or about Himself - what kind of sense does this make? If talking about Peter - then it ALL HOLDS TOGETHER AS A STATEMENT)

Continued…

 

[tqualey]

Continued… part 2 of 2

Now, I understand you may not want to go along with this. Fine. Go back to the original assignment and write a couple of sentences that place Peter in charge that do not sound anything like this original text from Matthew.

Your church has built a whole doctrine here on just one verse. It is not the whole story, therefore, how can Catholics rightly divide this, when they don’t know the whole? .

Just where do you think the ‘whole’ came from? The answer is the written texts were collected, identified and determined to be inspired by the Catholic Church about the year 300. This understanding of Matt 16 does not hinge on one word - from verses 13 through 19 Peter is being spoken to by Christ. If the ‘rock’ refers to the “the Christ” - who is being given the power to bind and lose? The answer is Peter. So, Christ is the Head and Peter has the Authority. The only way one can draw another conclusion is to edit the original text so as to re-write it. The words in your Bible are plainly written and mean what they say they mean. Peter was promoted - not by his outstanding efforts - but, strictly through the Will and Divine Pleasure of God.

And BTW, another lie you repeat is that Protestants somehow came out from behind a rock in the 1500s all of a sudden. They have always been around - even since Genesis. The Protestant Reformation, so called, is a continuation, not a beginning of something ordained of God from day one.

Well you got my attention on this. Please, either provide this Genesis origin for Protestants, or tell me that you that you just got carried away and made a mistake. Honest, prior to 1500 the term “Protestant” had no meaning in a religious context. There really was a historical origin for the “Protestant Reformation” - and it was not in Genesis… it was in 16th Century Europe. If it did begin in Genesis, where are the scriptural (or, historical) references of its existence and continuation that you state?

Think of it this way: Lets just say you & I agreed that your denomination predates mine. If that was so; and your Church was “the genuine,” then it follows that there would also be a false. There is no counterfeight three dollar bill, because there is no such thing as a real one. If there was/is a “true church;” there has to be a false one. Who was your “false church” before Protestants? Name the denomination please, and tell us, when did this one start? The Polarity of the two opposing sides, true church and false church is evident throughout Scripture - so to say that you were around longer than us has to be false.

Run this one through your calculator and let me know what you come up with: Christ founded His Church in about 33A.D. in present day Isreal. You list yourself as being a Seventh Day Adventest, that church was founded in 1863 by Ellen G. While and several others in present day Battle Creek Michigan. The way I count, there is a 1,830 year difference between these two churches. What do you get?

It really isn’t too much of a stretch to see which one is older - that really was not the challenge. The real challenge is actually seeing Who did what. I am telling you that: Christ founded His Chruch that came to be know as the Catholic Chruch and that Ellen G. White founded your chruch that came to be known (after the Millerite movement failed) as the Seventh Day Adventests.

Christ performed many miracles to prove He was God and rose from the dead on the First Easter Sunday to prove all of His Statements. About all I know of the Seventh Day Adventists is a tendency to mis-predict the Second Coming and that Ellen G. White performed no miracles and did not rise from the dead.

I will leave it up to you to determine which is the True Church and which isn’t.

God bless.

 

[pipper]

Like Cento I too am a convert from one of the Cambellite churches, im my case the ultra fundamental “church of Christ”. They are very literal about their name beleiving that are the one and only church Christ has (even tho they were not invented until 1906) they beleive that anyone who reads the bible will automatically join “the Lord’s Church”.

They are huge beleivers in “the bible interprets itself”.

But once you think about it when people reject the Real Church of Christ and Holy Tradition all they have left to rely on is a fundamental interpretation of sola scriptura…

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, P101,

Well, this represents some change - your previous post seemed to be questioning the verse itself.

No change has ocurred at all. My previous post did not agree with your “explaining” and you call that “not believing the Bible.” That is lie #1

I am going to do some truly dangerous now … let’s ‘switch sides’. Let’s just pretend that you wanted to write down a set of sentences that would establish Peter as the ‘rock’ (that was cute about the ‘Rolling Stone’) on which Christ would build His Church. Just what would you say? Now, there are some limitations - you can not use the words that Christ used - because - as you say, they don’t mean that. So, come up with a convincing ‘quote’ that you would find acceptable to establish Peter as the head.

I realize this is a very unfair assignment… I know I would have trouble doing it - I mean, the words are so clear in the original that coming up with something different that means Peter is really in charge… well… good luck. You see, my part is really the easy one. All I have to say is, "Nope! It does not mean that …! and that would end it… you know, something like you just did. But, give it a try. Surprise me.

This “assigment” makes no sense.

It appears to me that you have misjudged (again) what the Cathoic Church teaches. The problem is, you claim to know, but produce very little information besides calling something a lie - and, it must be a lie because you said it is a lie, right?! So, let’s look at this scripture the way I understand you to be talking about it and see if it holds together. Yeah, back to the ‘rock’ mine.

**13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” **
**14 **
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (I am guessing that you agree that the 11 Apostles got the answer wrong.)
**15 **
**He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” **
**16 **
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (I am guessing that you agree that Peter got the answer right.)
**17 **
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. (I am guessing that you agree that Peter was inspired by God.)
**18 **
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that even though Christ has just congratulated Peter for getting the answer right - and been inspired by God to get the answer right - Christ is no longer talking to Peter - but… to … Himself? Christ is telling Peter and the 11 that He is going to build a Chruch with Himself as the rock [and cornerstone]?.)
**19 **
**I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **(I am not sure, but is Christ still talking about Himself? If so, what kind of sense does it make to have keys and give them to yourself? The Apostles were probably not really sure about their role in this new Church - prior to Pentecost - but, the keys were understood by most people [as they are today] to be symbolic of authority. Christ had the authority - He did not need a symbol of it. Peter ahd no authority prior to this - and would be acting in the place of Christ - and would have need for a symbol. Was Christ talking about Himself about binding and losing or, was He talking to Peter? If he was talking to or about Himself - what kind of sense does this make? If talking about Peter - then it ALL HOLDS TOGETHER AS A STATEMENT)
Continued…

Well; this was a nice try - to just make sport of my statement, instead of actually explaining to people why I am wrong. You have used a technique called rationalization to back up your claim which is still only “supported” by one scripture verse. I have quite accurately stated the Catholic belief.

There is one, small thing that I can agree with that you wrote in red; the rest is utter distortion of what I have been saying and I am nowhere close to seeing it this way. Peter “gave the right answer.” But what does this mean?

Why couldn’t Christ tell the disciples that He will build His Church, with Himself as The Rock? Peter showed recognition of Christ as “Son of The Living God,” (vs 16) and Jesus gave Him the assurance that this is the ultimate foundation of His Church: Jesus Himself would be The Cornerstone.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

This is perfect proof that Jesus did not designate to one disciple, but to all of His disciples, collectively as a group to help run His Church, but Jesus remains the Head, and the Church is built on Him.

When we start to look at “the whole of scripture” we can “correctly divide” the word, and the truth comes out that the Church is not built on Peter, any more than the rest of the disciples.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

Back to calling things a ‘lie’ you don’t agree with…:tsktsk: surely you can do better then this…but, that is up to you.

No change has ocurred at all. My previous post did not agree with your “explaining” and you call that “not believing the Bible.” That is lie #1

Maybe not to you. The heart of the matter is a clearly written text - not one word (“rock”). Who is Christ speaking to? What is Christ saying? Who did Christ give the authority to (an item you managed to miss while hunting for ‘lies’) You claim Chist is talking about Himself - but these six verses clearly show He is talking to Peter. If you can not write something that coveys this better - chances are, it really can not be done. Mere claiming it does not say this (which is the track that you consistently follow) without providing any basis, is simply weak.

This “assigment” makes no sense.

I apologize for making sport of your statement. But, I really did try to explain why you are in error here - the simple words themselves convey the meaning of the statement. Either Christ is talking about Himself (as you maintain) or to Peter (as I maintain). If you insist on maintaining your position - that Christ: True God and True Man, founded His Church on Himself - that means He did not found it on E. G. White 1800 years later. Not even addressing this makes me think you are using the technique of avoidance to dismiss statements you do not agree with.

Well; this was a nice try - to just make sport of my statement, instead of actually explaining to people why I am wrong. You have used a technique called rationalization to back up your claim which is still only “supported” by one scripture verse. I have quite accurately stated the Catholic belief. .

Now, when it comes to the, “…one scripture verse…” argument, let me immediately resolve that matter with the following mere 10 references from Matthew that identify the primacy of Peter. From this link ( scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html ) you can see over 70 references on this same topic. No, P101 - there are multiple examples of Peter being appointed as leader, being recognized as leader, and actually acting as leader.

1.) Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.
2.) Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.
3.) Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
4.) Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
5.) Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
6.) Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
7.) Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
8.) Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.
9.) Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.
10.) Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

There is one, small thing that I can agree with that you wrote in red; the rest is utter distortion of what I have been saying and I am nowhere close to seeing it this way. Peter “gave the right answer.” But what does this mean?

Glad you asked! Christ clearly identified that God had inspired Peter. From all eternity, God selected Peter for the role he would take on in the Church founded by Jesus Christ. No other Apostle was so inspried by God - those guys floundered around with some rather wild responses to Christ’s question of “Who do men say I Am?”

Look at it this way. God has a special mission for Peter - a mission to lead the others. Christ demostrates this in multiple ways (look at the link I gave for more examples) in an effort to show that He is 100% supporting Peter. On the First Pentecost - the birthday of the Catholic Church - Peter leads the preaching under the direction of the Holy Spirit. All of the Apostles recognize Peter as the leader - a leader NOT WITH FAULT - but, the leader none the less.

Why couldn’t Christ tell the disciples that He will build His Church, with Himself as The Rock? Peter showed recognition of Christ as “Son of The Living God,” (vs 16) and Jesus gave Him the assurance that this is the ultimate foundation of His Church: Jesus Himself would be The Cornerstone.
This is perfect proof that Jesus did not designate to one disciple, but to all of His disciples, collectively as a group to help run His Church, but Jesus remains the Head, and the Church is built on Him.

Ultimaely, “why” God does something is a matter known only to God - and, remember, His Ways are not our ways. I disagree on your ‘perfect proof’ statement - you are actually drawing an invalid concluclusion from the evidence presented.

Maybe it is time to move on…you have some reading to do. Now, do you want to address Item 2 (Baptism) next?

**OK… if the bible actually does explain itself very well… and Catholics believe that:

1.) Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18),

2.) Christ required His Followers be Baptized (not as a ‘nice idea’ or gesture, but as a requirement) to be part of Him (John 3:5, Matt 28:19, Gal 3:25-27),

3.) Christ (Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity) is really present under the appearance of bread and wine (John 6, Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:15-20, 1Cor10:16),

4.) Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sin (John 20:21, Matt 18:18, James 5:16 ) and

5.) Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church He founded [and, that would be the Catholic Chruch] for all time (John 14:26)

WHY don’t Protestants believe the clearly written words of Scripture?**

God bless,

 

[ac_claire]

Question for Protestant 101 or any others on this thread who do say the Bible interprets itself: How do you explain the thousands and thousands of denomenations and cults and conflicting doctrines out there? Especially the ones that look orthodox and don’t on the surface necessarily disagree with Scripture, yet they still conflict with eachother? (An example would be the Protestant vs. Catholic understanding of what “the Church” is.)

When two or more parties who sincerely claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit turn up contradictory meanings…then how do you know which is correct?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AC Claire,

Thank you for your excellent post. You know… I would be interested in the answer to that question, too!

Question for Protestant 101 or any others on this thread who do say the Bible interprets itself: How do you explain the thousands and thousands of denomenations and cults and conflicting doctrines out there? Especially the ones that look orthodox and don’t on the surface necessarily disagree with Scripture, yet they still conflict with eachother? (An example would be the Protestant vs. Catholic understanding of what “the Church” is.)

When two or more parties who sincerely claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit turn up contradictory meanings…then how do you know which is correct?

In many ways I have been concerned by these various posts which either ignore the obvious (the multiplicity of contradictory interpretations in the multiplicity of denominations, churches, groups, assemblies, cults, etc.) or the single-minded re-doubling of efforts at calling things they do not agree with: “lies”. My understanding of the CAF is that it is a place where people come for answers to questions they sincerely want to know. I really do not see it as a forum for people to promote anti-Catholic statements.

The Bible is a very complex document (as evidenced by so many differing views) written over a long time period in different styles for a much different audience then was originally envisioned by the human author. In addition to all of this - mankind is subject to error. Having the Holy Spirit guide the Catholic Church since that First Pentecost has enable God to guide His Church so that no error has been taught. The continuous and consistent teachings of the CC should stand as a wonder to all that God is in charge of His Church’s teachings.

Praying for all - especially on this most precious Good Friday - that we may all come to a better knowledge and appreciation for God’s Word - written in the words of men - is one of the things I planned to do today.

God bles

 

[pipper]

Protestant 101, I can think of many instances where Protestants and cultist dissagree with the Bible, but for now I will mention only one, the most obvious.

Int the GospelS the three synoptic ones that is Jesus is very clear about the Holy Eucharist, he says “This is my body”. Don’t you think that if he had meant, “this is only a symbol of my body” he would have came out and said that?

In the sixth chapter off John he says basically the same thing. Nothing about “symbols” in the Bible.

In your sig, you mention the “voice of Prophecy” I think you aware this is a Catholic site, and Catholics do not believe that Ellen White is the “voice of prophecy”.

 

[Cinette]

Hi, AC Claire,

Thank you for your excellent post. You know… I would be interested in the answer to that question, too!

In many ways I have been concerned by these various posts which either ignore the obvious (the multiplicity of contradictory interpretations in the multiplicity of denominations, churches, groups, assemblies, cults, etc.) or the single-minded re-doubling of efforts at calling things they do not agree with: “lies”. My understanding of the CAF is that it is a place where people come for answers to questions they sincerely want to know. I really do not see it as a forum for people to promote anti-Catholic statements.

The Bible is a very complex document (as evidenced by so many differing views) written over a long time period in different styles for a much different audience then was originally envisioned by the human author. In addition to all of this - mankind is subject to error. Having the Holy Spirit guide the Catholic Church since that First Pentecost has enable God to guide His Church so that no error has been taught. The continuous and consistent teachings of the CC should stand as a wonder to all that God is in charge of His Church’s teachings.

Praying for all - especially on this most precious Good Friday - that we may all come to a better knowledge and appreciation for God’s Word - written in the words of men - is one of the things I planned to do today.

God bles

Tom - you are absolutely right! So many denominations, so many interpretations - all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit! Can’t be! It calls to mind the passage 2Peter3:16:

*“For there are many things in scripture that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their destruction.”
*
There is one more thing. I was on a thread recently where there were Protestants who put their point of view forward - they did not agree with the Catholic interpretations but they were respectful and willing to listen. It was a pleasure to discourse with them. Then, unfortunately we do encounter those who are full of …!! What shall I say? We are right in the middle of Holy Week - tonight is the Easter Vigil and tomorrow …ALLELUIA! HE IS RISEN. So many celebrations, so much joy! I have invited a Protestant friend to come to the Easter Vigil tonight to witness a little bit of heaven.

I don’t want to think of those who clearly identify themselves as the enemy

Happy Easter Everybody - and I said Everybody!

Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

If you give up on me, you will end up being surprised!!

I believe the scriptures “as quoted” by you, but not as “explained” by you. To try and stretch that into “Protestants don’t believe Scripture” is a lie at best.

Lets take a look at how you “explained” this scripture. On what basis did you explain it? As far as I can see; you simply appealed to your church’s “authority” to say what it means. You did not use what the Bible says in other places about the same text to “rightly divide” the truth. Your church has built a whole doctrine here on just one verse. It is not the whole story, therefore, how can Catholics rightly divide this, when they don’t know the whole?

“This rock” vs 17 clearly refers to “the Christ” of vs.16, and this is clearly evidenced by many other Scriptures. The Church is/will be built on Christ the Solid Rock; not Peter, the rolling stone.

Psa 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

Actually you are wrong there. The confusion arises because the English rendeing of the text is not very helpful. In Aramaic, Jesus said: “And I say to you, you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church”. In English, Jesus is saying you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church. And the affirmation of giving the keys to Peter and binding and losing affirms this. So there is no way you can confuse the rock that Jesus is talking about here. He is very clear, that it is Simon he means, that is why he changed Simons name to Kepha.

This is just a short exegesis on the passage but I will give a detailed one later.

And BTW, another lie you repeat is that Protestants somehow came out from behind a rock in the 1500s all of a sudden. They have always been around - even since Genesis. The Protestant Reformation, so called, is a continuation, not a beginning of something ordained of God from day one.

If this is true can you provide us with historical proof?

Also, you have really put yourself in a quandary here. If this is true then Protestant Churches are not Christian because they have been around since Genesis that is before Christ. Christ’s Church was founded by Him circa 33 so your Church preceded Christ’s Church therefore definitely not Christ’s Church.

Think of it this way: Lets just say you & I agreed that your denomination predates mine. If that was so; and your Church was “the genuine,” then it follows that there would also be a false. There is no counterfeight three dollar bill, because there is no such thing as a real one. If there was/is a “true church;” there has to be a false one. Who was your “false church” before Protestants? Name the denomination please, and tell us, when did this one start?

Here are some of them

Judiazers AD34
Gnostics AD 125
Montanists AD 156
Manicheans AD 244
Novatians AD 251
Donatists AD 312
Nestorians AD 425
Paulicans AD 857
Cathari AD1150
Albigenses AD1180

The Polarity of the two opposing sides, true church and false church is evident throughout Scripture - so to say that you were around longer than us has to be false.

As I have said above, if you were around longer than us then your church is obviouisly not a Christian Church since the Catholic Church was born only at Pentecost.

The other protestant Churches are still Christian although in an imperfect way because they still are branches of the Catholic Church even though cut off from it.