How are we saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJ59
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Without Peter’s confession of Jesus as Christ, Son of God, Peter would not be “Rock.” He is Rock only WITH the confession.
  2. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true, it would **have to be described from the beginning of the church **in the apostolic period.
  3. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
  4. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
  5. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
  6. Peter is not explicitly identified as the **head of the church in the Jerusalem council **in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
  7. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
  8. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene even though the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.
If the church was intended to be built on none other than the person of Peter, why is he **not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians **in the following passage?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
 
  1. Without Peter’s confession of Jesus as Christ, Son of God, Peter would not be “Rock.” He is Rock only WITH the confession.
Yeah, so? God the Father revealed Jesus’ true identity to Simon thus placing His stamp of approval upon the fisherman. You can try to parse this all you want but Peter, not Peter’s confession alone, not Jesus, but Peter is the Rock.
  1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true, it would **have to be described from the beginning of the church **in the apostolic period.
According to whose rules? Yours? We argued about this for days in another thread before you finally bailed. Ready to go another round? Or are you just here to make more of your assertions? For my part, I think Jesus did an excellent job of preparing Peter for the role of shepherd.
  1. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
Oh, I get it. You’re arguing from silence. Since the papacy is not specifically laid out in clear detail in the pages of scripture, there is no basis for it. That’s weak, and you know it.
  1. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
Why would they have to specifically outline the qualifications of position when they were all familiar with it? You are insistent upon this because ALL you have is a book. We, on the other hand, have a “God-breathed” Church which is able to add context to the words that obviously have you mystified.

But just to be clear, are you saying that there is not a single verse of scripture that suggests that Peter was the leader of the Apostles during his lifetime?
  1. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
Again, are you saying that there is no evidence that Peter acted as the head of the Church?
  1. Peter is not explicitly identified as the **head of the church in the Jerusalem council **in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
Again, an argument from silence. Do you think anyone at the council had any doubt as to Peter’s status? You have been asked this before, but I don’t recall (forgive me if I am wrong) that you ever answered:

Why did Paul go to Jerusalem to spend 15 days with Peter? Why Peter, Daniel?
  1. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
Of course not, and this reveals your complete ignorance of the distinction between Apostles and Bishops. I have previously provided links and portions of articles which you have apparently glossed over or ignored. Let me be clear:

Apostles had universal jurisdiction.
Bishops do not.

Peter was an Apostle AND, ultimately, the Bishop of Rome.
  1. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene even though the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.
If the church was intended to be built on none other than the person of Peter, why is he **not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians **in the following passage?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
First, notice that whenever scripture uses the imagery of rock or stone, it always refers to a person and NOT to something non-personal such as “faith” or a “confession”. Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.

Second, you continue to struggle with a limited understanding of metaphors, and I refer you to post #389 above.
 
Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18
And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrative are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
 
Not exactly true, Ralph. The Catholic Church does identify itself (correctly) as the original authentic Church of Christ, but it does not say that you are not a member of “the church” if you do not formally “belong” to The Catholic Church. All validly baptized people are members of “the church”, which is synonymous with The Catholic Church. That’s why Scripture, as you rightly pointed out, says that those who are born again are part of the Body of Christ. Born again = baptism. Body of Christ = The Church. You’re right about denominations though. There are none listed in the Bible, although some would argue that the biblical Judaizers was an attempt at an erroneous “break-off” Christian denomination, but the Church (in the form of the apostolic union) came together in council (in Jerusalem) to rectify that division, and clarify truth. Otherwise, OF COURSE there’s no denominations listed in Scripture…because The Church is NOT a denomination…denominations, as we know and understand the term, are basically breaks from the first Church in Scripture. The Catholic claim is that we ARE that first Church in Scripture, it’s just that it used terms in Scripture such as “one” and “unity” instead of “universal” or “on the whole”, which is what “Catholic” means.

All the other “churches” mentioned in Scripture are, in fact, what we would call parishes, or diocese, today. These were all part of the ONE, UNIFIED (Universal - Catholic) Church. You’re a part of that church too, Ralph (assuming you’re baptized)…you just don’t accept it. That’s the division…The Church is not cutting you off…you’re cutting yourself off.

God Bless
I am getting the picture from your answer that you consider “baptism” and “born again” to be the same thing. What baptism are you refering to? I know that I am part of Gods church as I belong to the Body of Christ. When He comes for His own, I will go with Him. PTL, Ralph
 
Yeah, so? God the Father revealed Jesus’ true identity to Simon thus placing His stamp of approval upon the fisherman. You can try to parse this all you want but Peter, not Peter’s confession alone, not Jesus, but Peter is the Rock.

According to whose rules? Yours? We argued about this for days in another thread before you finally bailed. Ready to go another round? Or are you just here to make more of your assertions? For my part, I think Jesus did an excellent job of preparing Peter for the role of shepherd.

Oh, I get it. You’re arguing from silence. Since the papacy is not specifically laid out in clear detail in the pages of scripture, there is no basis for it. That’s weak, and you know it.

Why would they have to specifically outline the qualifications of position when they were all familiar with it? You are insistent upon this because ALL you have is a book. We, on the other hand, have a “God-breathed” Church which is able to add context to the words that obviously have you mystified.

But just to be clear, are you saying that there is not a single verse of scripture that suggests that Peter was the leader of the Apostles during his lifetime?

Again, are you saying that there is no evidence that Peter acted as the head of the Church?

Again, an argument from silence. Do you think anyone at the council had any doubt as to Peter’s status? You have been asked this before, but I don’t recall (forgive me if I am wrong) that you ever answered:

Why did Paul go to Jerusalem to spend 15 days with Peter? Why Peter, Daniel?

Of course not, and this reveals your complete ignorance of the distinction between Apostles and Bishops. I have previously provided links and portions of articles which you have apparently glossed over or ignored. Let me be clear:

Apostles had universal jurisdiction.
Bishops do not.

Peter was an Apostle AND, ultimately, the Bishop of Rome.

First, notice that whenever scripture uses the imagery of rock or stone, it always refers to a person and NOT to something non-personal such as “faith” or a “confession”. Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.

Second, you continue to struggle with a limited understanding of metaphors, and I refer you to post #389 above.
I find it very hard to believe that anyone would believe that Christ would build his church upon Peter, a human sinner. I understand from doing some searching that Peter was most likely never in Rome, do you have any info to confirm that he was there. Ralph
 
I am getting the picture from your answer that you consider “baptism” and “born again” to be the same thing
. That’s good, Ralph. Because that’s exactly the picture I’m painting for you. That’s the one Jesus paints. That’s the one His Church paints. “Born again” is not just a profession of faith in Christ. It is a valid baptism in His name (and the Father’s, and the Spirit’s). Faith, obedience and repentance are an integral, unified part of our baptism as we come into a capacity to personally sin against God, but “born again” is effected by water baptism, and made possible by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
40.png
ralphy:
What baptism are you refering to?
The singular Trinitarian baptism required for us to be born anew. Water baptism as infants (and later lived out), or as repentant, faith-professing adults.
40.png
ralphy:
I know that I am part of Gods church as I belong to the Body of Christ.
Yes you are, if you are baptized.
When He comes for His own, I will go with Him. PTL, Ralph
Great. Keep the faith, persevere to the end, and I’m sure you will, ralph.
 
…Peter, not Peter’s confession alone, not Jesus, but Peter is the Rock.
Peter alone is not Rock but only Peter WITH the confession of Christ, who is the ONLY HEAD of the church in scripture.
Daniel said: In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true, it would have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period.
Randy said: …I think Jesus did an excellent job of preparing Peter for the role of shepherd.
Because the papacy is alleged to be the singular authoritative office with successors, it would have to be defined at the beginning of the church but it is conspicuously absent in scripture.
…You’re arguing from silence. Since the papacy is not specifically laid out in clear detail in the pages of scripture, there is no basis for it…
Actually, the papacy is an argument from silence since scripture is SILENT about such an office with qualifications of successors.
Why …outline the qualifications of position when they were all familiar with it? You are insistent upon this because ALL you have is a book…
How do you KNOW they were ALL familar with it, i.e. the papacy with qualfications of sucessors? The only way you would know this is if it was mentioned, which it is not.
But just to be clear, are you saying that there is not a single verse of scripture that suggests that Peter was the leader of the Apostles during his lifetime?
I am saying there is not a SINGLE verse of scripture that says Peter WAS THE leader of the apostles or THE prince of the apostles or THE head of the church. Was Peter A LEADER within the church among other leaders? Yes. The SINGULAR leader? No.
Again, are you saying that there is no evidence that Peter acted as the head of the Church?
There is no scripture that says Peter was THE HEAD of the church.
Again, an argument from silence. Do you think anyone at the council had any doubt as to Peter’s status? You have been asked this before, but I don’t recall (forgive me if I am wrong) that you ever answered.
I DID answer before. No one at the council refers to Peter as THE HEAD of the church.
Why did Paul go to Jerusalem to spend 15 days with Peter? Why Peter, Daniel?
Paul points out that Peter was apostle to the circumcised (not HEAD of the church).
Of course not, and this reveals your complete ignorance of the distinction between Apostles and Bishops. I have previously provided links and portions of articles which you have apparently glossed over or ignored. Let me be clear:

Apostles had universal jurisdiction. Bishops do not.

Peter was an Apostle AND, ultimately, the Bishop of Rome.
There was no such thing as a singular bishop of any church during the lifetime of Peter.
First, notice that whenever scripture uses the imagery of rock or stone, it always refers to a person and NOT to something non-personal such as “faith” or a “confession”. Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
Back to the point. There is no mention of pope in Eph 2 as having any relationship to the foundation on which the church is built.

A point you fail to answer at all: #8. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are **no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene **even though the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

In summary:
  1. Without Peter’s confession of Jesus as Christ, Son of God, Peter would not be “Rock.” He is Rock only WITH the confession.
  2. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true, it would have to be **described from the beginning of the church **in the apostolic period.
  3. For the office of papacy to be true, it would **need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ **when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
  4. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
  5. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
  6. **Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council **in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
  7. **Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop **of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
  8. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, **there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene **even though the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.
If the church was intended to be built on none other than the person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
 
Dan,

Why does everything have to be explicitly and clearly “defined” for you in Scripture?

I was wondering if you realized the immense stumbling block that sets before you, keeping you from the fullness of Christ. Do you really think that every single thing we need to be aware of is written in a book? Think about that Dan. Think about it in conjunction with the very real and evident fact that humans don’t learn from books in a vacuum. People learn from other humans guiding them. That’s just the way the transference of knowledge has always worked. That’s the way you and I have learned everything we know.

Christianity is no different. God understands this even better than we do. You have to shake this Bible-alone mentality if you want to maximize your potential to soar as a Christian.

Just my advice.

God Bless
 
Dan,

Why does everything have to be explicitly and clearly “defined” for you in Scripture?

I was wondering if you realized the immense stumbling block that sets before you, keeping you from the fullness of Christ. Do you really think that every single thing we need to be aware of is written in a book? Think about that Dan. Think about it in conjunction with the very real and evident fact that humans don’t learn from books in a vacuum. People learn from other humans guiding them. That’s just the way the transference of knowledge has always worked. That’s the way you and I have learned everything we know.

Christianity is no different. God understands this even better than we do. You have to shake this Bible-alone mentality if you want to maximize your potential to soar as a Christian.

Just my advice.

God Bless
Humans make assumptions and mistakes in judgment, and if they are highly regarded as teachers, their sincere mistakes and assumptions are accepted and passed on. However, if written scripture is inspired by God, then it can be trusted as a source of guidance and truth in matters of faith and practice. But this also means one should not assume what scripture means but trust only what is explicitly and clearly stated and defined in scripture and by scripture.
 
Humans make assumptions and mistakes in judgment, and if they are highly regarded as teachers, their sincere mistakes and assumptions are accepted and passed on. However, if written scripture is inspired by God, then it can be trusted as a source of guidance and truth in matters of faith and practice. But this also means one should not assume what scripture means but trust only what is explicitly and clearly stated and defined in scripture and by scripture.
Sorry Dan. This is still listening to humans.

Only this time, it’s listening to yourself. You might think that since you’re just reading on your own, that you are not influenced, not biased…and completely objective.

But that is completely untrue. You are putting yourself as the “human making assumptions and mistakes in judgment”. Sure, you might be able to discern SOME of what is revealed in Scripture, but the reality is that you’ll never come to the fullness of it on your own, and what is also highly likely is that you will lead yourself astray, believing in things which put your soul in jeopardy. It’s an over-2000 year old text, Dan. Come on. It is not nearly perspicuous enough for you to acquire the needed knowledge of the Christian faith. It even says so within it.

We HAVE to trust humans, Dan. The issue is, which humans? We have to find the inspired ones…ones who have the transference of the Spirit of God to protect them from error. We can’t just trust ourselves or some uninspired, unsent preachers.
 
Sorry Dan. This is still listening to humans.

Only this time, it’s listening to yourself. You might think that since you’re just reading on your own, that you are not influenced, not biased…and completely objective.

But that is completely untrue. You are putting yourself as the “human making assumptions and mistakes in judgment”. Sure, you might be able to discern SOME of what is revealed in Scripture, but the reality is that you’ll never come to the fullness of it on your own, and what is also highly likely is that you will lead yourself astray, believing in things which put your soul in jeopardy. It’s an over-2000 year old text, Dan. Come on. It is not nearly perspicuous enough for you to acquire the needed knowledge of the Christian faith. It even says so within it.

We HAVE to trust humans, Dan. The issue is, which humans? We have to find the inspired ones…ones who have the transference of the Spirit of God to protect them from error. We can’t just trust ourselves or some uninspired, unsent preachers.
Can one know what this means?
2 Timothy3:16-17 “**All Scripture **is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be **thoroughly equipped **for every good work.”

Do you believe the NT to be the God-breathed scripture?
Do you believe one can read and understand it?
Do you believe the scripture thoroughly equips?

And this:
2 Peter 1:20-22 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never **had its origin **in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Does this mean: a) the reader cannot understand the Scripture? or b) that the Scripture did not originate with the prophet but with the Holy Spirit?
Is this passage telling us: a) how the Scripture “came about”? or b) how the meaning of scripture is to be explained and taught to others?

Catholicism has always used the above passage to say: a) the reader cannot understand Scripture, and b) the Scripture must be explained and taught only by those “who have the transference of the Spirit of God to protect them from error …inspired, sent preachers.”

And this:
Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more **noble character **than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

It is not only possible but it is indeed a noble thing for one to examine the Scriptures to see if a teaching or claim is true.
 
I find it very hard to believe that anyone would believe that Christ would build his church upon Peter, a human sinner. I understand from doing some searching that Peter was most likely never in Rome, do you have any info to confirm that he was there. Ralph
ralphy…Do you find it hard to believe that God would have human sinners (including Peter) write sacred scripture? Could the Holy Spirit protect those men from error? Is that possible?

When you checked to see if Peter was ever in Rome, did you check any sources that didn’t support your already formed conclusion?

Here is a link regarding St Peter being in Rome…enjoy:

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
 
Can one know what this means?
2 Timothy3:16-17 “**All Scripture **is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be **thoroughly equipped **for every good work.”

Do you believe the NT to be the God-breathed scripture?
Yes, but not because the Bible says so. In fact, the best you can do is know that the OT is God-breathed, because the NT wasn’t written at the time Paul said this. I believe it all is because The Church says it is, because they canonized it, after all.
Do you believe one can read and understand it?
Within the proper apostolic framework, yes. Outside of that proper human teaching and guidance, no. Notice that the verse above does NOT say “read”. It can be easily inferred that Scripture is ALL these things, under the tutelage and guidance of Spirit-led teachers.
Do you believe the scripture thoroughly equips?
Sure, but not because this verse says so. Again, it’s only referring to the OT. Don’t you believe the NT thoroughly equips too? Why? Scripture doesn’t say it does.
And this:
2 Peter 1:20-22 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never **had its origin **in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
Does this mean: a) the reader cannot understand the Scripture? or b) that the Scripture did not originate with the prophet but with the Holy Spirit?
B
Is this passage telling us: a) how the Scripture “came about”? or b) how the meaning of scripture is to be explained and taught to others?
C) both
Catholicism has always used the above passage to say: a) the reader cannot understand Scripture, and b) the Scripture must be explained and taught only by those “who have the transference of the Spirit of God to protect them from error …inspired, sent preachers.”
Correct, but change a) to say, the reader cannot fully understand Scripture by reading it on their own without first being exposed to, and remaining within the framework of, b)
And this:
Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more **noble character **than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
It is not only possible but it is indeed a noble thing for one to examine the Scriptures to see if a teaching or claim is true.
Here’s a link to read. Or just read a snippet: *Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.
*
 
Either is the Trinity but you believe it don’t you?
I agree that the dogma concerning the Triune God is not specifically stated in Scripture but I believe it to be true because Jesus’ one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church tells me that God is three divine persons in one Godhead; also called the Blessed Trinity. Why do you believe it?

Scripture states that Jesus and His Father are “one,” but I can find no Scripture stating that the Holy Spirit is “one” with Them. Jesus does command His chosen apostles/disciples to baptize persons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in order to make all persons His disciples, but He makes no mention of the Holy Spirit’s exact relationship with the Father and the Son.

Regarding your quote: “Scholars agree that it takes at least 2 or more Scriptures to establish a dogma and the Bible interprets its self.”

These scholars who promote this man-made dogma have no authority in Jesus’ Church. Scripture actually speaks of two or more “witnesses” needed in order to establish whether accusations against a person about his “conduct” are true or not.

A “fact” must be true or else it cannot be a dogma of the Christian faith. A “dogma” is “truth.” Jesus is God. This is a dogma. Jesus is the Son of God. This is also a dogma. Yet, they seem to contradict each other. However, the Catholic Church claims that there are actually 3 equal Divine Persons who make one God.

The Bible is a book of “words.” It is inanimate. It cannot “interpret” itself. It cannot think or speak. Can a table tell you that it is a “table?”

FYI: The Church (hierarchical leadership) came first. The Church created the Bible. The Church claims that “their” book of collected writings is the inerrant Word of God. Either you believe them when they state this or you do not. Muslims choose to believe that the Bible is not the Word of God as do Atheists.

This same Church who created the Bible claims to know and teach the correct interpretation of their writings in their own book. I believe them; you do not.
 
Ed-
[SIGN]I’m surprised that you are suggesting that Jesus was such a terrible builder of His Church that He could not prevent such a huge blunder as the election of Matthias when God really wanted Paul instead - especially since scripture itself names more than twelve apostles[/SIGN].

In addition to the original twelve, scripture mentions Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias, Apollos (possibly), Silas and Timothy.

Acts 1:26 – Matthias
26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Note that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Luke to qualify the election of Matthias in any way.Randy Randy Randy, Jesus is a good builder of His church but it seems like Peter gets things mixed up

Acts 14:14Paul and Barnabas
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd,

Gee, Barnabas gets named first here so there is no doubt that the author is designating him to be an apostle, is there?

Romans 16:7Andronicus and Junias
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Andronicus and Junias are outstanding among the apostles. Wow. They must have been something special.

2 Corinthians 11:5-6 – Apollos
5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.

A clear reference to Apollos (cf. 1 Cor. 1)

1 Thessalonians 1:1 – Silas and Timothy
1Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.

1 Thessalonians 2:6-7
As apostles of Christ we (Paul, Silas and Timothy) could have been a burden to you, 7but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children.
These two verses suggest that Paul considered Silas and Timothy to be apostles.
Randy Randy Randy, Jesus is an expert builder of his church, it’s Peter who seems to get things mixed up. In order to save himself he denied Jesus three times Mark 14:68, (Some future leader Wow!.) Then at a dinner table Paul had to publically scold him Gal. 2:11. (I guess he didn’t do his homework Schucks!.) Then as I said, after Jesus asended to heaven, Peter got things mixed up again (Oh! No! ). He called the meeting to choose Matthias, which he wasn’t authorized to do Acts 1:12. Only Jesus who is the head has that right to choose His leaders.Eph.2:19 Church built on apostles (plural) and prophets (Cardinals & Popes No!) Later at the first Jerusalem meeting, Peter explained how he preached the gospel at Cornelius’ house, then James, who seemed to be in charge, gave his judgement on the issue at hand, which the apostles then acted upon. Acts 15:19 I believe Jesus needed an intellectually minded man who could confront the opposition in the starting of His (Jesus) many churches.(or keep Peter from mess up ?) So the fisherman was confined to the Jerusalem church, in which he did do a good job there getting 3,000 saved in one meeting,(how about that!) Now getting back to the original issue. Mat 19:28, Jesus speaking to the apostles,"—you who have followed me will also sit on the TWELVE THRONES". Rev.21:14,“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the NAMES of the TWELVE APOSTLES”. Randy with all the apostles that you name above, some may have to sit on the laps of the twelve. (no sarcasm ment, just having a little fun, love yah Randy
 
Can you tell me "who or what"is the church? Ralph
The Church is a society of people with one faith, one baptism, one lord, etc. with a hierarchy chosen by God which rules over its members and guides them in order for its members to learn how to be saved and inherit eternal life and it also actually helps them to obtain this goal, of course. 🙂
 
Jesus is an expert builder of his church, it’s Peter who seems to get things mixed up. In order to save himself he denied Jesus three times Mark 14:68, (Some future leader Wow!.) Then at a dinner table Paul had to publically scold him Gal. 2:11. (I guess he didn’t do his homework Schucks!.) Then as I said, after Jesus asended to heaven, Peter got things mixed up again (Oh! No! ). He called the meeting to choose Matthias, which he wasn’t authorized to do Acts 1:12. Only Jesus who is the head has that right to choose His leaders.Eph.2:19 Church built on apostles (plural) and prophets (Cardinals & Popes No!) Later at the first Jerusalem meeting, Peter explained how he preached the gospel at Cornelius’ house, then James, who seemed to be in charge, gave his judgement on the issue at hand, which the apostles then acted upon. Acts 15:19 I believe Jesus needed an intellectually minded man who could confront the opposition in the starting of His (Jesus) many churches.(or keep Peter from mess up ?) So the fisherman was confined to the Jerusalem church, in which he did do a good job there getting 3,000 saved in one meeting,(how about that!) Now getting back to the original issue. Mat 19:28, Jesus speaking to the apostles,"—you who have followed me will also sit on the TWELVE THRONES". Rev.21:14,“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the NAMES of the TWELVE APOSTLES”. Randy with all the apostles that you name above, some may have to sit on the laps of the twelve. (no sarcasm ment, just having a little fun, love yah Randy
Wow! What a mess. 😃

Peter denied Jesus three times. Like Jesus said, "So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” John 8:7 How many times have each of us denied Christ by sin? (Titus 1:16) How many other apostles did Jesus tell to “feed His lambs” and “tend His sheep” and “feed His sheep” as a shepherd in imitation of Himself? None.

James re-stated Peter’s teaching to His flock since James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. This is the correct order to do this. Peter makes the decision. James repeats it to his own flock.

Peter the Apostle was most likely not the person scolded by Paul in Galatians.

members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf

How does the Church pass on its leadership?

Paul tells us:
2 Timothy 2:2 “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

So, do you choose to discount Paul, too?

Peter was called upon by God (inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to choose another to take Judas’ place in order to fulfill the prophecy. The “twelve” thrones is symbolic for a leadership position over the “twelve” tribes of Israel. Paul receives apostleship status through divine intervention only after Jesus ascended into heaven. This has nothing to do with Jesus telling the apostles who were present when He was speaking, that those present at that time who followed Him would sit on “twelve” thrones. (John 16:13, John 14:26)

Cardinals and popes are still bishops. Since there are so many bishops in the Church today, only some have voting privileges, much like the original number (120) of apostles/disciples in Acts 1. After all, this is the universal/catholic Church and it is logistically impossible to accommodate every bishop in the world when there is a conclave.
 
The Church is a society of people with one faith, one baptism, one lord, etc. with a hierarchy chosen by God which [SIGN]rules over its members [/SIGN]and guides them in order for its members to learn how to be saved and inherit eternal life and it also actually helps them to obtain this goal, of course. 🙂
SHW, You certainly have that right! Rules over it’s members. Did you know that once you are water baptized that you become a subject to the Pope? Jesus had no subjects to Him. After Jesus gave his Lord’s Supper dialog John 6:67 several of his disciples left Him, then Jesus asked the twelve,“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Listen to this:On Public Broadcast System TV “The Secrets of The Inquisition” The Roman Catholic church police kidnapped young Edwardo Mortora from his Jewish parents because the young boy was water baptized. As a result, he was then subject to the church. His parents complained how could that be, being Jewish. Unknown to the parents, once while they were out, the boy got sick. The boy’s sitter feared that the boy would go to hell if he died, (that’s the teaching of the Catholic church) so she water batized the boy. For years, the father pleaded with the Catholic officials for his release but to no avail. They wouldn’t even let the father know where he was. After many years, and not being with his parents,the young man apparently was convinced to become a priest. The parents never got him back. This took place in 1858 and made national headlines. Could that be the reason for infant baptism? Love in Christ ED
 
Wow! What a mess. 😃

Peter denied Jesus three times. Like Jesus said, "So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” John 8:7 How many times have each of us denied Christ by sin? (Titus 1:16) How many other apostles did Jesus tell to “feed His lambs” and “tend His sheep” and “feed His sheep” as a shepherd in imitation of Himself? None.

James re-stated Peter’s teaching to His flock since James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. This is the correct order to do this. Peter makes the decision. James repeats it to his own flock.

Peter the Apostle was most likely not the person scolded by Paul in Galatians.

members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf

How does the Church pass on its leadership?

Paul tells us:
2 Timothy 2:2 “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

So, do you choose to discount Paul, too?

Peter was called upon by God (inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to choose another to take Judas’ place in order to fulfill the prophecy. The “twelve” thrones is symbolic for a leadership position over the “twelve” tribes of Israel. Paul receives apostleship status through divine intervention only after Jesus ascended into heaven. This has nothing to do with Jesus telling the apostles who were present when He was speaking, that those present at that time who followed Him would sit on [SIGN]“twelve” thrones[/SIGN]. (John 16:13, John 14:26)

Cardinals and popes are still bishops. Since there are so many bishops in the Church today, only some have voting privileges, much like the original number (120) of apostles/disciples in Acts 1. After all, this is the universal/catholic Church and it is logistically impossible to accommodate every bishop in the world when there is a conclave.
SHW I don’t think it’s symbolic, Jesus meant what He said, Rev.1:12 speaks of the names of the twelve tribes (on gates) and 14 it speaks of the names of the twelve apostles (on throwns). Who’s name do you think will be on the thrown Matthias or Pauls? Can’t have twelve throwns and thirteen apostles. Don’t you think that there was some human element involved, if they prayed why then cast lots? For an answer. ED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top