How do you view Matthew 16:13 through 20? What does it mean to you?

[MT1926]

Part of the problem is circular thinking. “The church cannot err therefore everything the church teaches is correct.”

Yeah this would be circular reasoning if we start from your point that Jesus never left anyone here on earth with authority of His Church. Not sure if that makes sense or not. I believe the Church can not err in teachings on faith and morals because Jesus says so, not because the Church says so. See I interpret this verse for myself I’m not just saying what the Church tells me to say. Sure you might want to claim I am being brain washed by the Catholic Church but I can make the same claim about your church. When I read Matthew 16 I see Peter’s name mentioned or Jesus referring to him 9 times in 4 verses. I don’t need anyone to tell me that Jesus is doing something BIG by changing Peter’s name here. So to me I can’t see the circular argument because all I see is a straight line starting with Jesus.

By that definition the church could declare anything as truth and it is not truth because it is fact, but because the church declared it to be truth.

No this kind of sounds like a circular argument to me. Like I said I see it claimed all the time but no one ever points to an exact example of where the Church erred or changed a teaching on faith an morals. Now claiming by definition that the Church would be able to declare a falsehood as truth, even though she never has, therefore she must not be able to declare truth is kind of circular isn’t it?

This actually kind of proves the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Catholic to me. As I already stated I totally agree we have had some really, I mean really, bad Popes through the years. We are talking guys I wouldn’t trust alone in my own home. To me the only possible way they didn’t throw the Catholic Church off the rails was because the Holy Spirit wouldn’t let them. I see no other explanation here.

Part of my issue with the Roman Church and to a lesser extent the Orthodox church is that it took legends, cultural practices, and religious practices and traditions that developed within the first 400-600 years and declared them as “truth”.

I guess this would depend on the issue. My curious question would be what time frame would you have been comfortable for us humans to fully understand and decide how Jesus wanted certain things? Sure the Apostles were great but I am pretty sure the Bible shows us that they were kind of working off of a learning curve.

The definition of apostolic teaching is that it was taught by Christ and that apostles. Not that it was practiced and believed by the early church. Those two things aren’t the same thing.

Could you please show me where this definition comes from? And more importantly where the authority comes from to interpret this definition of apostolic teaching?

Thanks,

God Bles

 

[MT1926]

Was there realy an issue that needed to be settled to begin with was my point.

Had nothing to do with spiritual efficacy, save one group telling another what is more right and lording it over, in the name of “unity”.

I’m not seeing your point. Is unity not important for spiritual efficacy?

In Acts 15 James made a judgement to place restrictions on the Gentiles, in the name of “unity”. Was he just lording it over the new kids on the block? Was this just a hazing ritual?

Heck Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 for shying away from eating with Gentiles. Why because Paul wanted to lord it over Peter or was it because Peter’s actions was contrary to unified spiritual efficacy?

It all comes down to which direction you are looking at the situation from. Obviously their was an issue, on both sides, sure we can look at the issue 1500 years later and say I don’t really see what the big deal on this issue was. But I challenge you to ask yourself is this what you really believe or is this just your response that is from you in depth research of the event and the time in history it took place in or is this you from the hip response from the relativistic society that we now live in?

It’s pretty obvious that we have different definitions of the word unity here.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

But isn’t it funny how the Evangelical churches in America are the one’s who are standing up for traditional Christian views on homosexuality and abortion. The American denominations that have caved to the political correct moral teachings are rapidly shrinking and the denominations that have held firm to Biblical morality are growing.

I just wanted to point out that I totally agree with this statement and I am proud of our evangelical brothers who stand for morality. It will be a long hard battle and we definitely need unity on this.

Even without a central authority the people of God stand behind the the teaching of God for the Glory of God.

I am not trying to throw this in your face or hit you with a gotcha, like I already was accused of in this thread.

All I ask is you give this statement a long hard thought and you pray to the holy spirit for guidance before you respond to this question.

But do you honestly believe that there would be anything left to fight for on the homosexuality and abortion front lines if the Catholic Church, guided by Her central authority, wasn’t maintaining those lines with Her blood, sweat and tears for all of these centuries?

You don’t have to like or agree with the Catholic Church all I ask is you give her the same credit and respect that you are giving evangelical churches who are just now joining the battles. Because if we really think this through, lets be honest here, how much of a change do you believe one little local, with no central authority, church is going to have on the battle field against our immoral society that worships the pursuit of sexual pleasure?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

It’s pretty obvious that we have different definitions of the word unity here.

Not really.Why didn’t Paul say that everyone could eat all manner of meat, or why didn’t he say we should all consider certain days holy…he was not pushing for a legalistic unity, but a unity out of mutual respect and love for one another despite our differences of practice , maturity and understanding. It is easier to love others when they are in agreement on most things, but much more admirable to love those who have different understandings…Christ did say we are one, but moreso we would be known for our love.

 

[MT1926]

Why didn’t Paul say that everyone could eat all manner of meat, or why didn’t he say we should all consider certain days holy…

Maybe we are interpreting the Bible differently here but I thought he did?

I thought he did say we could eat all manner of meat in Colossians 2:16

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.

And didn’t the Apostles insist upon the Lord’s Day, Sunday, to be the Christian day of worship?

he was not pushing for a legalistic unity,

It’s hard to believe that a guy who penned letter after letter of correction to the Churches he started wasn’t pushing for “legalistic unity”. Why didn’t he just leave all those Churches in the hands of the elders he appointed and let the congregation tell them, to run the Churches, however they saw fit?

It is easier to love others when they are in agreement on most things, but much more admirable to love those who have different understandings

Yes it is. However, are you really loving someone if you know what Jesus wants for them and from them and you are unwilling to present it to them out of fear that it will create disunity or cause a lack of mutual respect?

I’m not saying I am right and you are wrong.

My question is where do you draw the line between unity and mutual respect?

And on what basis and authority are you able to draw that line?

Just as an example of what was posted above…

That’s a nice thought, but it’s a little superficial.

Lesbians for Jesus feel righteous and peaceful about their ministry, but I bet you’d argue them as being wrong.

Do we draw the line at Jesus unified teaching of one man and one woman or do we draw the line at mutually respecting each others sins?

God Bless

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

That’s a nice thought, but it’s a little superficial.

Lesbians for Jesus feel righteous and peaceful about their ministry, but I bet you’d argue them as being wrong.

Do we draw the line at Jesus unified teaching of one man and one woman or do we draw the line at mutually respecting each others sins?

God Bless

Why should they respect your interpretation of what is or is not sinful? “God made me what I am and God makes no mistakes” would be their go-to retort.

At the very least, this implicitly admits that there’s a little more to it than personal views on what’s righteous and peaceful…

 

[lanman87]

But do you honestly believe that there would be anything left to fight for on the homosexuality and abortion front lines if the Catholic Church, guided by Her central authority, wasn’t maintaining those lines with Her blood, sweat and tears for all of these centuries?

It depends on what you mean by the Catholic church. If you mean the Roman Catholic church then the answer is yes, there would still be something left to fight for. If you mean catholic as universal church then the answer is no. The people of God (Universal church) will strive for righteousness and God’s glory regardless of organization, government (secular and religious) and cultural norms. We saw that in the first 100-150 years of church history where the catholic (universal) church was a loosely organized group of community gatherings headed by Presbyters that were mostly chosen by the local congregation. Yet they had a reputation for living a life set apart from Roman Cultural and religious norms. If the universal church had never developed a hierarchy with Rome as the head of all churches and they had continued to be a loosely organized group of community gatherings then I believe the people of God would have still fought for a Godly culture. If they would have been more effective or less effective is a matter of conjecture.

 

[MT1926]

It depends on what you mean by the Catholic church. If you mean the Roman Catholic church then the answer is yes, there would still be something left to fight for. If you mean catholic as universal church then the answer is no. The people of God (Universal church) will strive for righteousness and God’s glory regardless of organization, government (secular and religious) and cultural norms.

I was talking about the homosexuality and abortion front lines. I noticed you didn’t address that specifically in your answer.

So lets get back to the topic at hand.

You honestly think there would still be a front line, on homosexuality and abortion, if the Catholic Church started caved on these issues almost 100 years ago like many of the churches you pointed out in your prior post?

I mean look back historically the caving started many years before the invention of the evangelical church.

We saw that in the first 100-150 years of church history where the catholic (universal) church was a loosely organized group of community gatherings headed by Presbyters that were mostly chosen by the local congregation.

Sorry when I look back in history and in the Bible I am not seeing anything close to a “loosely organized group”.

Come on quite ignoring history, it was the unity of Christians that was so appealing to the Roman government that converted the empire.

Yet they had a reputation for living a life set apart from Roman Cultural and religious norms.

Yes a unified life, not a loosely organized group of community gatherings.

If the universal church had never developed a hierarchy with Rome as the head of all churches and they had continued to be a loosely organized group of community gatherings then I believe the people of God would have still fought for a Godly culture. If they would have been more effective or less effective is a matter of conjecture.

Wow are you serious did you even read your post before you posted.

First you make the claim, as if it is fact, that the first 150 years of Christianity was loosely organized when it overcame the Roman empire. Then you make the claim that their is no way to prove the hierarchy of the Catholic Church had any effectiveness on on the matter.

Dude take those anti-Catholic lenses off. You don’t have to love the Catholic Church, you don’'t have to claim she is right, but at least respect Her enough to give credit where credit is due.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Wow are you serious did you even read your post before you posted.

First you make the claim, as if it is fact, that the first 150 years of Christianity was loosely organized when it overcame the Roman empire. Then you make the claim that their is no way to prove the hierarchy of the Catholic Church had any effectiveness on on the matter.

Dude take those anti-Catholic lenses off. You don’t have to love the Catholic Church, you don’'t have to claim she is right, but at least respect Her enough to give credit where credit is due.

God Bless

I do give the Catholic church credit and appreciate a lot of the stances the Catholic church has taken. My point is that you don’t have to be a Catholic Christian to take those stances. Any true Christian will follow seek to live a righteous life in the power and joy of the Holy Spirit. All I’m saying is that that happens with or without a hierarchy telling everyone what is right and wrong.

Christ is living in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. He has changed our hearts. If we are truly a born again child of God who had been brought from death to life then the Lord has put the “law in our hearts and writes them on our minds”. We follow Christ not because a priest or bishop or pastor or teacher instructs us to do so. We follow Christ because He is living in us and moving in us and as a result we seek His kingdom and His righteousness.

As for Homosexuality and abortion. There weren’t mainstream issues in American culture until the 1960’s when the culture of the USA started to move to a post-modern and post-Christian society. (I believe that shift has picked up steam and is moving faster than every). Christianity as a whole has always preached that those two things are sinful. As I said earlier, churches that have abandoned the historical Christian position (of both Catholic and Protestant) have started to decline while churches that have upheld the historical Christian positions are growing.

As for the claim that Christianity was loosely organized for the first 150 years. That comes from reading several books on Christian history by both Protestant and Catholic historians. From my readings I understand that the first churches were basically home churches each headed by an elder or presbyter (later called bishops). As more and more of these gatherings started to take in a city the elders/presbyters/bishops started to meet together (called a college of bishops) and coordinate activities and ministries. (church buildings also started to develop, mostly from Christian leaving the church property in their wills) Around the year 100 or so these college of bishops in the larger cities elected a metropolitan bishop to oversee the coordination and activities of the churches in the city and they began to coordinate, work with, and sometimes argue with the other metropolitan bishops. Ironically, Rome was one of the last major cities to elect a metropolitan bishop around the year 150. Before that the churches in Rome were overseen by a college of Bishops.

 

[MT1926]

I do give the Catholic church credit and appreciate a lot of the stances the Catholic church has taken. My point is that you don’t have to be a Catholic Christian to take those stances. Any true Christian will follow seek to live a righteous life in the power and joy of the Holy Spirit. All I’m saying is that that happens with or without a hierarchy telling everyone what is right and wrong.

Thank you. I totally agree with you here. Yes this is possible in this day and age where Christian no longer have to worry about their lives being persecuted, in most counties. All I asked is do you believe it would still have happened (past tense) without the Catholic Church proclaiming to the world, and not backing down, for 2000 years about what is right and wrong.

As for the claim that Christianity was loosely organized for the first 150 years. That comes from reading several books on Christian history by both Protestant and Catholic historians. From my readings I understand that the first churches were basically home churches each headed by an elder or presbyter (later called bishops). As more and more of these gatherings started to take in a city the elders/presbyters/bishops started to meet together (called a college of bishops) and coordinate activities and ministries. (church buildings also started to develop, mostly from Christian leaving the church property in their wills) Around the year 100 or so these college of bishops in the larger cities elected a metropolitan bishop to oversee the coordination and activities of the churches in the city and they began to coordinate, work with, and sometimes argue with the other metropolitan bishops. Ironically, Rome was one of the last major cities to elect a metropolitan bishop around the year 150. Before that the churches in Rome were overseen by a college of Bishops.

If this is the definition of a loosely organized community I sure as heck don’t want to be a member of an organized one.

God Bless

 

[GladTidings]

Welcome to CAF! We’re glad you are here! Thanks for your answer.

Rick means Faith in Jesus and Jesus is Messiah who died for my sins.

What does this mean? Who is Rick?

 

[mcq72]

Why didn’t Paul say that everyone could eat all manner of meat, or why didn’t he say we should all consider certain days holy…

Maybe we are interpreting the Bible differently here but I thought he did?

I thought he did say we could eat all manner of meat in Colossians 2:16

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.

And didn’t the Apostles insist upon the Lord’s Day, Sunday, to be the Christian day of

I believe then by Paul’s statement that one can eat meats and another need not if they are so inclined to believe.

One can treat this or that day holy or a festival or a sabath and another not.

Not sure Paul says you must assemble on a sunday, but assemble we should, and we as a church were (are?) free to decide…apparently the first churches with time accustomed to meet on Sunday, but see no decree to that end.

 

[MT1926]

I believe then by Paul’s statement that one can eat meats and another need not if they are so inclined to believe.

OK we are on the same page with this. Maybe I’m reading the word “didn’t” in your original statement wrong.

One can treat this or that day holy or a festival or a sabath and another not.

May I ask how you are getting to this interpretation here? It seems like St. Paul is dealing with Jewish troublemakers, who are are telling Christians that the rituals of the Mosaic Law are indispensable requirements. It seems to me he is telling Christians that they are no longer bound by food, drink, festivals or the Sabbath. I think seeing him teaching do what you want here is reading to much into the text. If Paul taught that we can choose which days we can treat as holy days wouldn’t that have lead some early Christians into the very scandal Paul is teaching against here?

Not sure Paul says you must assemble on a sunday, but assemble we should, and we as a church were (are?) free to decide…apparently the first churches with time accustomed to meet on Sunday, but see no decree to that end.

I see it in…

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week (Sunday), when we were gathered together to break bread…We break bread(the Eucharist) as a community during mass every Sunday.

Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come…This is the collection during mass, how do we store it up if we didn’t meet together on Sunday?

It also seemed like a pretty important day for Jesus as well.

Jesus first appearance to gathered Apostles was on a Sunday (John 20:19)

Jesus second appearance was on a Sunday (John 20:26)

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

f Paul taught that we can choose which days we can treat as holy days wouldn’t that have lead some early Christians into the very scandal Paul is teaching against here?

Well, not necessarily saying choose whatever, rather the discussion began here and I think as you rightly suggest with Paul, about “others” telling different “others” what was “right” in this regard. So not sure what teaching of Paul is contraditory.

 

[tgGodsway]

The passage is a wonderful example of the power of God to unlock God’s way of doing things. It begins with the revelation that Jesus is the Christ. A revelation Peter uttered as a result of the Father’s great love for Peter, and for all who call upon Him

 

[MT1926]

@ tgGodsway

Welcome back buddy.

How you been?

Have a great day!

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

Hey MT. Yeah it’s been two months. A lot has happened since. Staying busy.

It is good to hear from you. I’ll be returning to dialog soon.

 

[Kellypat18]

I am in a Protestant church as of now but seeing the truth of Catholicism. I think before I was I influenced by my current church somewhat. I thought Jesus was giving Peter some type of authority or power. But then I was taught that Jesus was giving authority to all the apostles. I eventually forgot about it but I always wondered why Peter was such an important figure in the Gospels. I think a few years later, I re read that section and really couldn’t see how Jesus was talking to all the apostles. It seemed like it was directed towards Peter. Especially about giving him the keys. I had this image in my head that he was holding the keys in heaven and was guarding the gate to it. Speed forward another year and I was very confused as to what denomination was correct. I discovered apostolic succession one night and Peter, the keys, the name change… it all made sense! So as a Protestant and coming out of that, it just never made complete sense. It seemed like there was something missing. NOW the Protestant beliefs make sense to me because a lot of it seems to be avoiding Catholic beliefs. My pastor recently said that name changes in the bible were important like Abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel but then he doesn’t mention Simon to Peter!

 

[GladTidings]

It is fascinating. There was scripture I heard of one time on the radio that showed how Peter was regarded as almost a pastor or leader of the other disciples. Of course I cannot remember it now. The lengths non-Catholics go to in order to try to prove Catholics wrong is amazing.

 

[GladTidings]

Thank-you for seeing the truth in the only Church Jesus created.