I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[jmcrae]

Oh really? And you base your whole life and religious devotion on what, effectively, you describe as hear-say. So now, we not only have the disputeable interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (‘I want you to always follow Peter and whoever succeeds him’),

The line about the Keys is a direct quotation from Isaiah 22, about the line of succession for the doorkeepers of the House of David. It is clear that Jesus (the Son of David) is making Peter to be his doorkeeper - an office of David’s house that takes successors.

we also have hear-say in the practical outliving of it (no clarity as to who followed whom as Peter’s successors).

We know he had successors - the dispute is whether Cletus followed Linus, or was it Anacletus - or were Cletus and Anacletus the same person? But there is no doubt about the Succession itself.

Hang on, there’s also a cult ure to hold on to. That should do it, right? … how about just reading the Bible and believing it?

Right - because there is no such confusion found in the Bible, right? We know exactly how many women were at the Tomb and found it empty, right? (Wrong. Read it again. We know that they were (or she was) female. What we cannot say (because there are conflicting accounts, just as with the account of Cletus and/or Anacletus) is whether it was Mary Magdalene alone, or whether she had two companions, or four companions.

This confusion does not negate the fact that the tomb was found empty by those who were sent to anoint the body. Nor does the confusion around Cletus/Anacletus negate the fact that there were Successors to Peter in the first century.

 

[JonNC]

… how about just reading the Bible and believing it? No flimsy interpretations, no hear-say, no adoration by culture.

Ok.
“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”

Agreed?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Gosh, Jharek, I was trying real hard to ignore it, hoping it was a mere typo. Hopefully, Gerhard can confirm my interpretation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I understand it, Jharek. Lutherans receive some of that polemic sometimes (we’re too Catholic, doncha know), but not near to the extent of the CC.

Jon

 

[gerhardc]

Women* are* to remain silent in church. I just shushed one yesterday, as a matter of fact. She kept chatting with her neighbor while some of us were trying to pray.

 

[joe370]

Hey gerhardc…

I am highly suspicious of what happened to the Church when Constantine I (a pagan till, supposedly his deathbed when he was baptised), effectively, took over the (running of the) freedom of affiliation which was the Church of Christ…

That’s cool. To each his own brother. I in turn choose to trust that Jesus didn’t allow anyone, including Constantine, to alter His plans for His church, wolves in sheep’s clothing, (predicted by Jesus) - notwithstanding.

By the same token can no-one affirm that he sought the approval of Peter per se when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Thus, there is no connection between Peter’s supposed authority and Paul’s submission to it.

I really do not see why any other apostle need submit to another fellow apostle. That’s not even what the Petrine office is about. It’s about preserving 1st century apostolic truth and passing it on to the next generation etc etc…so that each successive generation can be privy to what the 1st century generation apostles taught. That’s just my take on it. I suppose Jesus could have laid His plan out a little better via scripture, but then again, I suppose He figured we would understand that He was leaving us with His church, guided by Him, to lay it out for all.

Okay, perhaps its just me, but that means that Paul conferred with God whilst in a desolate place - Arabia. Does that mean he would never not be sure of himself? Of course not. He says so much in Romans 7:14 to Romans 8:14.

I agreed and continue to agree of course but again, why the need to seek out anything from Peter and James, as they did, if the HS was Paul’s exclusive guide? Why didn’t Paul simply settle the dispute himself, in Antioch?

No, I wasn’t actually quoting you.

Well, you said: “According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker…” :hey_bud: LOL…

I was simply making the point that if Paul was really submitting to Peter as today’s bishops submit to the pope…

He did feel it necessary to see Peter at least twice, but again, I see no real reason for any one apostle with the spiritual charism to teach and write infallibly, to defer to another apostle such as Peter, therefore I agree with you brother.

Refer Galatians 2:14 - “The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray” Hope that helps.

Doctrinally speaking, Peter’s hypocrisy did not lead anyone astray. He had a moment of weakness, just as Paul did at times, but both men taught infallibly via their charism, given to them by God. Peter was properly corrected by a fellow apostle and it was all good after that.

If we are going to doubt Peter because of that then it seems fair to doubt his ability to teach and write infallibly, but no Christian would dare to make that claim.

One could ask: Did Paul have to be so harsh in his rebuke of Peter? Why didn’t Paul confront Peter in private as per Matt.18:15, first? Why didn’t Paul, in a non hypocritical fashion, take his own scriptural advise by restoring a faltering brother (Peter) - with gentleness and humility?

“Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently.”

But I say: Nah…It’s all good…:egyptian: I used to love the Bangles; awesome band…

 

[gerhardc]

Ok.
“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”

Agreed?

Jon

Thank you for raising the issue. You are referring to a passage in John 7 where Jesus says that no-one can come to the Father without partaking of Him (a saying which some of His followers at the time *also *did not understand). Jesus was saying that His followers needed to **eat or consume what He was all about (truth) **. He referred to Himself as truth: “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:7). To confirm, He also said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17) and “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.” (John 14:23-24). Thus, Jesus said that the key to life with the Father is the truth He brings. That’s why He also said: *"And you shall know the truth, and the **truth *shall make you free.” (John 8:32).

In contrast with this we see a doctrine that says, ‘If you eat physical bread it turns into Jesus’ flesh and it is that which makes you free’.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for raising the issue. You are referring to a passage in John 7 where Jesus says that no-one can come to the Father without partaking of Him (a saying which some of His followers at the time *also *did not understand). Jesus was saying that His followers needed to **eat or consume what He was all about (truth) **. He referred to Himself as truth: "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:7). To confirm, He also said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17) and "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me." (John 14:23-24). Thus, Jesus said that the key to life with the Father is the truth He brings. That’s why He also said: "And you shall know the truth, and the **truth **shall make you free.” (John 8:32).

In contrast with this we see a doctrine that says, ‘If you eat physical bread it turns into Jesus’ flesh and it is that which makes you free’.

No, I am referring to the three Gospel accounts and St. Paul’s of the Last Supper, where Christ says: “Take and eat. This IS my body.” “No flimsy interpretations, no hear-say, no adoration by culture.” Just the clear and literal verbiage of Christ.

Now, if you don’t mind, please confirm that “cult ure” was a typo for me.

Jon

 

[gerhardc]

Gosh, Jharek, I was trying real hard to ignore it, hoping it was a mere typo. Hopefully, Gerhard can confirm my interpretation.

Jon

Do you see that particular spelling repeated in the that passage or any of my posts for that matter?

 

[JonNC]

Do you see that particular spelling repeated in the that passage or any of my posts for that matter?

I will take it then as a typo. Thanks

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Simply this: Tradition is subject, accountable to the word of God. Tradition cannot contradict the word of God. So, while scripture is the final norm, that does not exclude, necessarily Traditon.

So it seems that you are contrasting Tradition with the Word of God.

The Catholic definition of Tradition is, of course, the oral transmission of God’s Revelation.

Your communion has a different understanding, then, of (Sacred) Tradition. What is that?

I confess, in return, to you the same limitations you express about Lutheran theology that I have regarding Catholic theology. Perhaps it might help if you explain/define the meaning of the phrase, “a **channel **of the word of God”.

Jon

We believe that God’s Word (or what God has divinely revealed) has been transmitted to us in two forms, or two channels: via the written word, Scripture, and via the oral word, Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh really? And you base your whole life and religious devotion on what, effectively, you describe as hear-say.

Oh, I absolutely did NOT say that apostolic succession was “hear-say”, gerhardc. Not sure where you got that from. It has been historically documented that St. Peter had a successor, and his successor had a successor, <snip to 2011 with our current successor to St. Peter, Benedict XVI>.

Whether the successor was first and then Cletus, or vice versa, is irrelevant.

The point is that my Church can trace its successors from Jesus through to B16.

Yours cannot.

 

[gerhardc]

Hey gerhardc…
gerhardc wrote:
Okay, perhaps its just me, but that means that Paul conferred with God whilst in a desolate place - Arabia. Does that mean he would never not be sure of himself? Of course not. He says so much in Romans 7:14 to Romans 8:14.

I agreed and continue to agree of course but again, why the need to seek out anything from Peter and James, as they did, if the HS was Paul’s exclusive guide? Why didn’t Paul simply settle the dispute himself, in Antioch?

You don’t think that James and John and Peter needed reassurances that the guy who once persecuted them was now on their side? As a matter of fact, they did: “But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God in me.” (Galatians 1:23-24). These guys needed to see for themselves - not hear second hand - that Paul was really converted. Still, you are avoiding the issue, Paul did not ask for permission to be an Apostle.

Well, you said: “According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker…” :hey_bud: LOL…

That’s Joe’s beliefs of course. The operative word being “beliefs”. Is that not what you believe then? If you don’t believe it already, you have to believe it according to your system of religious rules - no-one can openly call the pope a “hypocrite”, having “stood condemned” and ‘leading others astray’ (and get away with it) without recanting or being branded a trouble maker (something like some here are accusing me of). If that is not what you believe, won’t you tell those who wish to term me a trouble maker for appropriately quoting Scripture in this regard to knock it off then?

Doctrinally speaking, Peter’s hypocrisy did not lead anyone astray. He had a moment of weakness, just as Paul did at times, but both men taught infallibly via their charism, given to them by God. Peter was properly corrected by a fellow apostle and it was all good after that.

Paul hardly called it a “moment of weakness”. On the contrary, he discerned that Peter stood condemned for his actions. It was so serious that he had to not only set Peter straight but everybody who followed him in his grave error. Thank God Paul loved Peter enough to correct him before he did even more damage!

One could ask: Did Paul have to be so harsh in his rebuke of Peter? Why didn’t Paul confront Peter in private as per Matt.18:15, first? Why didn’t Paul, in a non hypocritical fashion, take his own scriptural advise by restoring a faltering brother (Peter) - with gentleness and humility?

Refer above please. Also, James 3:1 - “let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement.” Peter was a teacher. That made all the difference.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture itself says who should interpret it, and it is not a religious movement.

Not sure what you mean. Who does Scripture say should interpret Scripture? The Holy Spirit? Ok. Please cite the chapter and verse.

And then please describe how this works in our lives. How does the Holy Spirit tell us what Malachi 1:11 says for example? Is it a feeling that yo get when you’re at prayer that will provide the correct interpretation? Will your eyes go to another Scripture verse that will tell you what Malachi 1:11 means?

How does this paradigm of yours work?

 

[gerhardc]

The point is that my Church can trace its successors from Jesus through to B16.

Yours cannot.

Easy there PR.
I don’t go to church. I am (part of the) Church. Anyone who is born again (something you have to do - John 3:3-5), obeys His word (something you have to do - 1 John 2:3) and is led by the Holy Spirit (something you have to do - Romans 8:14) is Church. The rest is ‘bells and smells’. Moreover, it is not a place you go to.

 

[PRmerger]

I am (part of the) Church.

Indeed, you are! If you are baptized, you are a member, although, sadly, separated, of the Catholic Church.

Anyone who is born again (something you have to do - John 3:3-5), obeys His word (something you have to do - 1 John 2:3) and is led by the Holy Spirit (something you have to do - Romans 8:14) is Church. The rest is ‘bells and smells’. Moreover, it is not a place you go to.

As with most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but both/and.

The Church is spiritual. The Church is a Body. The Church is also a place that you go to.

 

[gerhardc]

Not sure what you mean. Who does Scripture say should interpret Scripture? The Holy Spirit? Ok. Please cite the chapter and verse.

And then please describe how this works in our lives. How does the Holy Spirit tell us what Malachi 1:11 says for example? Is it a feeling that yo get when you’re at prayer that will provide the correct interpretation? Will your eyes go to another Scripture verse that will tell you what Malachi 1:11 means?

How does this paradigm of yours work?

First, PR, you have to be born again. That follows repentance (from your sins as well as your man-made attempts to please God), and faith towards God (refer Romans 10:9-10). Only faith pleases God, remember (refer Hebrews 11:6). If you can ***experientially ***testify hereof, then 1 John 2:27 may be relevant to you in being taught by the Holy Spirit what God is saying to you through His word. But, first, you have to be born again. If you cannot testify *experientially *of being born again, then, I fear, we are (still) living in two different kingdoms.

 

[gerhardc]

indeed, you are! If you are baptized, you are a member, although, sadly, separated, of the catholic church.

Really?

 

[PRmerger]

First, PR, you have to be born again. That follows repentance (from your sins as well as your man-made attempts to please God), and faith towards God (refer Romans 10:9-10). Only faith pleases God, remember (refer Hebrews 11:6). If you can ***experientially ***testify hereof, then 1 John 2:27 may be relevant to you in being taught by the Holy Spirit what God is saying to you through His word. But, first, you have to be born again. If you cannot testify *experientially *of being born again, then, I fear, we are (still) living in two different kingdoms.

Please cite the verse that says “who should interpret” Scripture. Book, chapter and verse, please.

Originally Posted by gerhardc
Scripture itself says who should interpret it

 

[gerhardc]

Gotta go. It’s been nice chatting. Not too much pizza there guys!