G
gerhardc
Guest
… some people miss the point when you quote the chapter. Besides, have I seen you quote the whole chapter? :tsktsk:
I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...
- Status
G
gerhardc
Guest
Below is the whole chapter of Matthew 16 Jharek is referring to. Seen as a whole it looks rather different than the selected section he is quoting.
1 One day the Pharisees and Sadducees came to test Jesus, demanding that he show them a miraculous sign from heaven to prove his authority.
2 He replied, “You know the saying, ‘Red sky at night means fair weather tomorrow; 3 red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.’ You know how to interpret the weather signs in the sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the signs of the times![a] 4 Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.**” Then Jesus left them and went away.
Yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees
5 Later, after they crossed to the other side of the lake, the disciples discovered they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 “Watch out!” Jesus warned them. “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 At this they began to argue with each other because they hadn’t brought any bread. 8 Jesus knew what they were saying, so he said, “You have so little faith! Why are you arguing with each other about having no bread? 9 Don’t you understand even yet? Don’t you remember the 5,000 I fed with five loaves, and the baskets of leftovers you picked up? 10 Or the 4,000 I fed with seven loaves, and the large baskets of leftovers you picked up? 11 Why can’t you understand that I’m not talking about bread? So again I say, ‘Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’”
12 Then at last they understood that he wasn’t speaking about the yeast in bread, but about the deceptive teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Peter’s Declaration about Jesus
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”[c]
14 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
15 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[d] the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,[e] because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’),[f] and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell[g] will not conquer it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid[h] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit* on earth will be permitted in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From then on Jesus[j] began to tell his disciples plainly that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, and that he would suffer many terrible things at the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but on the third day he would be raised from the dead. 22 But Peter took him aside and began to reprimand him[k] for saying such things. “Heaven forbid, Lord,” he said. “This will never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned to Peter and said, “Get away from me, Satan! You are a dangerous trap to me. You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s.”
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. 25 If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it. 26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?[l] Is anything worth more than your soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father and will judge all people according to their deeds. 28 And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.”***
1 One day the Pharisees and Sadducees came to test Jesus, demanding that he show them a miraculous sign from heaven to prove his authority.
2 He replied, “You know the saying, ‘Red sky at night means fair weather tomorrow; 3 red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.’ You know how to interpret the weather signs in the sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the signs of the times![a] 4 Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.**” Then Jesus left them and went away.
Yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees
5 Later, after they crossed to the other side of the lake, the disciples discovered they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 “Watch out!” Jesus warned them. “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 At this they began to argue with each other because they hadn’t brought any bread. 8 Jesus knew what they were saying, so he said, “You have so little faith! Why are you arguing with each other about having no bread? 9 Don’t you understand even yet? Don’t you remember the 5,000 I fed with five loaves, and the baskets of leftovers you picked up? 10 Or the 4,000 I fed with seven loaves, and the large baskets of leftovers you picked up? 11 Why can’t you understand that I’m not talking about bread? So again I say, ‘Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’”
12 Then at last they understood that he wasn’t speaking about the yeast in bread, but about the deceptive teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Peter’s Declaration about Jesus
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”[c]
14 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
15 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[d] the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,[e] because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’),[f] and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell[g] will not conquer it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid[h] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit* on earth will be permitted in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From then on Jesus[j] began to tell his disciples plainly that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, and that he would suffer many terrible things at the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but on the third day he would be raised from the dead. 22 But Peter took him aside and began to reprimand him[k] for saying such things. “Heaven forbid, Lord,” he said. “This will never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned to Peter and said, “Get away from me, Satan! You are a dangerous trap to me. You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s.”
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. 25 If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it. 26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?[l] Is anything worth more than your soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father and will judge all people according to their deeds. 28 And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.”***
N
Nicea325
Guest
On the contrary,it is you whose quite mistaken and taken-in by poor exegesis. Yes God’s revealed TRUTH to one of his Apostles named Peter. The office of the bishopric is not legacy,but a fact.
Wrong! Catholics do not get baptized into a movement. That is your faulty understanding of Catholicism and baptism.
G
gerhardc
Guest
That’s only because you call Catholicism a “church”. Others do not.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I call Catholicism a church? Really? Kindly show me where I called Catholicism a church? No offense,but where on earth do you hear your information? Show me one Catholic document teaching:That’s only because you call Catholicism a “church”. Others do not.
Catholicism is a “church”
Catholic = universal. Hence,God’s church is catholic because it is for all,not a specific group only.
Frankly I have no concern what others think because half the time they too have a poor understanding…evidently by many comments.
G
gerhardc
Guest
Originally Posted by gerhardc View Post
How can I confirm Catholicism if I know that Matthew 16:18 refers to the rock of God’s revealed truth and not the legacy of a man? You are quite mistaken Jharek.
Yipee!! So, all Catholics believe that Jesus is referring to Peter’s revelation of Jesus as the Son of God in Matthew 16:17. What a relief!
Now, the only difference is that you (still) read more into verse 18 (“on this rock”).
Refer verse 21 where Matthew says that following the above discourse Jesus started to speak “plainly” to His disciples, meaning that He wasn’t speaking plainly to them before them, which in turn means that you can in fact deduct that Christ was saying that His Church will comprise people like Peter, but it does not suggest that Peter will be the foundation thereof, nor does it say anything whatsoever about Peter’s successors will be His chief representative on earth. Way too much pizza!! :bigyikes:
On the contrary, if that is your thing I’m happy for you. Just as long as you allow yourself to be taught by the Spirit concerning all matters, especially Scripture. And if what you hear from your earthly teachers is contrary to what you hear from the Spirit concerning His word, you will obey the Spirit. If you can do that you are being obedient. If you do not then His word does not abide in you.
How can I confirm Catholicism if I know that Matthew 16:18 refers to the rock of God’s revealed truth and not the legacy of a man? You are quite mistaken Jharek.
Yipee!! So, all Catholics believe that Jesus is referring to Peter’s revelation of Jesus as the Son of God in Matthew 16:17. What a relief!
Now, the only difference is that you (still) read more into verse 18 (“on this rock”).Refer verse 21 where Matthew says that following the above discourse Jesus started to speak “plainly” to His disciples, meaning that He wasn’t speaking plainly to them before them, which in turn means that you can in fact deduct that Christ was saying that His Church will comprise people like Peter, but it does not suggest that Peter will be the foundation thereof, nor does it say anything whatsoever about Peter’s successors will be His chief representative on earth. Way too much pizza!! :bigyikes:
On the contrary, if that is your thing I’m happy for you. Just as long as you allow yourself to be taught by the Spirit concerning all matters, especially Scripture. And if what you hear from your earthly teachers is contrary to what you hear from the Spirit concerning His word, you will obey the Spirit. If you can do that you are being obedient. If you do not then His word does not abide in you.
G
gerhardc
Guest
Great, the pope is not your teacher but the Holy Spirit is. This is a good thing.
C
CalChristian
Guest
MY perspective…CalChristian:
Denomination: an established religious group, typically uniting a group of individual, local congregations into a single administrative body.
From thefreedictionary.com
Denomination: . A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
From onlinedictionary.com
Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and often a distinctive faith
From Allwords.com
Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith
Several others were very similar…
Denomination just means categorization. So Yes, the Catholic Church is the original denomination that other churches use as their standard.
It MIGHT be said that either The Oriental Orthodox Church OR The Eastern Orthodox Church OR The Catholic Church is the OLDEST denomination. OR it could be the OLDEST denomination is a proto to them all. I choose to say out of that fight (it seems entirely irrelevant to anything and everything to me). But to argue that The Catholic Church has no parishes, no organization, no administration, no common beliefs - well, that’s not what I saw in my years in Catholicism.
But, IMO, this seems off topic. What we have in this thread, IMO, is an attempt to “turn tables,” to reverse the “burden of proof.” Yes, 3 denominations claim for self that self was founded specifically by Jesus (perhaps even on a certain date). THAT’S the claim that then needs to be substantiated. Asking other denominations that do NOT claim it to substantiate it for ITSELF in lieu of The Catholic Church doing so seems… inappropriate and very odd. And yet, it seems to ME that’s what this thread is all about.
Mind you, I respect that 3 denominations DO claims this (each alone for self alone). Each has the same reason for doing so - a reason irrelevant in Protestant church. CERTAINLY, one may embrace WHATEVER article of faith one wishes (and get no argument from me!) but that’s not substantiating the same as a dogmatic fact.
My Protestant perspective is that Christians are people. And that the gathering, assembly (“church”) of such people is people. Thus, my perspective is that the church Jesus founded is the corpus of all believers (past and present), spread out over all the centuries and continents. As we put it, the church is one, holy, catholic, communion of believers. I realize that while Catholics don’t exactly disagree with the Protestant view there, they overlay another definition that IMO has far, far, far greater significance to their denomination - that the church is also a denomination (itself). Of course, Protestants don’t agree. In any case, yes - Christians may associate in a given place and time (often for the purposes of worship, mutual edification and fellowship, cooperation in ministry, accountability, etc.) into what we call “congregations” (several of which are mentioned in the NT), and in turn, congregations may associate with others (perhaps for the purposes of mutual edification, fellowship, cooperation and support in ministry, accountability, etc.) - individual Christians : congregations as congregations : denominations - although this didn’t happen in any significant sense until the 4th century. Of course, your denomination believes and claims otherwise.
- In the WEST, those “first generation” Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans - and perhaps Calvinists) DO tend to form much vis-a-vis Catholicism. We are your rejected, “kicked out” children, and our relationship to your denomination shows. Indeed, our Confessions are often stated particularly in the form of a response (positive or negative) to Catholicism. When I left Catholicism, I was quite surprised by how “Catholic” (big C) much of it is.
- I believe your denomination does MUCH - very much - that is right. I told my priest that I agreed with probably 95% of what I was taught, and most of the rest I don’t exactly disagree with it, I just can’t say I embrace it as a dogmatic fact. His response to me what that that’s “much better than most Catholics” and I think that’s true. I hold your denomination in ENORMOUS esteem. And not a day goes by that I don’t thank God for it. But that’s NOT the same as saying that everything it claims, teaches and does is affirmed by me (or I wouldn’t now be Protestant, lol). Even though it’s far from mutual, I regard your denomination as valid and sound, I regard all her Sacraments as fully valid, I regard Her ministries and ministers as valid and sound, I regard none of Her official teachings as heretical or UNbiblical, I regard all Her as my FULL, entirely unseparated, equally blessed and fully equal brothers and sisters in Christ. It’s far from mutual (which just makes me less “anti” than it is, lol) but that’s totally okay. I “get it.”
.
N
Nicea325
Guest
:ehh: I really do not understand the connection with the previous dialogue. Oh well. Ah no! We all have teachers and one is called the church. Yes the Holy Spirit which dwells within the church to be our teacher.Great, the pope is not your teacher but the Holy Spirit is. This is a good thing.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Your pursuit of inclusive language as it regards denomination will not bode well in trying to prove any of your arguments and in fact weaken every one of your propositions. To insist you have something to offer as it regards definitions is futile.
Yes, but even this isn’t a certainty. Even if one disregards the general protestant acceptance of a 66 book canon, the number of books of the canon still varies by communion.
And this is, at least in part, the point. There is not even agreement (amongst communions that claim equality of Sacred Tradition) regarding which councils are authoritative.
Remember the OT existed before Pentecost, and the writings of the NT were in existence very early on in the Church as well.
Jon
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: How do you go to an invisible church on Sunday? How do you know your at the right place on Sunday? So you don’ t go to a particular building on Sunday? So your faith group doesn’t own it’s building and land? They don’t have a bank account, web site, paid officials a pastor in charge. So your faith group doesn’t care what it’s members believe or don’t believe? So to your faith group TRUTH is relative to each individual to each his own truth. So you believe in disorganized religion. We see that disorganized religion clearly in thousands of contentious denominations. I see your group is so invisible you can’t even name it.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Hey, that’s wonderful that you are born again. Now, are you willing to be taught by the Spirit of God?:
"But you have received the Holy Spirit,[a] and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit* teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ."*** (1 John 2:3)
Yes. And God has sent many people into my life to make sure I hear him. My parents were the first people that the Spirit used to teach me. I had others, including teachers, the Church, my children. Some of the lessons were written, some were oral, some were in the metaphorical form of a baseball bat. I am very fortunate that the Holy Spirit has used many different ways of teaching me. Sometimes I’m a slow learner & He has to tell me over and over and over
G
gerhardc
Guest
Originally Posted by gerhardc
Perhaps the problem here is how “church” is defined? You seemingly define it as an organization that has a civil or legal persona (it can be sued), owns billions in property and other assets, spends millions of travelling and inaugurations of the officialdom, also propogates selfless service to the poor, has a headquaters, bank accounts, web site, paid officials, a CEO that is democratically elected and codes that determine that membership hinges on absolute agreement based on an interpretation of Scripture that also determines that no other party - individual or grouping - has the keys to interpretation of the Bible. There are those here who assert that this organization, proven to have done both good and evil, is the first and only representative of Jesus’ Kingdom on earth. The other side of the argument is that 1) Jesus’ Kingdom is not seen except through the eyes of the heart, and 2) Jesus’ Church constitutes those who believe in Him and humbly, joyeously and obediently follow Him in service irrespective of their mode of practice - Anglican, Wesleyan, Catholic, Charismatic - whatever.
Hope that helps.
Perhaps the problem here is how “church” is defined? You seemingly define it as an organization that has a civil or legal persona (it can be sued), owns billions in property and other assets, spends millions of travelling and inaugurations of the officialdom, also propogates selfless service to the poor, has a headquaters, bank accounts, web site, paid officials, a CEO that is democratically elected and codes that determine that membership hinges on absolute agreement based on an interpretation of Scripture that also determines that no other party - individual or grouping - has the keys to interpretation of the Bible. There are those here who assert that this organization, proven to have done both good and evil, is the first and only representative of Jesus’ Kingdom on earth. The other side of the argument is that 1) Jesus’ Kingdom is not seen except through the eyes of the heart, and 2) Jesus’ Church constitutes those who believe in Him and humbly, joyeously and obediently follow Him in service irrespective of their mode of practice - Anglican, Wesleyan, Catholic, Charismatic - whatever.
We’ve touched on this already. Christians are those who are born again (John 3:3-5), obey His word (1 John 2:3), are led by His Spirit (Romans 8:14). Where they go or not go on Sunday has nothing to do with it. If they are indeed obedient to His word they will be baptised (by any other believer) and will use communion in the right manner, remembering the Lord (refer 1 Corinthians 11). Many religious organizations – one of which is yours (but clearly not exclusively) – contains such people. Nevertheless, membership to a religious movement such as yours does not mean that you are born again (despite what might be taught), knowing the Scriptures does not mean you follow them in faith, and having access to the Spirit does not mean you are actually taught and guided by the Spirit. Thus, according to the above definition of “Church”, not all ‘church’-goers are actually Christians. They may say that they are but that does not mean they are indeed. The criteria is this: do they adhere to John 3:3-5, 1 John 2:3, Romans 8:14? That is pretty much it. In some movements, such as yours, I suspect, (based on some of the responses noted here), being taught by the Spirit is something that is seemingly reserved only for the learned/clergy, because only they have taught to have the ‘connection’ to hear right. If that were not true there would not have been a doctrine propagated that suggests that only the learned/clergy are infallible in their understanding of the Bible so as to teach doctrine. Now you know, I don’t see text in the Bible telling me that God sent His Spirit to teach only the learned/clergy. On the contrary, He sent His Spirit so that He could be a Helper for all who are born of the Spirit. But that, for some here, is too hard to believe. Yet, it does not make it untrue, it only makes it too hard to believe. I can understand that but I cannot support that. **Which religious movement’s meeting you attend on a Sunday should serve to contribute to you 1) being born again, 2) obeying the Word, 3) being led by the Spirit. If it does not do that you may very well need to repent of “dead works” **(refer Hebrews 6:1-3): “Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will[a] do if God permits.”
Hope that helps.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
If you teach, I pity the student. If you are a student I pity the teacher. You fall short on both. If you believe you impart truth that is not known, you don’t. If you believe that you are revealing something clear, it is clear only to you. What you believe and understand certainly must bring you joy for you spend so much time putting so many words out there that make sense to you. You must enjoy yourself.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But not the NT, right? All communions agree on this, yes?
And this was discerned by Tradition.
No disagreement here.
But so was the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas…
It wasn’t until the 5th century that the canon of Scripture was discerned and finalized. That’s 400 years without the Scriptures! Tradition was what preserved the Word of God.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
CCC - " 1076 The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the “dispensation of the mystery” the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, “until he comes.”
In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. H
He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls “the sacramental economy”; this is the communication (or “dispensation”) of the fruits of Christ’s Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church’s “sacramental” liturgy.
CCC - " 813 The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.”
The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.”
The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.” Unity is of the essence of the Church. "
CCC - " 833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.
These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”
CCC - " 1087 Thus the risen Christ, by giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles, entrusted to them his power of sanctifying: they became sacramental signs of Christ.
By the power of the same Holy Spirit they entrusted this power to their successors. This “apostolic succession” structures the whole liturgical life of the Church and is itself sacramental, handed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders.
The Founder of the Catholic Church was Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is HIS Church.
Mt 16:17-19
The line of Apostolic succession started with Peter calling to replace Judas. Acts 1:15-25.
The first Pope was Peter. Pope Benedict XVI is the 266th.
The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the “dispensation of the mystery” the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, “until he comes.”
In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. H
He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls “the sacramental economy”; this is the communication (or “dispensation”) of the fruits of Christ’s Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church’s “sacramental” liturgy.
CCC - " 813 The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.”
The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.”
The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.” Unity is of the essence of the Church. "
CCC - " 833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.
These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”
CCC - " 1087 Thus the risen Christ, by giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles, entrusted to them his power of sanctifying: they became sacramental signs of Christ.
By the power of the same Holy Spirit they entrusted this power to their successors. This “apostolic succession” structures the whole liturgical life of the Church and is itself sacramental, handed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders.
The Founder of the Catholic Church was Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is HIS Church.
Mt 16:17-19
The line of Apostolic succession started with Peter calling to replace Judas. Acts 1:15-25.
The first Pope was Peter. Pope Benedict XVI is the 266th.
G
gerhardc
Guest
In the CCC the Catholic movement testifies of itself. Does that make its testimony true? Of course not! Even Jesus Himself says that if only He testified of Himself His testimony would not be true. Try another angle.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Exactly! :extrahappy:But, let me revert to PR’s approach to a matter in another post: If you are looking for the verse that says “Holy Spirit” “interprets” “Scripture”, it can be found right after the verse that says “Peter is” “the Pope” “all Peter’s successors” “are Pope” and the verse after that which says “Pope” “infallible doctrine” “believe Pope” “always”.
So you see how your paradigm cannot apply without acknowledging the Catholic teachings regarding the pope and infallibility.
Either you proclaim that one need not find things explicitly in the Bible–and then you must acknowledge the Church’s teachings regarding the pope, et al–or you humbly admit that you cannot say that the Bible tells us who is to interpret it.
[SIGN1]Can’t have it both ways, gerhard. [/SIGN1]
Which one are you conceding: that you can’t find your tradition about the Bible telling us who can interpret it, or that the pope and infallibility are in the Bible?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Are you looking for another angle? Are you looking for truth?
- Status