R
- Status
N
ncgolf
Guest
Answer the question … I didn’t make the statement Christ did. Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church he created … and you say “We no longer have True churches with ALL True doctrines.”
Reconcile your statement with Christ’s … bringing up Jews and their scripture is fait accompli … a simple evasion tactic.
G
guanophore
Guest
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
Do you trust what Catholics are saying about their own beliefs? Do you see where they are coming from—why to something that’s looks un-biblical to you is perfectly rational to them?
R
RedBert
Guest
I’m not following your point there.
Are you saying a human making a mistake is like the gates of hell?
N
ncgolf
Guest
You don’t see the conflict between your statement, “We no longer have True churches with ALL True doctrines” and Christ’s promise to protect His Church.
Christ’s promise is that a true church would always be present, protected from teaching error or false doctrine. Your statement contradicts Christ’s promise … if there is not a true church that can teach true doctrines then the gates of hell have prevailed. What good is learning half truth for what half is truth and the other lies.
This true church is still present …still here though many reject it. Your statement contradicts Christ’s own words and I am surprised you do not see it.
R
RedBert
Guest
OF COURSE I DO!!!
I can “argue” both sides of most doctrins.
I have read (and studied) the Bible also , and I can see how others can reach a conclusion different than mine on many doctrins.
MY issue is with the OP
But it would be one thing to say I don’t agree with someone’s view and I quite another to say " I have …yet to find anything that supports this idea" …And that is what the OP claimed
R
RedBert
Guest
I disagree with that premise : i don’t see that implied from your quoted scripture.
a quick search of commentaries do not support your view
…Biblical tradition had often spoken of “building up” the community of God (as in Ps 51:18; 69:35; Jer 24:6; 31:4, 28). The gates of Hades is a familiar Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death. The words used here suggest that death itself assaults Christ’s church, but death cannot crush us (Ladd 1974b:116). The church will endure until Christ’s return, and no opposition, even widespread martyrdom of Christians or the oppression of the final antichrist (compare Jeremias 1968:927), can prevent the ultimate triumph of God’s purposes in history.
…The gates of hell - As gates and walls were the strength of cities, and as courts of judicature were held in their gates, this phrase properly signifies the power and policy of Satan and his instruments. Shall not prevail against it - Not against the Church universal, so as to destroy it. And they never did. There hath been a small remnant in all ages.
…and the gates of hell-“of Hades,” or, the unseen world; meaning, the gates of Death: in other words, “It shall never perish.” Some explain it of “the assaults of the powers of darkness”; but though that expresses a glorious truth, probably the former is the sense here.
sorry
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
Where are you getting this commentary? It’s always good in apologetics to cite your sources so other people can see it as well and make their own conclusions.
N
ncgolf
Guest
What specific protections is Christ giving and why? Why did he make this statement to Peter?
This does not apply here since after Christ’s resurrection … death has no power over us. Martydom is the seed of the Church so that doesn’t hold … that is the irony of Christianity … one loses their life to keep it and yes the Church will prevail but which one?
How could a Church be destroyed … what would be indications of this possibly happening … what would be the symptoms? What is Satan trying to destroy?
You see this in generalities … I see it as a direct statement that the Church will be assaulted by any means necessary. Look for a Church under assault worldwide.
These commentaries do not negate my original premise … Christ promised to protect his church from assaults from the netherworld … he did not promise to protect all churches. You are right in a sense though that the Church universal will be protected … the rub is to discern where that is … discern what qualites make up the Church universal so one can recognize it and not be duped.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Well, let’s see what we can do for you…
Paul warns us not to exceed scripture. We are to abide only within scripture to the exclusion of oral tradition…
Luke mentions uninspired gospels by Christians, oral tradition and concludes telling Theophilus that it is Scripture, what will let him know for sure what truth is.
Here the Lord repeatedly refers to that which is written, defeating the devil.
We do not need additional explanation, because all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
The Bible is absolutely sufficient… we are being thoroughly furnished unto all good works…
It’s not just a few good things that come out of the teaching. We are being equipped for EVERY good work.
The Bible is inspired and it is from God. He is omniscient and He is capable of declaring Scripture good and profitable before the last book is written.
Even though the apostles themselves were inspired with authentic oral revelation, they pointed the people to the Scriptures to determine truth at all times. Plain oral tradition is useless without the witness and testimony of Scripture.
Well… Guess that’s it.
P
Philthy
Guest
This amounts to the white flag of surrender for Protestantism IMHO.
If you arent prepared to provide us with an infallible list of said “true doctrines” and said “false doctrines” then you are basically admitting that you dont know the truths that you claim can be “derived from Scripture”.
N
nuntym
Guest
I wonder why from your search of commentaries you forgot to consider 1 Timothy 3:15: “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
If there is no church existing today with all the Truth in it, then that means that the Church that St Paul knew, the Church that is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, has succumbed to the gates of Hades, doesn’t it?
EDIT: And oh, where is this small remnant?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, I surely do feel sorry for all the people who lived between AD 33 and AD 380. They never had “all Scripture”, you know. They would have heard some, and they would also have heard other works, some of them quite inspiring like the Didache, but not God-breathed Scripture. . .thing is. . .**between AD 33 and AD 380, how did the people KNOW what was ‘God breathed Scripture’ which made them ‘equipped for all good works’ and what was NOT?
Hmmm???**
And then, tell me how you, Janet, can tell me that 'Scripture says" that in John 6 Jesus is speaking ‘figuratively’ when He speaks of His flesh being real food . . . even though every single solitary Christian in communion with the Church --that includes our brethren the Orthodox to this day–from AD 33 to AD 2009 so far–read Scripture as saying He spoke **literally.
Hmmmm?
**For 1500 years, Christians taught Christ’s teachings, which were presented both orally and in Scripture.
Now, if Scripture is ‘sufficient’, what you teach Scripture saying today should be what those early Christians taught then, right?
So how come y’all made so many changes? Y’all carp at the Catholics and say, ‘change change change’ but you look back at what St. Paul taught of the Eucharist, and you look at the testimony (and it’s WRITTEN too) of Christians in AD 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500 . . .every single one of them taught that the Eucharist was the Body of Christ. Not a ‘symbol’ of His body, His real Body.
And then, suddenly, somewhere along in the 1500s, a few people (who want to get rid of clergy, and figure that since a real BIG job for a priest is to confect the Eucharist, IF you start arguing that the Eucharist 'aint really god" then you can argue you don’t NEED priests). . .start to teach a ‘different gospel’. …
So. . .either for 1500 years all Christians were wrong (including St. Paul and Jesus Himself) until these St. Einsteins somehow got the ‘truth’. . .or else these ‘protesters’ are wrong. And if they’re wrong in what they say Scripture says on John 6. . .then they can be–and are–wrong elsewhere–and the whole “Bible says” argument collapses. As it should. . .
Hmmm???**
And then, tell me how you, Janet, can tell me that 'Scripture says" that in John 6 Jesus is speaking ‘figuratively’ when He speaks of His flesh being real food . . . even though every single solitary Christian in communion with the Church --that includes our brethren the Orthodox to this day–from AD 33 to AD 2009 so far–read Scripture as saying He spoke **literally.
Hmmmm?
**For 1500 years, Christians taught Christ’s teachings, which were presented both orally and in Scripture.
Now, if Scripture is ‘sufficient’, what you teach Scripture saying today should be what those early Christians taught then, right?
So how come y’all made so many changes? Y’all carp at the Catholics and say, ‘change change change’ but you look back at what St. Paul taught of the Eucharist, and you look at the testimony (and it’s WRITTEN too) of Christians in AD 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500 . . .every single one of them taught that the Eucharist was the Body of Christ. Not a ‘symbol’ of His body, His real Body.
And then, suddenly, somewhere along in the 1500s, a few people (who want to get rid of clergy, and figure that since a real BIG job for a priest is to confect the Eucharist, IF you start arguing that the Eucharist 'aint really god" then you can argue you don’t NEED priests). . .start to teach a ‘different gospel’. …
So. . .either for 1500 years all Christians were wrong (including St. Paul and Jesus Himself) until these St. Einsteins somehow got the ‘truth’. . .or else these ‘protesters’ are wrong. And if they’re wrong in what they say Scripture says on John 6. . .then they can be–and are–wrong elsewhere–and the whole “Bible says” argument collapses. As it should. . .
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Janet :tiphat:
Perhaps in your zeal to prove your point you overlooked the fact that Paul never mentions the word “scripture” in the entire chapter from 1Cor 4:6. Even if we assume he is speaking of Scripture, do you think he’s speaking of the OT?
Once again, in an apparent attempt to justify your preconceived position you are inserting terms that simply were not used by Luke. Luke mentions nothing of uninspired gospels, oral traditions, Scripture. Luke never gives a hint that his writings are to be treated as “Scripture”. His intro to his Gospel clearly indicates he is simply recording information second hand from other eye witnesses - since he was not an Apostle - and nowhere does he mention that his writings are inspired, btw.
Christ also spoke things that were not in Scripture…
I dont think that you meant to imply that the Apostles preaching of the Gospel had no effect until the 4th century when it was definitively declared as Scripture, did you?
N
nuntym
Guest
R
RedBert
Guest
because that was the scripture I was asked to comment on,
R
RedBert
Guest
so did I miss where someone answered who or what was the infallible authority for the Jews when interpreting their scriptures?
J
Janet1983
Guest
Of course he can quote Scripture… He might be hating God to the utmost, but he can still quote scripture, even though he is trying to deceive Jesus here by using it… The pharisees did the same thing and this does not discredit Scripture either.Hi Janet
If I may add, Philthy?
Actually this is one of parts of the Bible that best refutes sola scriptura. For in this part of the Gospel, it shows that even the devil can quote Scripture! He can use the Bible! (Matthew 4:6, what I highlighted above).
The Lord was able to defeat the devil because the Lord has the authority to interpret Scripture. Jesus is the Word of God (John chapter 1) so it is He who can interpret Scripture correctly. And He passed this on through the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and they to their successors, right down to our bishops in communion with the Pope today, as the Church’s Magisterium, the Church’s authority to teach.
N
nuntym
Guest
- Status