Peter the "rock"?

[Howie01]

paul c:

I’m glad you understand our situation better…I can see from how you addressed me in this discussion that you are not ready to let go of personal interpretation and embrace the truth that comes through the church.

Paul, I said I understand your position, and I’ve demonstrated to your satisfaction that I do.

However, I didn’t say I believe your position to be true. IMO, your position is one of self-deception, and I say the same is true for anyone who holds the position you’ve set forth on this thread. So far that seems to be only you, as no Catholic has openly come out endorsing what you’ve been saying.

To say that people come to the RCC with no opinion as to the meaning of Scripture from prior study of Scripture is, to put it as kindly as I can, ludicrous.

What occurs with them is a change of their opinion and interpretation based upon further study.

You’ve not let go of private interpretation either. It’s just that, you still don’t understand.

 

[paul_c]

Paul, I said I understand your position, and I’ve demonstrated to your satisfaction that I do.

However, I didn’t say I believe your position to be true. IMO, your position is one of self-deception, and I say the same is true for anyone who holds the position you’ve set forth on this thread. So far that seems to be only you, as no Catholic has openly come out endorsing what you’ve been saying.

To say that people come to the RCC with no opinion as to the meaning of Scripture from prior study of Scripture is, to put it as kindly as I can, ludicrous.

What occurs with them is a change of their opinion and interpretation based upon further study.

You’ve not let go of private interpretation either. It’s just that, you still don’t understand.

You still don’t get it. I am willing to submit to the Catholic churches teachings, completely. If I were to interpret scripture and found that I was at odds with what the church teaches, I would immediately assume I was wrong and try to find out what I had missed. This is very rarely the case at this point, I find I am in complete lockstep with the churches teachings.

Contrast this with your own approach. If you interpret scripture and find that you are at odds with the church, wouldn’t you assume that you were right and the church was wrong?
It will only be when you are willing to submit to the truth, that you will be able to find it. Until that point, you will only fool yourself into thinking that the truth is as YOU see it.

And by the way, sixofseven clearly endorsed what I said in his last post. As hard as it is for you to believe, Most if not all devout Catholics will answer the same way I did, with humility and obedience to the Church. This is one of the basic differences in approach between Catholics and Protestants.

And if you step back from yourself for just as second, ask yourself who God appreciates more: those who humbly come before him looking for answers or those proud creatures who assume need no help in their search for God.

 

[JRKH]

Paul, I said I understand your position, and I’ve demonstrated to your satisfaction that I do.

However, I didn’t say I believe your position to be true. IMO, your position is one of self-deception, and I say the same is true for anyone who holds the position you’ve set forth on this thread. So far that seems to be only you, as no Catholic has openly come out endorsing what you’ve been saying.

To say that people come to the RCC with no opinion as to the meaning of Scripture from prior study of Scripture is, to put it as kindly as I can, ludicrous.

What occurs with them is a change of their opinion and interpretation based upon further study.

You’ve not let go of private interpretation either. It’s just that, you still don’t understand.

While I haven’t been able to read through all of the posts by paul c, I will certainly endorse the position that we submit to the authority of the Spirit Guided, Christ Founded, Church.
The simple reason for this is that CHRIST TOLD US TO!!! - - Remember??? "Tell it to the Church???

I also must note that, in a sense, you too submit to The Church because you accept the NT as The Church assembled it in 400 AD. It is by the authority of the Spirit Led Church that the 27 books of the NT are accepted as Scriptural.

Peace
James

 

[jcrichton]

You know ----
As I glance through these kinds of threads I am repeatedly reminded of Jesus admonision to take our disputes and, “Tell it To The Church”.

Here is Howie and others going over the same ground that has been covered so many times before and unable to come to an agreement. In this we have teh first two parts of Jesus instruction fulfilled for two have discussed the issue, now “Two or three” have piled in with no improvement. It’s time to follow Jesus command and “Tell it to the Church”.

Can we all agree that we will abide by what the Church decides???

Come-on now fellow Christians. Are we to Follow Christ’s own words???

Let’s here it.

Peace
James

Hi, James!

The problem is that those who reject the Church’s Authority will not yield and obey no matter how much Scripture is quoted to them and no matter how eloquent our auguments may be; they simply refuse to accept the only Church founded by Christ Jesus!

Pride kept Cain from making a better offering to Yahweh God; instead of seeking reason, he allowed his pride to blind him to the Truth and he ended up mudering his brother–he though that if the competion was eradicated God would be forced to accept his form of worship!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Howie01]

paul c:

You still don’t get it. I am willing to submit to the Catholic churches teachings, completely. If I were to interpret scripture and found that I was at odds with what the church teaches, I would immediately assume I was wrong and try to find out what I had missed. This is very rarely the case at this point, I find I am in complete lockstep with the churches teachings.

I told you, Paul, I get what you’re saying: you don’t have opinions about what scripture means, but you do have opinions on other things concerning the Catholic Church, and the veracity of her claims.

When your interpretation of scripture is found wanting, the opinion that drives the basis for your assumption that you’re wrong is not any opinion about what scripture means, because you have no opinion on that.

What drives the assumption that you’re wrong, is your study and interpretation of Church history, which has led you to the following opinion: the Catholic Church’s claims to “continuity of succession and doctrine are true.”

Further, you know that because you “know that Christ commissioned Peter to start his church,” and you also know that Christ “passed that commission on to his successors,” and you know both of those things because they’re “clear from scripture,” and you know the teaching is “clear from Scripture,” not because you have an opinion on what scripture means, because you don’t have an opinion on that.

You know it’s “clear from scripture” because of your willingness to submit to the church’s teaching, in faith.

 

[jcrichton]

You still don’t get it. I am willing to submit to the Catholic churches teachings, completely. If I were to interpret scripture and found that I was at odds with what the church teaches, I would immediately assume I was wrong and try to find out what I had missed. This is very rarely the case at this point, I find I am in complete lockstep with the churches teachings.

Contrast this with your own approach. If you interpret scripture and find that you are at odds with the church, wouldn’t you assume that you were right and the church was wrong?
It will only be when you are willing to submit to the truth, that you will be able to find it. Until that point, you will only fool yourself into thinking that the truth is as YOU see it.

And by the way, sixofseven clearly endorsed what I said in his last post. As hard as it is for you to believe, Most if not all devout Catholics will answer the same way I did, with humility and obedience to the Church. This is one of the basic differences in approach between Catholics and Protestants.

And if you step back from yourself for just as second, ask yourself who God appreciates more: those who humbly come before him looking for answers or those proud creatures who assume need no help in their search for God.

Hi, Paul!

You are correct! Others, as myself, have been following your exchange and support you–Howie has demonstrated that he is not interested in anything but his own belief system, as erroneous as it is!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I told you, Paul, I get what you’re saying: you don’t have opinions about what scripture means, but you do have opinions on other things concerning the Catholic Church, and the veracity of her claims.

When your interpretation of scripture is found wanting, the opinion that drives the basis for your assumption that you’re wrong is not any opinion about what scripture means, because you have no opinion on that.

What drives the assumption that you’re wrong, is your study and interpretation of Church history, which has led you to the following opinion: the Catholic Church’s claims to “continuity of succession and doctrine are true.”

Further, you know that because you “know that Christ commissioned Peter to start his church,” and you also know that Christ “passed that commission on to his successors,” and you know both of those things because they’re “clear from scripture,” and you know the teaching is “clear from Scripture,” not because you have an opinion on what scripture means, because you don’t have an opinion on that, but you know it’s “clear from scripture” for one reason only, because of your willingness to submit to the church’s teaching, in faith.

Hi, Howie!

…it is interesting how clearly you understand Paul’s position… do you understand yours as clearly? …when a non-Catholic Christian, say Eiwoh, does not agree with the interpretation of his/her pastor/leader he/she simply moves on to another “church” which does support his/her psition; if a large enough number of members feel the same way as Eiwoh, they colloborate with each other and declare themselves a “church;” as time goes on, if all goes well this “church” pronounces that they are the true church of Christ; however, each member retains the right to dissent, seek a different “church,” and/or start a new “true church of Christ!”

…yeah, I think Paul too understand your position oh so very clearly: you are your own authority!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JRKH]

Hi, James!

The problem is that those who reject the Church’s Authority will not yield and obey no matter how much Scripture is quoted to them and no matter how eloquent our auguments may be; they simply refuse to accept the only Church founded by Christ Jesus!

Pride kept Cain from making a better offering to Yahweh God; instead of seeking reason, he allowed his pride to blind him to the Truth and he ended up mudering his brother–he though that if the competion was eradicated God would be forced to accept his form of worship!

Maran atha!

Angel

I know that I am shouting in the wilderness. The fact that Howie and others ignore such posts as mine are a clear indication of the fact. We can only hope that by making such appeals, based entirely upon the clear intstruction of Christ Himself, that a seed is planted that will bear fruit in someone’s heart through the working of the Holy Spirit.

Many of these people are sincere in their faith and I don’t wish to disparage that. However it always amazes me that an interpretation held and accepted for 1500 years can suddenly be viewed has having been wrong all of that time. After all for the first 1500 years of Christianity it was accepted by all that the Church was bothj visible and authoritative. I don’t see how a non-catholic can explain this away. Did the Holy Spirit mis-lead everyone for 1500 years??

We all must deal with pride. Those of us in the Church are really no different in this regard. The pride may take different forms but it is still there. After all the term “cafeteria catholics” doesn’t refer to a dining hall.
I really think that this is one of the big reasons God instituted The Church. In order to draw closer to Him we need to submit to the authority that he instituted on earth. When we do that - when we recognize and accept the authority of The Church - there is much peace and far greater freedom.

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

I know that I am shouting in the wilderness. The fact that Howie and others ignore such posts as mine are a clear indication of the fact.
Peace
James

I ignored your post on Mt 18, because, as usual, your one more Catholic who doesn’t understand the purpose of the passage. The purpose of the passage is Church discipline. The pedophile scandal clearly indicates that your church didn’t understand Mt 18, and still doesn’t. Had your leadership understood Mt 18, that scandal would have been nipped in the bud. Instead, church leadership became complicit in the crime by hidding the culprits, allowing them to sin again, all the while squandering hundreds of millions of dollars in ensuing lawsuits.

Seems to me, rather than shouting in the wilderness, you may be affiliated with it.

JRKH:

However it always amazes me that an interpretation held and accepted for 1500 years can suddenly be viewed has having been wrong all of that time.

If history determined truth, you’d have a legitimate gripe, but history doesn’t determine truth.

 

[paul_c]

I ignored your post on Mt 18, because, as usual, your one more Catholic who doesn’t understand the purpose of the passage. The purpose of the passage is Church discipline. The pedophile scandal clearly indicates that your church didn’t understand Mt 18, and still doesn’t. Had your leadership understood Mt 18, that scandal would have been nipped in the bud. Instead, church leadership became complicit in the crime by hidding the culprits, allowing them to sin again, all the while squandering hundreds of millions of dollars in ensuing lawsuits.

Seems to me, rather than shouting in the wilderness, you may be affiliated with it.

If history determined truth, you’d have a legitimate gripe, but history doesn’t determine truth.

Howie, don’t change the subject. The simple fact remains that you, in your arrogance, believe your inspiration on scripture is superior to that of the Church which brought that scripture into being. Until you can accept the truth with humility, it will elude you…

 

[Howie01]

Howie, don’t change the subject. The simple fact remains that you, in your arrogance, believe your inspiration on scripture is superior to that of the Church which brought that scripture into being. Until you can accept the truth with humility, it will elude you…

Truth is not arrogant, Paul, as you said earlier, truth is truth, and I know the truth.

 

[paul_c]

Truth is not arrogant, Paul, as you said earlier, truth is truth, and I know the truth.

I’m sure you think you know the truth.

 

[JRKH]

I ignored your post on Mt 18, because, as usual, your one more Catholic who doesn’t understand the purpose of the passage. The purpose of the passage is Church discipline.

Exactly - How very Catholic of you to acknowlege this.
It absolutly IS about Church discipline. And how to resolve issues that come up. Just look at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts for an example. The issue could not be resolved locally - It was taken to the Church Leadership in Jerusalem and the issue resolved. Everyone then submitted to the decision. This is discipline.

The pedophile scandal clearly indicates that your church didn’t understand Mt 18, and still doesn’t. Had your leadership understood Mt 18, that scandal would have been nipped in the bud. Instead, church leadership became complicit in the crime by hidding the culprits, allowing them to sin again, all the while squandering hundreds of millions of dollars in ensuing lawsuits.

While I will not argue the point that the Church could and should have handled this issue earlier and better than they did, it is far too complicated an issue to get into here.
As to it’s relevance to the current discussion re: Mt 18, I think your stretching and oversimplifying.

Originally Posted by JRKH
However it always amazes me that an interpretation held and accepted for 1500 years can suddenly be viewed has having been wrong all of that time.

If history determined truth, you’d have a legitimate gripe, but history doesn’t determine truth.

Your right Howie, history doesn’t determine truth.
The problem is that we have a lot of people trying to figure out what the Bible means as though it has never been interpreted before. Like it is some ancient book just recently discovered, written by some unknown civilization and everyone is trying to figure out what the meaning is.

The fact is that these books have been written and interpreted for 2 millenia - tracable all the way back to the original authors in most cases, and to those who were personally trained by those who recorded the books (I’m speaking here of the NT books).
Since we have this wonderful lineage (Also called history) of teachings back to the founding fathers who personally knew the Son of God in the flesh, as well as those whom they personally trained, why should we try to “re-invent the wheel” as it were.
It seems to me that these are the best people to explain what they meant. And they did so.
They founded and built the Church upon the firm foundation of Christ and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, and submitting to the Authority of that Church in True Christian Humilty and Discipline - Just as commanded by Christ in Mt. 18.

Make sense???

Peace
James

 

[jcrichton]

I know that I am shouting in the wilderness. The fact that Howie and others ignore such posts as mine are a clear indication of the fact. We can only hope that by making such appeals, based entirely upon the clear intstruction of Christ Himself, that a seed is planted that will bear fruit in someone’s heart through the working of the Holy Spirit.

I think that we must not only consider the direct poster him/herself but those who simply visit the forum and read through the post–this is one of the major reasons why our replies be consistent with the Church’s Doctrines.

Many of these people are sincere in their faith and I don’t wish to disparage that. However it always amazes me that an interpretation held and accepted for 1500 years can suddenly be viewed has having been wrong all of that time. After all for the first 1500 years of Christianity it was accepted by all that the Church was bothj visible and authoritative. I don’t see how a non-catholic can explain this away. Did the Holy Spirit mis-lead everyone for 1500 years??

Exactly… it seems that reason (man’s wisdom) supersedes the Holy Spirit!

We all must deal with pride. Those of us in the Church are really no different in this regard. The pride may take different forms but it is still there. After all the term “cafeteria catholics” doesn’t refer to a dining hall.
I really think that this is one of the big reasons God instituted The Church. In order to draw closer to Him we need to submit to the authority that he instituted on earth. When we do that - when we recognize and accept the authority of The Church - there is much peace and far greater freedom.

I concur! “Catholic” does not mean a huge umbrella that grants Salvation on demand! This past presidential election demonstrated that too many “Catholics” believe that they can ignore the Authority of the Church or even (as in the case of the most public ones) speak for the Church–interstingly enough, everything they claimed was what society wanted to hear not what the Church Teaches!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MDK]

Hi, Howie!

…it is interesting how clearly you understand Paul’s position… do you understand yours as clearly? …when a non-Catholic Christian, say Eiwoh, does not agree with the interpretation of his/her pastor/leader he/she simply moves on to another “church” which does support his/her psition; if a large enough number of members feel the same way as Eiwoh, they colloborate with each other and declare themselves a “church;” as time goes on, if all goes well this “church” pronounces that they are the true church of Christ; however, each member retains the right to dissent, seek a different “church,” and/or start a new “true church of Christ!”

…yeah, I think Paul too understand your position oh so very clearly: you are your own authority!

Maran atha!

Angel

You are correct. Howie01 lists himself as a “believer”. But one must ask a “believer” in what? Certainly, he believes in a religion created by himself. What good is that?

 

[MDK]

Truth is not arrogant, Paul, as you said earlier, truth is truth, and I know the truth.

The truth is that which describes reality. So far, you’re sadly out of touch with reality that is Christ and His Church, that He established. How is this truth?

 

[jcrichton]

You are correct. Howie01 lists himself as a “believer”. But one must ask a “believer” in what? Certainly, he believes in a religion created by himself. What good is that?

What is truly sad is that there are many people, specially the younger generations, that chose not to accept anything but their own conceived or remastered idea of God–worst? …they eagerly promote their ideas even when is evident that they are contradicting the Sacred Scriptures.

We must pray, always!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jean8]

Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. The ACTUAL words in scripture ARE:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things:

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

I think we both can agree 4 is not an option.
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

One would then reasonable deduct that it is point 1 or 3.

Point 3 is makes direct reference to Ephesians 2: 19-20
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

So here, the bible is literally telling us what the “rock” is…

I was sent this as a email from someone trying very hard to talk me out of believing all things Catholic.

The rock? what scripture?
Peter was confessing what he believed. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation., not Peter.

jean

 

[jean8]

Truth is not arrogant, Paul, as you said earlier, truth is truth, and I know the truth.

howie,
Mt.16:13-20 this tells us the story of the Rock of our salvation. All believers are joined i nto his church by faith in Jesus Christ. as savior. This is the faith that Peter was confessing when Jesus asked Peter, “who do you say that I am.?”
Peter answered “You are the messiah, the Son of the Living God”
This passage has always been a subject of great debate. If you have a Bible look this up and find out why.

God bless you as you search for the truth in His word,
jean

 

[YADA]

… Your saying I should accept the RCC because it has a long history.

Reformed theology has a long history.

Why shouldn’t I accept Reformed theology on the basis of its long history?

WOW, what an interesting thread … I just had to get to the end before I jumped back to this comment by Howie …

Reformed theology [or at least that of the original Protestants ] has a faily long history … far longer then most of the Americanized Bible Church Movement from which your theology finds its roots … [500 years or so]

Reading your posts - I am thinking that would be a good start for you … study and accept the teachings of the early reformers … that will bring you closer to the first century christian understanding and practice … from there, perhaps the spirit will wuide you home to the faith and Good News of Salvationin Christ Jesus entrusted to Peter with the apostles to spread throughout the world from age to age … The Church that Satan cannot prevail against …

At least you will get back to several key foundational beliefs …

And away from the moral relativism and personalizations of the modern “I can have it my way” version …