Peters restoration by the Lord Jesus – Feed my sheep

[brb2]

Again I reiterate to anyone; until you focus on the message and not the messenger, you will never know Christ.

I mean, where will you find “Pope”, Roman Catholic", Pontiff", Purgatory, indulgence, perpetual virginity of Mary, rosary, praying to anyone but God the Father, immaculate conception in the Bible? you won’t; so you must put your faith in the hands of men and not in God because the only special revelation is the Bible, the Protestant Bible,

]

Tanner …

The message is useless [foolishness] … w/o the messenger and his HS. NO ONE comes to the Father, except via the SON. To know Christ [or to be known by him] is to know his message.

And, re: your long litany of Catholic errors … again you are wrong. Revelation comes to us in many ways …but, especially thru the Church. Even scriptures tell us to take our issues/problems … to the Church !

Randy & I are both Protestant converts to the Universal Church … we know what you are going up against Keep asking your questions … you will be rewarded.

 

[Tanner9188]

PROOFS of Peters Primacy from the Bible

***The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

1. Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
2. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42: Mt 16:18).
3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
7. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
8. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
9. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
10. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
11. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
12. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
14. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
15. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
18. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
19. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
20. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
21. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24)
    .
22. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
23. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
24. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
25. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

29: 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt. Chapter 23)

Note: While the bible does not speak specifically of the “ Chair of Peter,” this term gets it’s origin from “the Chair of Moses,” which EVERYONE KNEW WAS THE “SEAT OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.”

1. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16). ‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government.***

The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

Truth is THEE Truth friend,

Love and prayers,

**You have some real deficient theology; you’re more out there than your Church IMO. I’ll pray for an act of God on your behalf; you’re are bringing severe punishment on yourself by mishandling the Word of God; do you have any fear of God whatsoever?

Please don’t ask me any more questions; I will not be answering them for your sake. Anyone who cares even a tiny bit about you should do the same for your sake…I know you won’t take that as being sincere, but as God is my witness, I say this out of fear for you.

May the Lord have great mercy on you.

Tanner**

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner …

The message is useless [foolishness] … w/o the messenger and his HS. NO ONE comes to the Father, except via the SON. To know Christ [or to be known by him] is to know his message.

And, re: your long litany of Catholic errors … again you are wrong. Revelation comes to us in many ways …but, especially thru the Church. Even scriptures tell us to take our issues/problems … to the Church !

Randy & I are both Protestant converts to the Universal Church … we know what you are going up against Keep asking your questions … you will be rewarded.

**Solid answer and still proving my point. Tell me the ways that revelation comes to you; I like a good story concerning mysticism once in a while and have not heard one in a while; so please, other than creation and special revelation contained in the Bible, what other avenues and experiences have you had in relation to extra revelation.

I don’t know your background as far as the actual doctrines that both of you were taught, but if they were of the fundamental variety and you sat and listened for any amount of time and turned away; then you may be of the Hebrews 6:4-6 variety. I hope and pray that is not the case.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner-

I have explained to you what the Word of God says and pointed out the logical inconsistencies in the “Restoration Theory” that you and many non-Catholics propogate in an effort to undermine the God-given authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, in particular. You provided nothing to disprove what I wrote, but instead you have diverted the discussion.

Randy what you said was the “Catholic Church” teaches this, now it is God teaching this; which is it. (Edited)

**You cite the same passages I did, but your reasoning is because the “Church teaches” that. That is no defense at all. I know why you are no longer a Protestant; if you were one at all. I will have to admit that your faith is much greater than mine.

Where does the Bible say the Catholic Church was God given and where does it say the Pope as head over the church of God anywhere in the universe? I can find a lot of churches listed in the Bible and the Lord Himself mentions 7 specific ones in Revelation, but there was never any mention of Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church. **** (Edited)**

Tanner, do you honestly think that Catholics have no idea who Jesus Christ is? It appears to me that you are so focused on disproving Catholicism that you miss what we actually believe and teach about Him. I agree that the authority to bind and loose was given to all of the Apostles - the first leaders of the Church which came to be called the “Catholic Church” no later than the end of the first century, but I reject that this authority has been given equally to all believers. Jesus was speaking to a specific group of men…not to a crowd on a hillside. Your interpretation of 'binding and loosing" is a necessary but false requirement of your theology.

**What does it matter what I think; it doesn’t. It does matter to God; and He wants all of a person, not part of the person. I’m sure He would be in agreement according to His own word.

How in the world you are able to ignore the practical reality of loosing and binding in light of what you are taught and how you can ignore that in Matthew 18; He had to be speaking to at least one family, which means there was a group other than the apostles there; is really beyond my understanding except God said it would be this way and I do appreciate the way in which God uses you to strengthen my faith in His word. Amen!**

We know the message, thank you very much. YOU, however, do not know the Church which Jesus promised to build and maintains to this very day.

The same place you find the word "trinity’, Tanner. Do you really hang your confidence that Catholicism is not the one true Church founded by Jesus on such flimsy reasoning?

**If you say you know the message; then you have a head knowledge and nothing more.

The true church of God has yet to be revealed; so I don’t know what manner of church you speak of. If you look in the Bible you will see that the whole of creation waits for this revealing.**

I would be happy to address each of these misunderstandings in separate threads…handling your shotgun blasts in a single post would be impossible because there is too much to correct.

Thanks, but I really do not like to see people struggle and I don’t want to be responsible for bringing more judgment upon the heads of those who mishandle the Word of God so blatantly.

 

[jlhargus]

Solid answer and still proving my point. Tell me the ways that revelation comes to you; I like a good story concerning mysticism once in a while and have not heard one in a while; so please, other than creation and special revelation contained in the Bible, what other avenues and experiences have you had in relation to extra revelation.

JL: Everytime an adult is converted it is because of a direct revelation from the HS. Also anyone who has the gift of prophecy has revelation from the HS. God can and does give private revelation when HE wills. Those revelations are not binding on anyone but the one who received it. The revelation of the Gospel or deposit of faith was once delivered to the Saints and no new revelation can add or take away from that revelation.

**

JL: Well again I find you contradict your OSAS doctrine. I guess its hard to keep track when you yourself don’t really believe OSAS. Accusing Brb2 and friend of falling away after being enlightened and having the HS, now that doesn’t sound like OSAS does it? I guess the same can be said for you also leaving the Catholic Church for a Calvary Chapel Vineyard Outreach.

 

[Tanner9188]

Another cut and paste. Lovely. I guess you were scrambling to answer my question, and you think you have come up with the answer.

I am not frustrated at all; in fact, I could argue that the Church itself is “God-breathed”.

John 20:22
And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Jesus “breathed on them”, and Jesus is God. Therefore, the first leaders of the Catholic Church were “God-breathed”. The author of the website you visited has given you a weak argument (a dodge, really). Does that trouble you? It should. The best answer that you can come up with is no answer but an evasion of the question, Tanner. Think deeply about that…sola scriptura was one of the “pillars” of the reformation. You don’t want to discover that it’s all a theological house of cards.

But again, you are attempting to divert the discussion and shift the burden to me. I’m having none of it.

1. Where does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the believer?
2. Where does the Bible teach that Jesus merely “restored” Peter instead of commissioning him as the shepherd of the flock?

Is this when they received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If so; where is the water?

What website are you referring to; I’ll have to look at that?

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: Everytime an adult is converted it is because of a direct revelation from the HS. Also anyone who has the gift of prophecy has revelation from the HS. God can and does give private revelation when HE wills. Those revelations are not binding on anyone but the one who received it. The revelation of the Gospel or deposit of faith was once delivered to the Saints and no new revelation can add or take away from that revelation.

**How do you know the conversion was real or not; the argument you Catholics like to throw out there all the time? If it is private revelation and it becomes public, then it is no longer private and not verifiable in any way. Who has the gift of prophecy? I have only seen phonies on TV church channels. And the Lord warned about such things; and told those people to depart from Him.

So the revelation of the gospel is the “deposit of faith”; many of your Catholic friends would disagree with that definition.

Have anything better?**

JL: Well again I find you contradict your OSAS doctrine. I guess its hard to keep track when you yourself don’t really believe OSAS. Accusing Brb2 and friend of falling away after being enlightened and having the HS, now that doesn’t sound like OSAS does it? I guess the same can be said for you also leaving the Catholic Church for a Calvary Chapel Vineyard Outreach.

Every time you post you show you ignorance of Scripture. Anyone who “falls away from the gospel message” has in effect rejected the gospel; this is not a Christian. Do a word search on fallen away, you will find it a few times and never in relation to a Christian.

 

[jlhargus]

How do you know the conversion was real or not; the argument you Catholics like to throw out there all the time? If it is private revelation and it becomes public, then it is no longer private and not verifiable in any way. Who has the gift of prophecy? I have only seen phonies on TV church channels. And the Lord warned about such things; and told those people to depart from Him. So the revelation of the gospel is the “deposit of faith”; many of your Catholic friends would disagree with that definition. Have anything better?

JL: You make no sense whatsoever here, I guess you couldn’t answer so you ramble.

Every time you post you show you ignorance of Scripture. Anyone who “falls away from the gospel message” has in effect rejected the gospel; this is not a Christian. Do a word search on fallen away, you will find it a few times and never in relation to a Christian.

JL: You do the word search on fallen away and prove your point if you can. We both know you can’t or you would have posted your evidence. Why so angry and rude, I told you over a year ago hatred for the Church would consume you. It can cause to lose your faith altogether. I do pray for you from time to time.

Yes anyone who “FALLS AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL” has in effect rejected the gospel. Tell me how can one fall from something they don’t first have? Again what were you suggesting Brb2 and friend were falling from? When you made the following statement, “* Your statement contradicts OSAS.

If one hears and rejects the gospel they have not FALLEN from anything, have they? They simply REMAIN in their FALLEN STATE. If they are enlightened and share in the Holy Spirit then they are Holy Spirit filled believers and CAN FALL AWAY, because they have first possed what they have fallen from. Heb6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.*

 

[brb2]

**

Randy what you said was the “Catholic Church” teaches this, now it is God teaching this; which is it. (Edited)**

I will have to admit that your faith is much greater than mine.

Because Randy KNOWS his scripture … & Church history. And, because Randy NOW receives the grace of Universal Church Eucharist on weekly basis.

There is Power in the Eucharistic Blood … that you have YET to discover. Christ & his priests … ‘Feed their Sheep’ on regular basis.

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: You make no sense whatsoever here, I guess you couldn’t answer so you ramble.

JL: You do the word search on fallen away and prove your point if you can. We both know you can’t or you would have posted your evidence. Why so angry and rude, I told you over a year ago hatred for the Church would consume you. It can cause to lose your faith altogether. I do pray for you from time to time.

Yes anyone who “FALLS AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL” has in effect rejected the gospel. Tell me how can one fall from something they don’t first have? Again what were you suggesting Brb2 and friend were falling from? When you made the following statement, “* Your statement contradicts OSAS.

If one hears and rejects the gospel they have not FALLEN from anything, have they? They simply REMAIN in their FALLEN STATE. If they are enlightened and share in the Holy Spirit then they are Holy Spirit filled believers and CAN FALL AWAY, because they have first possed what they have fallen from. Heb6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.*

Based on that false theory if you look at Hebrews 6:1-9, but particular attention to versus 4-6, then based on what you just claimed; you would have invented a new "Luther sounding theology one might label “Once Lost Always Lost” (OLAL).

4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and {then} have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

If the writer is speaking to Christians, then they can never come back (OLAL). If the writer is speaking to non-believers, then they were exposed to all the truth of the gospel and participated with the people of God, then rejected or turned away from the right path, which is what “fallen away” refers to, which describes an apostate or plain unbeliever. Either way you slice it; you are mislead by some false teaching on this or ignorance. Doesn’t have to remain that way however.

Also, think about the parable of the soils; are the first 3 soils believers or unbelievers; very similar.

Side note: Oh; you are the one that thinks I am , if I recall, Rev. Kevin or Keith? Did you contact Michael Francis as I mentioned earlier to resolve you preconceived notion.

 

[Tanner9188]

Because Randy KNOWS his scripture … & Church history. And, because Randy NOW receives the grace of Universal Church Eucharist on weekly basis.

There is Power in the Eucharistic Blood … that you have YET to discover. Christ & his priests … ‘Feed their Sheep’ on regular basis.

Randy; looks like you have a fan club in this one. I believe Brb2 has even greater faith than you do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Where does the Bible say the Catholic Church was God given and where does it say the Pope as head over the church of God anywhere in the universe? **

And I will also ask you a question: How many churches did Jesus promise to build? The answer is found in Matthew 16-18-19. Jesus has only built one Church, and He did so upon Peter, the rock, just as He promised. Therefore, Jesus built one Church and that Church has a name; it has been called the Catholic Church since the end of the first century. This is historical fact.

As for the Pope being the head of the Church, I would point you to the same passage in Matthew as well as to John 21:15-19.

**

I can find a lot of churches listed in the Bible and the Lord Himself mentions 7 specific ones in Revelation, but there was never any mention of Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church.**Oh, an argument from silence…how powerful.

The Churches mentioned in Revelation are specific local congregations - today, we might refer to them as parishes or dioceses. They are not separate “Churches”, however; they were all part of the one Body of Christ, the universal or “Catholic Church”.

How in the world you are able to ignore the practical reality of loosing and binding in light of what you are taught and how you can ignore that in Matthew 18; He had to be speaking to at least one family, which means there was a group other than the apostles there; is really beyond my understanding except God said it would be this way and I do appreciate the way in which God uses you to strengthen my faith in His word. Amen!

When Jesus spoke to the Apostles, there were witnesses present to whom He was not speaking. He addressed a select group of men giving them the authority to bind and loose; this was not intended for each and every believer.

**

The true church of God has yet to be revealed; so I don’t know what manner of church you speak of. If you look in the Bible you will see that the whole of creation waits for this revealing.

**This is true in only one sense; namely, that we do not yet know with certainty who is a member of the Church and who is not. We are awaiting this revelation. In the meantime, however, we know with great certainty where to find the Church which is built as a city on a hill, as the light to the world. It is not invisible…it has been evident from the beginning.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is this when they received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If so; where is the water?

What website are you referring to; I’ll have to look at that?

Nice try.

1. Where does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the believer?
2. Where does the Bible teach that Jesus merely “restored” Peter instead of commissioning him as the shepherd of the flock?

 

[Tanner9188]

And I will also ask you a question: How many churches did Jesus promise to build? The answer is found in Matthew 16-18-19. Jesus has only built one Church, and He did so upon Peter, the rock, just as He promised. Therefore, Jesus built one Church and that Church has a name; it has been called the Catholic Church since the end of the first century. This is historical fact.

**Jesus said ** “I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
The practical reality is He used all the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church and then all the godly men across the ages, since the day of Pentecost till this day, to build His church upon the message that was delivered by the Holy Spirit and Jesus to all of the apostles. That is practical reality.

Ephesians 2:20 -
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 **having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone,} ** 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

This is one of the best definitions of the true church of God

As I keep telling you; you focus too much on the messenger(s) and not enough on the message.

As for the Pope being the head of the Church, I would point you to the same passage in Matthew as well as to John 21:15-19.

Having a leader to direct the apostles, not the “Church”, except the local churches Peter ministered to, was the choice Jesus made to probably maintain some order among the apostles as Scripture seems to confirm.

It is a great imposition on God’s Word to elevate the messenger, Peter, to such a level that Peter himself would rebuke and has rebuked any such notion through his own pen. (1 Peter & 2 Peter & Acts)

Furthermore, the early church fathers referred to who as the “Vicar of Christ”? They were correct until corruption changed the definition much later in history; something you are very familiar with and chose to ignore IMO.

There is a lot more form God’s Voice that could be added, but perhaps at a later time if the Lord wills.

****Oh, an argument from silence…how powerful.

I can find a lot of churches listed in the Bible and the Lord Himself mentions 7 specific ones in Revelation, but there was never any mention of Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church.

Would that be similar to the following: "Immaculate conception, Catholic Priest, Sacraments, Absolution, Confessional et al? So if the Scripture is silent on these, which it is not on most, if not all, then silence is an illegitimate defense in some cases or perhaps most? If that is the case, then we have opened a Pandora’s box to anything goes and anything can be added because the Scripture is silent; isn’t this exactly one of the tools of false religions? JW’s and Mormons come to mind.

The Churches mentioned in Revelation are specific local congregations - today, we might refer to them as parishes or dioceses. They are not separate “Churches”, however; they were all part of the one Body of Christ, the universal or “Catholic Church”.

Do you agree the visible church is different than the true church yet to be revealed? Is the true church yet to be revealed have any tares? Do the visible local churches have tares among the wheat? Get the point! There is no “universal visible church” on earth; nor was there an intention of such. As you know the ECF’s used a little “c” for church and not the big “C” for church; but you chose to ignore that as well. How much does one person have to ignore before they are far from grace? I don’t know.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

 

[Tanner9188]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

When Jesus spoke to the Apostles, there were witnesses present to whom He was not speaking. He addressed a select group of men giving them the authority to bind and loose; this was not intended for each and every believer.

At least you acknowledge their were witnesses; but based on practicality and what we actually see and the simple example I gave on loose and binding; you have to again what is obvious and real in everyday life. But when one leads of life of mysticism; reality becomes a different perception to that which is observable.

Consider this, why would Jesus be repeating to the apostles that which he already spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount? Would it not make sense that He was rather teaching a different crowd in Matthew 18; it is so obvious to me that Jesus is in full preaching mode, but you cannot accept what God says IMO.

Matthew 5 - (NOTICE the same language)
29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.’

**Compare to Matthew 18 - **
29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (Interesting I just noticed the verse numbers are identical 29-30 - weird??)

The true church of God has yet to be revealed; so I don’t know what manner of church you speak of. If you look in the Bible you will see that the whole of creation waits for this revealing.

This is true in only one sense; namely, that we do not yet know with certainty who is a member of the Church and who is not. We are awaiting this revelation. In the meantime, however, we know with great certainty where to find the Church which is built as a city on a hill, as the light to the world. It is not invisible…it has been evident from the beginning.

Perhaps built around seven hills in your understanding.

Seriously; look how many times the earthly church is “churches”; not that there is more than one true Christian “church”,
but rather on earth it is collectively made of local churches and was intended to be that way.
searchgodsword.org/desk/?language=en&query=churches&section=0&translation=nas&oq=mt%252018&new=1&nb=mt&ng=18&ncc=18

I pray you will review and consider what is and isn’t in this post and perhaps prayerful consider what is said and contemplate; then read it again.

 

[Tanner9188]

Nice try.

1. Where does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the believer?
2. Where does the Bible teach that Jesus merely “restored” Peter instead of commissioning him as the shepherd of the flock?

**1) If it is not; then explain where these extra rules of faith originate?

(Listen to JESUS - “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.!”)
Matthew 4 -
“If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, "It is written, **‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’ **

That is pretty darn definitive about where we get our information on faith, practice, morals and all spiritual realities concerning the things of God. Where are the things of divine revelation written that were spoken? The Protestant Bible.

1. Never said Peter was not a shepherd; that would be stupid. I have acknowledged that and his appointed leadership role among the apostles; I won’t deny what the Scripture says. But I will not impose onto Scripture the nonsense of succession in the Catholic sense and “Peterine Primacy”. **

 

[OchsFam]

The practical reality is He used all the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church and then all the godly men across the ages, since the day of Pentecost till this day, to build His church upon the message that was delivered by the Holy Spirit and Jesus to all of the apostles. That is practical reality.

So you believe that this one foundation mentioned in Eph 2:20 somehow became multiple churches with multiple teachings and multiple contradictions? Can you explain how this is possible?

As I keep telling you; you focus too much on the messenger(s) and not enough on the message.

It appears to me that you focus too much on what you want to hear and not enough on the message of the messenger. You are protesting before the message is even finished.

Having a leader to direct the apostles, not the “Church”, except the local churches Peter ministered to, was the choice Jesus made to probably maintain some order among the apostles as Scripture seems to confirm.

Just FYI, these multiple Churches you think represent some protestant system held to one belief system. Something similar to the Catholic reality, not the protestant theory.

It amazes me how a protestant can rationalize their polytheism. There is one God who is one Father, one Son and one Holy Spirit. This one God wrote the one Bible and established one Church. If you can find one mention of churches in the Bible relative to a belief system, I would check your translation because there is nothing more evident from scripture than we are to have one faith, one shepherd, one belief. This one Church was promised to withstand even the gates of Hell and to be the foundation of truth. Somehow with all these singulars, protestants can conclude that multiple beliefs must be acceptable. I think protestantism is the only monotheistic religion that is simultaneously polytheistic.

Would that be similar to the following: "Immaculate conception, Catholic Priest, Sacraments, Absolution, Confessional et al? So if the Scripture is silent on these, which it is not on most, if not all, then silence is an illegitimate defense in some cases or perhaps most? If that is the case, then we have opened a Pandora’s box to anything goes and anything can be added because the Scripture is silent; isn’t this exactly one of the tools of false religions? JW’s and Mormons come to mind.

This is too funny. A protestant telling a Catholic that anything goes. Maybe we have a protestant who has stumbled upon the truth Catholics had discovered centuries ago. That letting just anyone interpret scripture is a recipe for disaster that would result in the fracturing of God’s Church to the individual belief system separate of all other Christians. I hope Tanner believes his “church” or beliefs to be the only acceptable one on every point.

Do you agree the visible church is different than the true church yet to be revealed?

Not really. We will be changed more than the Church. We get to see, taste, smell and hear the Heavenly Jerusalem every Sunday. Eventually this touching of the Heavenly Church to Earth will be permanent and we will be members of the one joined Church, but this is not different then what is happening every Sunday in the Catholic Church. The Church in Heaven is one with the Church on Earth, so it is not so much the Church that will change but the people in it will definitely be changing from our perspective.

Is the true church yet to be revealed have any tares? Do the visible local churches have tares among the wheat? Get the point!

Are you asking if the Church after judgement will have sinners in it followed by does the Church on Earth have sinners in it? This is what it sounds like, but if it is, I don’t think anyone could get your point. Yes there are sinners in the Church on Earth and no there won’t be sinners in the Church after judgement. I don’t see how this supports a belief that their is no universal visible Church.

As you know the ECF’s used a little “c” for church and not the big “C” for church; but you chose to ignore that as well.

Actually, the ECF were using the term “Catholic Church” by the at least the early third century. Capitol c’s and all.

Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253])

God Bless.

 

[stephraim]

Well you must include Matthew 18, don’t overlook the little child that was so close by, before you can make that statement as to who it applies to…I’ll bet his/her parents were right there and I’ll bet there were a lot more that one family there; especially since Jesus was in full preaching mode. Then you must dismiss my simple illustration, which you cannot because it is true. You did add “equally” as though that disqualifies reality.

Why don’t we look at the Greek of Matthew 16 to see if Our Lord was specifically talking to Peter or to the multitudes?

16 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι **σὺ **εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That **thou **art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

σὺ - 2nd person singular

So, Our Lord was talking to Peter only.

 

[Cbailey2]

[Peter needed to be restored, He is no different than any of the other apostles as far as messengers go and he was the most outgoing, a natural leader, but also the weakest spiritually; next to Judas Iscariot.

I guess I’m a little flabbergasted that you would call Peter the “weakest spiritually; next to Judas Iscariot.” Are we reading the same Bible? How many of the other apostles walked on water (if only for a moment)? Peter’s faith enabled him to walk on water. How crazy is that?!?! My faith isn’t good enough to walk on water. Is yours?

Where in the Bible do you get this hierarchical ordering of spiritual strength (with Peter and Judas at the bottom)? Or is this something you’ve “inferred?”

Again, this is a little shocking: I can’t judge the spiritual strength of people I know, people I can see and observe on a daily basis let alone judge the faith of a saint who has been dead for almost 2000 years, knew Christ in person, and was asked by Christ to tend His flock.
[/quote]

 

[Tanner9188]

Actually, the ECF were using the term “Catholic Church” by the at least the early third century. Capitol c’s and all.

God Bless.

I am not planning on addressing your other comments and/ or questions.

Thanks for being honest about the time that the Big “C” was used.

Emperor Constantine -
Persecutionary laws were nullified by different emperors at different times, but Constantine and Licinius’s Edict of Milan (313) has traditionally marked the end of the persecution.

This is when the Roman Catholic or Catholic Church we know today emerged; this is why Catholics pray to “dead” saints and Trent canonized books known to be with error to help validate this pagan activity IMO, which cannot be from God. Once the empire declared Christianity as the official religion, they had to get all of the pagans and their gods on board and Constantine had the answer. Prior to this the church was pure because it was under severe persecution and only the true Christians would not bow to the knee of Baal. Now all of the sudden everyone is a Christian - talk about a revival…just kidding… This is no different then the Muslim nations that do not allow other religions or on a very limited basis with inferior citizen status and human rights. How many Muslims would there be if those nations allowed Freedom of Religion?

A mixture of paganism and Christianity, which is no Christianity at all IMO. Here is the proof that the “Church” would so carelessly make anyone a saint based on popularity and legends that are unsubstantiated. Explains part of the mystery and mysticism.

Before the formal canonization process began in the fifteenth century, many saints were proclaimed by popular approval. This was a much faster process but unfortunately many of the saints so named were based on legends, pagan mythology, or even other religions – for example, the story of the Buddha traveled west to Europe and he was “converted” into a Catholic saint! In 1969, the Church took a long look at all the saints on its calendar to see if there was historical evidence that that saint existed and lived a life of holiness. In taking that long look, the Church discovered that there was little proof that many “saints”, including some very popular ones, ever lived. Christopher was one of the names that was determined to have a basis mostly in legend. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.
catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36

Catholics always get upset with me when I say the Church is 1700 years. Makes me wonder to the extent the ecf’s are taken out of context; I don’t know.

Interesting thing; I was looking into Papal Bull and no clear and readable originals exist and on faint copies exist and they apparently are unreadable.

"the earliest papal documents known to us are only preserved in copies or abstracts from which it is difficult to draw any safe conclusions as to theforms observed in issuing the originals. For all that, it is practically certain that no uniform rules can have been followed as to superscription, formula of salutation, conclusion, or signature. It was only when some sort of registry was organized, and copies of earlier official correspondence became available, that atradition gradually grew up of certain customary forms that ought not to be departed from. Except for the unsatisfactory mention of a body of notaries charged with keeping a record of the Acts of the Martyrs, c. 235 (Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, I, pp. c-cl), we meet with no clear reference to the papal archives until the time of Julius I (337-353), "

The date is interesting because it is near, but after the time of Constantine.

newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm