Protestant interpretations...

[Randy_Carson]

Show me the verse where someone, anyone, refers to one of the Apostles, anyone, as “father”.

My goodness, Ginger. Paul refers to himself in such language.

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

In this passage, Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians. The Apostle John wrote to his “children” thus implying spiritual “fatherhood”.

Everything is written down for us so there is no confusion except for those who want to confuse and confound God’s Holy Word.

Everything is written down for us? The Apostle John disagrees…

John 20:30-31
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John acknowledges that the disciples knew more from direct eyewitness observation than he had recorded in his writings.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

John reiterates that there was much more from the life of Jesus than was contained in his small book. As an eyewitness of those things, he would have been able to share those memories with those to whom he passed on the faith.

---

2 John 12

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

3 John 13-14

I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

---

John has much that he wants to tell the Church and Gaius in person; he clearly does not want put it all down with pen and ink. Now, if John thought the only way that his message would have any real authority would be to write it down, he would have done so. Instead, his preference is for personal, face-to-face delivery.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

There is actually [SIGN]one key to the kingdom and they were given to all the apostles [/SIGN]and the key represents authority to open the door to heaven or keep it locked to forbid one from entering. You will not find a definitive explanation or definition as to what the key or keys actaully are from a Catholic definition.

The expression “power of the keys” is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.
newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

If you read past this you will see how the leap to Petrine primacy , then immediately assign meaning to the “Church” takes place and these are two giat leaps as I see it.

What is clearly neglected and must be to make such leaps is the Matthew 18 verse(s) where Jesus is preaching to a crowd and uses the exact same terminology about loosing (permitting) & binding (forbid) . You know it is a crowd for 2 reasons 1) a little child is right there and two parts os the sermon here is the same verbiage as the Sermon on the Mount. Question: why or how could this loose & bind or authority to forgive sins be given to ordinary people/Christians? The authority is from heave and resides in the message of the gospel. Accept the gospel/loose/permit or reject the gospel/bind/forbid. We do not know, but it would be assumed that Jesus oft repeated the same sermon and parables etc as part of His teaching to different groups He spoke to; He would not need to change the message or come up with new material.

Isaiah 22 refers clearly to Christ, not Peter; just analyize the passages right before and right after and it is clear as the day is bright. I’ve heard the prime minister argument from my Uncle, but that doesn’t flush or maybe it does…LOL, but anyway a Priminister is the ruling head and authority, which is Christ alone, not the church; they are the members not the authority. At least in a Biblical sense. Also, the church is the pillar and support of the truth, which is the word of God or Scripture.; it is the very reason the church exists on earth, which is to promote the gospel and help protect its purity. How is this accomplished?
“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.”

“And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith”

I already kow you disagree and that is okay, but it is the truth as I see and understand the gospel. I can and have shared the gospel and heaven does agree that those who willingly reject it will remain in there sin and forbidden to enter Heaven and vice versa. The purpose of the church on earth is to build up the body in Christ by the versus listed above.

Could you PLEASE show me that scripture. Because either we have 2 different scriptures or something. My bible says clear YOU are Peter and to YOU I give the keys.

Or did Jesus call all of the Apostles YOU, and PETER? You show me? Thanks

By the way just because the other Apostles did not have the keys did not mean they did not have authority. According the RCC its Holy Orders that gives them the authority to administer the sacraments not the keys?

And guess what I do agree with your posting. Jesus did give Peter authority over the Church. Thats why we have a POPE and Bishops.

So whats your point?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

lol, He believed Mary remained a Virgin. He was one of the biggest advocates of Mary having the Mother of God title.
As you like to do with Scripture, you took that way out of context.

*“The Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (*Cyril of Alexandria - Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Yes, the Catholic Church acknowledges that Scripture is indeed perfect. No errors in it whatsoever.

He was at First Council of Nicaea in 325, the council that produced the Nicene Creed and anathematized Arius. He obviously believed in the Catholic Church councils to define truths definitively for the rest of the faithful.

I[SIGN] wouldn’t bother to continue to ask her rinnie. Ginger seems to think if she says something enough without evidence it becomes truth[/SIGN].

I don’t know Des, I really feel bad for her. All we are trying to do is show her the truth and she refuses to even consider what we are saying. Its like she will cut off her nose to spite her face kinda thing.

Its like her hate for the Church over powers all:shrug:

I guess we can just pray for her. I am getting to the end of my rope. Maybe you or Randy can show her better I don’t know. Maybe its just me she hates so refuses to accept anything I WRITE. I think I will back off for awhile and pray someone else can show her what our Church teaches. Good luck!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN][SIGN][/SIGN]

lol

You seem to overlook the fact that when we call a priest “father” is not to identify him as the man whose genes we share, the man whom raised us and supported us,

but Catholics call men “father” to honor them as representatives of God, as speaking on behalf of God, as having the power of God.

[SIGN]When I refer to my father, I am merely identifying my relationship to him.[/SIGN]When I respectfully address a priest as “father” I [SIGN]am identifying him as a reverend, not as God’s spokes person.[/SIGN]
Ginger

:extrahappy: Ginger we agree! I had to write this because I do agree with you. Catholics do call men Father (Priests) to honor them and show respect as representives of God. I will give you that one. I agree all the way.

And heres one Better. The Pope. He is the HOLY FATHER! You do remember some of the teaching’s of the RCC. Maybe you were Catholic after all!

And maybe thats your problem. You can not see who a Priest is, thats why you can’t identify:thumbsup:

 

[Ginger2]

My goodness, Ginger. Paul refers to himself in such language.

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

In this passage, Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians. The Apostle John wrote to his “children” thus implying spiritual “fatherhood”.

Once again I believe you are using a faulty translation (I wish I could find my concordance…)

Paul does not call himself their “father” but says he has “begotten” them.

BEGOT:
"b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone

He also said we do not have many fathers, which is true, since we only have one:
and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth,** for one is your Father, who is in the heavens**,

Everything is written down for us? The Apostle John disagrees…

John 20:30-31
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

And if we one day find another inspired writing that says Jesus healed another ten lepers and caused another six lame to walk, what have we learned about God that we did not already know from the Scriptures?

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

This was said early in Jesus’ ministry can later Jesus began to reveal the coming crucifixion to them. It is not a declaration of oral tradition.

I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

Again this doesn’t say he will reveal things that are not going to be made known any other way.

You seem to have overlooked another verse related to our discussion.

Jhn 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The things not written down are not necessary for us to know.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

[SIGN][/SIGN][SIGN][/SIGN]

:extrahappy: Ginger we agree! I had to write this because I do agree with you. Catholics do call men Father (Priests) to honor them and show respect as representives of God. I will give you that one. I agree all the way.

And heres one Better. The Pope. He is the HOLY FATHER! You do remember some of the teaching’s of the RCC. Maybe you were Catholic after all!

And maybe thats your problem. You can not see who a Priest is, thats why you can’t identify:thumbsup:

:extrahappy:

I’m happy whenever we can find a little common groud - even tho it is not 100%

:hug3:

 

[rinnie]

In 2 Thess. 2:15 AGAIN Paul reminds the Thessalonian believers that they must hold fast to the traditions that the Apostles have passed down either in writing or by WORD OF MOUTH.

The true interpretation of BOTH SS and ST is expressed in the infallible teaching of the Church the Magisterium. Infallible means that because of the DIVINE help of CHIRST HIMSELF the CHURCH cannot Teach ERROR in matters of faith.

That is and has always been the teaching of the CC!

 

[rinnie]

:extrahappy:

I’m happy whenever we can find a little common groud - even tho it is not 100%

:hug3:

Thank-you Ginger YOU MADE MY DAY! :extrahappy::dancing:

 

[teak421]

Tertullian is speaking out against making claims that are not clearly written in the Scriptures and reading into those Scriptures what is not there.

Where is it you see Tertullian say the RC can interpret even what is not written?

Please provide the chapter so I can see it.

Tertullian is making a point much like I did against free bible students when they said there were two earths, one destroyed by satan and another created from its debris.

That is obviously not written in the Scriptures, but fanciful theories added to them without justification.

Ginger

The very fact that Tert and the other Bishops denounce Arianism proves the Church had the Authority. This is so plain that I believe you are being silly… and you just want to argue.

Did the Church have the authority to determine the Canon of the Bible?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Good rationalization; still doesn’t change the reality does it? The word sacrament is not used in Scripture to my knowledge; if that is true and I believe it is; how is that Christ instituted that which does not exist in His word?

The Douay-Rheims uses the word sacrament one time in Eph 5:32 “This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church.” The term is actually mystērion, which is always used as “mystery or mysteries”;

I will say that just because a word is not specifically or exactly used does not neccessarily mean it is not implicit. So if you choose to believe that Christ instituted 7 sacraments; then who am I to say it ain’t so?

Either is the word trinity. Horrible method of argument.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Did you just put “Church” above Scripture?

It was the Church that gave us Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit…

• Michael

 

[teak421]

I don’t understand why you can’t see what Tertullian actually said.

Tretullian said that H. quoted one Scripture and then added a lot of nonsense that is not supported by that Scripture.

It would be similar to your writing me a letter stating you served cake when your sister came to visit. Then I said your letter proves you are a gourmet chef because you cooked an eight course meal for t your entire family and they all raved of how superbly delicious it was.

Your letter said you served cake - period. It didn’t even state whether you baked it or bought it.

That is the point Tertullian was making. No where did he say people couldn’t understand Scriptures without the help of the RC.

If I missed that quote, please give me the reference so I can see it.

Ginger

Read the entire tract Against Hermogenes. If you cannot see how Tert was saying they are perverting Scripture, then your skills in reading and understand our Church Fathers is suspect.

Also, in Against Marcion he battles the Gnostics… They used Scripture to put forward their argument… But, Tert with the authority of the Church said you guys are NUTS!

Why is it so hard for you to believe that a Church had the authority to determine what doctrine was valid or not? Its very clear, that the Council of Nicaea in 325 was convened to put down the Arianians… How did they do that? By having the Church come together, sign a document saying they were “aliens” against the Catholic Church.

You like to argue, I can see that… but I’m not so sure you like to seek truth… The truth here is plain… The Church, specifically the Catholic Church determined that Arias was wrong and needed to be dealt with. The Church got its authority from God… its guided by God… and it used Scripture and Tradition…

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

The very fact that Tert and the other Bishops denounce Arianism proves the Church had the Authority. This is so plain that I believe you are being silly… and you just want to argue.

Did the Church have the authority to determine the Canon of the Bible?

• Michael

You are missing the point.

They followed Scripture stating the claims made were not found in the Scriptures but that based on one Scripture new ideas not supported by those Scriptures were invented.

Maybe I am not articulating clearly. That is why I used the analogy.

This particular heresy continues today and is known as “The Gap Theory”

Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

As anyone should plainly see this 1st verse says God created the Earth. The 2nd verse says the Earth was void and the spirit of God hovered over it. The following verses explain how God formed it into the planet we know today.

They took verse 2, and totally apart from the other explanatory verses, formed an entirely new theology which claims:

God created the Earth. Made dinosaurs and all the pre-human elements. This period of “history” lasted billions of years. Then satan got ticked off at God and trashed the Earth (the big bang).

That’s where verse 2 comes in:

God hovered over the debris from satan’s temper tantrum and begin recreating the Earth.

So you see Tertullian was speaking, not of simply misunderstanding one verse, but of creating an entirely new story that has no basis from the Scriptures.

The Scriptures don’t say God created a 2nd Earth, not do they say anything about satan destroying a 1st Earth.

You are applying their statements to suggest the Scriptures can’t be understood unless the RC tells us what they mean.
Tertullian was saying you can’t created a whole new history that is not supported by what the Scriptures actually tell us.

Ginger

 

[teak421]

You are missing the point.

They followed Scripture stating the claims made were not found in the Scriptures but that based on one Scripture new ideas not supported by those Scriptures were invented.

Maybe I am not articulating clearly. That is why I used the analogy.

This particular heresy continues today and is known as “The Gap Theory”

Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

As anyone should plainly see this 1st verse says God created the Earth. The 2nd verse says the Earth was void and the spirit of God hovered over it. The following verses explain how God formed it into the planet we know today.

They took verse 2, and totally apart from the other explanatory verses, formed an entirely new theology which claims:

God created the Earth. Made dinosaurs and all the pre-human elements. This period of “history” lasted billions of years. Then satan got ticked off at God and trashed the Earth (the big bang).

That’s where verse 2 comes in:

God hovered over the debris from satan’s temper tantrum and begin recreating the Earth.

So you see Tertullian was speaking, not of simply misunderstanding one verse, but of creating an entirely new story that has no basis from the Scriptures.

The Scriptures don’t say God created a 2nd Earth, not do they say anything about satan destroying a 1st Earth.

You are applying their statements to suggest the Scriptures can’t be understood unless the RC tells us what they mean.
Tertullian was saying you can’t created a whole new history that is not supported by what the Scriptures actually tell us.

Ginger

VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: Who had the AUTHORITY to put down Arias and his followers?

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

Read the entire tract Against Hermogenes. If you cannot see how Tert was saying they are perverting Scripture, then your skills in reading and understand our Church Fathers is suspect…

I agree they were perverting the Scripture and Tertullian was pointing that out. But it wasn’t simply a matter of misunderstanding one verse - it was this enormous theology that was created between the 1st and 2nd verse that Tertullian was addressing.

The verses are number one and two for a reason, yet suddenly we have these heretics teaching billions of years of history not found in the Scriptures.

Ginger

 

[teak421]

I agree they were perverting the Scripture and Tertullian was pointing that out. But it wasn’t simply a matter of misunderstanding one verse - it was this enormous theology that was created between the 1st and 2nd verse that Tertullian was addressing.

The verses are number one and two for a reason, yet suddenly we have these heretics teaching billions of years of history not found in the Scriptures.

Ginger

Could you please answer my AUTHORITY question… Thanks.

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: Who had the AUTHORITY to put down Arias and his followers?

• Michael

God.

And any Christian believer whatsoever if he/she uses the divinely written Word of God and not by his/her own opinion. Because then he/she is not guessing, but relaying what God, the ultimate and sovereign authority has stated.

This is what I did with the Free Bible students, but the authority of God, not by my opinions. I stated what God has revealed.

They did not believe. But considering this heresy still exists today, it is obvious the church fathers did no better than I.

Since Tertullian didn’t succeed in convincing the Arians, what makes you think church fathers have any more authority than I do?

Ginger

 

[teak421]

God.

And any Christian believer whatsoever if he/she uses the divinely written Word of God and not by his/her own opinion. Because then he/she is not guessing, but relaying what God, the ultimate and sovereign authority has stated.

So, when we have various Protestant demoniations not agreeing on the basic doctrine of salvation (ie. Baptized only in Jesus Name, Eternal Security, Must Speak in Tongues, etc.) what authority determines who is right? What is the process of determination?

• Michael

 

[rinnie]

Either is the word trinity. Horrible method of argument.

• Michael

Hi Teak, This is kinda unreal, but the truth. I am reading a book at this moment on the sacraments.

Here is what I came across. The word Sacrament indeed really is in the bible. But meant mystery. So they tranlated the word mystery to become the word sacrament.

That is why we also call sacrament’s a great mystery. A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Chirst to give Grace.

 

[Ginger2]

So, when we have various Protestant demoniations not agreeing on the basic doctrine of salvation (ie. Baptized only in Jesus Name, Eternal Security, Must Speak in Tongues, etc.) what authority determines who is right? What is the process of determination?

• Michael

I don’t think this one is important enough to bicker over:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Speaking in tongues is not a requirement according to Scriptures, so they are obviously mistaken.