Which begs the question:
Lutherans! Of course!Which begs the question:
Which non-Catholic church out of thousands has the correct adjusted lens so we all can see straight and clearly? So much for Jesus promising the Holy Spirit to guide His church?
The few fathers that do not have Peter as rock do not take the confession/rock out of context .The fathers who say he is rock say he is so because of confession. What I do not know is those fathers who say he is rock via confession stated a papal view /head bishop in Rome not sure. That is, there might be a father who has slightly different interpretation of Matt than what later developed but still thought rome had head bishop based on other premises/scripture.First time Matt was used to justify rome/pope was around 250 AD I thought…Again, don’t recall any ECF taking out of context, that is they considered all the elements of the discourse. You also have tertullian finally saying he is rock cause of confession, but that it did not go beyond peter, but he definitely was head apostle.(no succession for Tert but he also defected.). The ECF’s are not unanimous in stating papal views as we know them. At best they show they development
The gospel to the Galatians. Paul preached that gospel to them. Therefore the gospel that the Galatians were to hold to was a verbal gospel, and the only way they could compare a new gospel to the old gospel was to remember what that gospel was. They had no other choice–after all, it wasn’t written down. Since it wasn’t written down, this pure, original Galatian gospel, it is now lost forever!. Unless, unless you believe that the good shepherd enabled the Galatian gospel to be preserved in His Church. Indeed, His voice gives the evidence that He has done so, the substance of our faith.
Of course they don’t because they are not claiming the same position as you. None of the ECF that you mentioned denied Peter as the Rock or his primacy. The fact they do not mention him as the Rock does not prove they denied it either.
Sorry,but that is totally untrue. Not all say he is the Rock strictly because of his confession. You are totally incorrect. I can give you scores of church fathers who say he is the Rock because of Jesus-not because of his confession only. What are you claiming is they all agree with you and that I know for a fact is wrong.
Again…I have yet to read one church father who denies it or rejects the primacy of Rome. As I have asked you, give me one church father who clearly rejects it as false or a bogus tradition.
Might be? Evidently you are not sure. If one did have slight different interpretation of Matthew,then kindly present it.
…
And once more-none denied it or rejected it. If the papacy was novel or out of the traditional custom. rather odd not one ECF ever attacks it as being out of place or foreign?
And once again, Tertullian never rejects Peter’s primacy does he?
Come again? If that were the case,don’t you think that after nearly 2,000 years we would have tons of writings clearly supporting your position? Development does not equate into papal invention.
In other words, the one church established by Jesus alone, today - can longer be identified…Many believe that…
never heard that from anyone . Most can identify a Christian church, esp as opposed to a synagogue, mosques, buddhist temple etc,In other words, the one church established by Jesus alone, today - can longer be identified…Many believe that…
"It " will never be lost. Remember to the “reformers” the room was smoky already and certainly the counter reformation proved that (much good came of it with “reform”). And yes our youth, need prayer and guidance.
At least to me, benhur, it is obvious that Joe wasn’t speaking of a church building, a parish so to speak. As a Catholic, Joe strongly believes that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is the Church Christ established on Earth, with Peter and his successors as its authority here.
Hi Jon. Yes it would be better to suggest that hopefully one can identify a Christian body of believers as opposed to a Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist etc body of believers either in deed or attitude or doctrine ceremony/service even building…I agree with how you think joe meant it , just offering the other paradigm as to just what Jesus started and that it indeed it still exists and is identifiable. The tares have always been in with the wheat. To suggest the field was mostly only wheat till Luther is inaccurate.
If the church exists today as it did when Christ founded it, then please tell me which church, people, body, building, etc… That I should take my dispute to for final resolution per Matt 18.
Back then the church was “local” , as it is today for individuals. That it is this denomination or that one is immaterial for Mat 18:17 in that they are a local gathering of an "ecclesia’’, a body of believers. I would expect today if one trespasses against you, you have authority , as do two of you, as then does your local assembly. Again it is for trespasses or transgressions, not necessarily disputes as in doctrinal. I think mat 18 deals with keeping unity as believers in dealing with sin or an offense, to win back the offender, (it does follow the 1 sheep being brought back to the 100), not doctrine.
If this is true then the Church in Corinth had no obligation to listen to Paul. The church had no authority to condemn Simon Magnus in Acts and it was wrong to state that people like Arius were wrong in denying Jesus’ divinity.
We were discussing Matt 18 . Where do you see heresy as a trespass against you ? Context has to be maintained. Now there are other texts that may deal better with maintaining doctrinal integrity. To say Corinthians didn’t have to listen to Paul, or you cant’ settle denominational, doctrinal differences, or there “is no way to know the truth” because of my take on Matt 18 is missing the mark. Matt 18 is matt 18 , but there are 21 other chapters in the book to handle your other questions/needs.
So if I was a prominent member of your church and told you you could not lead bible studies anymore or be involved in ministries because your a heretic.
That is not what Jesus was talking about in Matt18, as it was not what Paul meant either when He was shocked that christians were taking christians to court (and not over doctrine) in one of his epistles. The church was to fulfill the law where once a nation did in OT. Much of the law dealt with personal trespasses ( an eye for an eye ,a sheep for a sheep etc)
So are you saying that Matt 18 serves no purpose now?
Yes Jesus is discussing Doctrine but as Benhur says laws.
Why is it that if not such and such an interpretation is valid then there is no other interpretation ??? Last i heard there are plenty of trespasses going around amongst the body to one another so Matt 18 has a purpose
And ? Sin does break a law and possibly a covenant.
No. Libel is indeed a “trespass”. A brother or more can intervene not define the dipsuted doctrine but to determine if indeed the shoe fits, if one is a heretic or not. Don’t need slander (calling someone a heretic when they are not). And don’t need a heretic thinking he is not.
Personal trespass is Matt 18 primary context. There are other scriptures dealing with heretics and may even follow the final venue of the “church” handling it, but that only indirectly reflects Matt 18 but not as primary meaning. How do you think personal, non-doctrinal disputes should be settled ? Matt 18 ? Do you have authority ? Do two of have authority on such a matter ? If so why ? Matt 18?