Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[GottaGo12345678]

I agree, but since they were not, it is not a problem.

I think you misunderstand infalliblility. It does not mean impeccability. In fact, Jesus Himself called Peter “Satan” and his personal faults and betrayal are evident in Scripture. Personal perfection is not what makes a person a valid successor of the Apostles.

It is equally an insult to Peter to claim that he was not made into a Rock by Christ, and that the Church is not built upon him, especially since scripture is clear that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles and prophets. It is scriptures like these that are denied that create questions such as the one in the OP.

Here is your definition of infallibility:
Infallibility

In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Here is the correct definition of infallibility:
The quality of never making an error, now that is more like God.

Peter was not made into a Rock by Jesus; that is one miracle that no one witnessed. Jesus did change his name to indicate he would be a building stone laid on the foundation of the Rock, which is Christ. I am always stunned by the fact that a billions of people have come to a religion based on a single passage of Scripture. It is quite amazing; don’t you think?

Blessings

 

[Robbinson]

Here is your definition of infallibility:
Infallibility

In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Here is the correct definition of infallibility:
The quality of never making an error, now that is more like God.

Peter was not made into a Rock by Jesus; that is one miracle that no one witnessed. Jesus did change his name to indicate he would be a building stone laid on the foundation of the Rock, which is Christ. I am always stunned by the fact that a billions of people have come to a religion based on a single passage of Scripture. It is quite amazing; don’t you think?

Blessings

That’s funny - but a couple of thoughts.

The most natural construction of the passage in question is indeed that Peter is the “rock” referred to as why else rename him in this passage?. (There are several Protestant apologists who acknowledge this - but penty of course who deny it ). The Petra/Petros distinction is ultimately a red herring as the original text was certainly aramaic. But even if the “rock” in this passage was not Peter but his confession of faith that Jesus was the Christ, Catholics do not rely on this “rock” passage alone for the authority given to Peter - but on the separate express authority to “bind and lose” given to him. And while the other apostles were later also given the power to bind and lose (by the way, apostles - not all christians), it was peter alone who was given the “keys” to the kingdom.

The “keys” appears only one other place in scripture (Isaiah) where it is clear that the “keys” are symbol of authority.

If that wasn’t enough, the earliest writings of the early Church fathers (leaders of the Christian community) evidence an understanding that the bishop of Rome had authority above and beyond other bishops or churches. Why do you think that was if they did not learn it from the apostles themselves?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[greggy53]

Peter was not made into a Rock by Jesus; that is one miracle that no one witnessed. Jesus did change his name to indicate he would be a building stone laid on the foundation of the Rock, which is Christ. I am always stunned by the fact that a billions of people have come to a religion based on a single passage of Scripture. It is quite amazing; don’t you think?

Blessings

Don’t make the mistake that people flock to Catholicism because of one scripture, that’s usually a Protestant MO. I think it’s amazing that people can read the same scripture and interpret it in a variety of ways. The Bible believers that I know pick and choose what scriptures they want to believe, and how to interpret them. Most will say that the Holy Spirit gives them the authority to interpret scripture. I guess that means that they receive their own special divine revelation, and are therefore infallible when they decide what a scripture means. Are your interpretations of scripture infallible as well?

 

[po18guy]

GottaGo12345678:
Will you take the time to read the thread in post 495, or are you content to simply argue ad nauseam? The truth is neither arrived at nor served unless it is sought.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

That’s funny - but a couple of thoughts.

The most natural construction of the passage in question is indeed that Peter is the “rock” referred to as why else rename him in this passage?. (There are several Protestant apologists who acknowledge this - but penty of course who deny it ). The Petra/Petros distinction is ultimately a red herring as the original text was certainly aramaic. But even if the “rock” in this passage was not Peter but his confession of faith that Jesus was the Christ, Catholics do not rely on this “rock” passage alone for the authority given to Peter - but on the separate express authority to “bind and lose” given to him. And while the other apostles were later also given the power to bind and lose (by the way, apostles - not all christians), it was peter alone who was given the “keys” to the kingdom.

The “keys” appears only one other place in scripture (Isaiah) where it is clear that the “keys” are symbol of authority.

If that wasn’t enough, the earliest writings of the early Church fathers (leaders of the Christian community) evidence an understanding that the bishop of Rome had authority above and beyond other bishops or churches. Why do you think that was if they did not learn it from the apostles themselves?

Blessings,

Brian

That is even funnier - that you know the language of the original texts “a red herring as the original text was certainly aramaic”. Now you are in a class by yourself; there is a reason why we have the Scripture in the Greek and Hebrew; part of Gods plan; don’t ya think?

You overlook many things here as well concerning what Scripture actually teaches and you have further driven home my earlier point that billions of people follow a religion built on a single passage of Scripture.

Jesus is using a play on words knowing that the “Christian” would soon emerge, which are what? Little Christ’s and He is the what? Large stone or rock-bed foundation of the Church, which the stones lie/build on that foundation; which are Peters (small stones), all the apostles, and all the rest of Christianity.

You also overlook that the ability to loose and bind is from heaven, not earth and is given to anyone who can express the the gospel, divine revelation from God. Matthew 18 makes this clear because Jesus was speaking to a crowd. If you look at Matthew 5:29-30 and compare it to Matthew 18:8-9; you will see that Jesus is repeating to a different crowd similar teachings as that of the Sermon on the Mount; why would he just be telling this to the apostles; they already heard it at least once and probably more. Why do you think there was a child right there?

The “key” represents authority from where? Heaven; not earth. Where does that authority rest? In the Word, the message of the gospel. This is now going down a narrower path from taking a single passage to a single word and expanding it to an apostolic succession and a authority with teh Roman Catholic Church which does not exist in the Word of God.

Your last paragraph on the “bishop of Rome” having a greater authority or respect among the earliest church is unfounded. If you were to say Jerusalem; at least there would some Biblical evidence to that; but not Rome. That came into effect when Emperor Constantine made Christianity, at least a form of it, the official religion of the Roman Empire. Out of that emerged the Roman Catholic Church we see today.

 

[steve_b]

"Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which* is incorruptible love and eternal life*. "

Ignatius is a man about to be persecuted. Equating the bread of life, which is the flesh and desire to drink of God, His blood…then he puts it** in context, “which is incorruptible love and eternal life”**, is a real stretch to say he wants to literally eat his flesh.

What was Ignatius specifically about in context? It’s the Eucharist. It is real food, real flesh, real blood, of Jesus Christ spiritually re-presented…AND it is incorruptable, for eternal life.
gotta:

He is speaking spiritually as the latter part of his statement explicitly indicates. The only way you could ascertain your statement would be to ask him personally. Also, if he did mean what you implied, then he would be in opposition to what Jesus said John 6:63.

are you refering to “spirit and life”?

If Jesus spoke metaphorically, why did most of His disciples leave Him over what He said? Surely intelligent people will give wiggle room to someone speaking metaphorically. Afterall, they had just benefitted the day before, from the miracle of the loaves and fish. They already knew Jesus wasn’t your average guy. Would God lead people astray? When He saw His listeners weren’t buying what He taught, and they left, did He go after them trying to clear up misconceptions? Nope! They knew exactly what Jesus was saying because they said this is a hard saying who could listen to it? And Jesus didn’t change what they were thinking.
gotta:

Furthermore, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in the first chapter he gives the full gospel and clarifies any misnomer concerning the literal versus the spiritual meaning of the flesh and blood of Christ and is consistent with Scripture.

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immovable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh,(3) and the Son of God according to the will and power(4) of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled(5) by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit(6) we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard(7) for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, **in the one body of His Church. **

A better quote might be

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[steve_b]

Your last paragraph on the “bishop of Rome” having a greater authority or respect among the earliest church is unfounded. If you were to say Jerusalem; at least there would some Biblical evidence to that; but not Rome. That came into effect when Emperor Constantine made Christianity, at least a form of it, the official religion of the Roman Empire. Out of that emerged the Roman Catholic Church we see today./quote]

Did you miss an earlier post of mine referencing Clement (Bp) of Rome, 3rd successor to Peter DURING apostolic times, settling sedition among the bishops in Corinth ?

 

[Robbinson]

That is even funnier - that you know the language of the original texts “a red herring as the original text was certainly aramaic”. Now you are in a class by yourself; there is a reason why we have the Scripture in the Greek and Hebrew; part of Gods plan; don’t ya think?

You overlook many things here as well concerning what Scripture actually teaches and you have further driven home my earlier point that billions of people follow a religion built on a single passage of Scripture.

Jesus is using a play on words knowing that the “Christian” would soon emerge, which are what? Little Christ’s and He is the what? Large stone or rock-bed foundation of the Church, which the stones lie/build on that foundation; which are Peters (small stones), all the apostles, and all the rest of Christianity.

You also overlook that the ability to loose and bind is from heaven, not earth and is given to anyone who can express the the gospel, divine revelation from God. Matthew 18 makes this clear because Jesus was speaking to a crowd. If you look at Matthew 5:29-30 and compare it to Matthew 18:8-9; you will see that Jesus is repeating to a different crowd similar teachings as that of the Sermon on the Mount; why would he just be telling this to the apostles; they already heard it at least once and probably more. Why do you think there was a child right there?

The “key” represents authority from where? Heaven; not earth. Where does that authority rest? In the Word, the message of the gospel. This is now going down a narrower path from taking a single passage to a single word and expanding it to an apostolic succession and a authority with teh Roman Catholic Church which does not exist in the Word of God.

Your last paragraph on the “bishop of Rome” having a greater authority or respect among the earliest church is unfounded. If you were to say Jerusalem; at least there would some Biblical evidence to that; but not Rome. That came into effect when Emperor Constantine made Christianity, at least a form of it, the official religion of the Roman Empire. Out of that emerged the Roman Catholic Church we see today.

Hi. You make many assumptions in your post that you can’t prove by scripture - that’s ok, but don’t then accuse others of doing the same thing. . In my earlier post, most scholars (Protestant and Catholic) acknowledge that the original text was likely in aramaic where there was no distinction between masculine and femine. But that really is the “red herring” I noted in my prior post because as I stated there, and again now, this docrtine of authority need not turn exclusively on whether Peter was the “Rock”.

By comparision, there is no basis for the conclusion you made regarding the purpose of the reference to Peter as the “rock” as a fortelling of the coming of Christians other than pure speculation - though its a creative thought.

As to the binding and losing being spoken to layman rather than apostles - I think here you are the one being too loose with scripture and pulling out of context. If you look a tad more closely you will see that that verse immediately follows the description of a “church” with authority where disputes can be resolved. That “church” with authority was led under the authority of the apostles.

"8:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18:18
“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The context here clearly shows us that the reference to binding and losing is addressed to the apostles - the same ones who would resolve disputes as the Church.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Bengoshi]

Gotta Go,

**You wrote: ** * I like the way you think in terms of believing the Bible and not taking things out of context and you may have alluded to the Bible will verify itself, not contradict itself…if I’m wrong on the latter, then correct me.

If you apply your methods; how do you account for a Pope as head of the Church as Jesus and the apostles all say it is Jesus? How do you account for a priest forgiving sins when all the apostles say it is God alone? I could go on, but no point in being overwhelming or overbearing.

Concerning the comment that you don’t see how those closest to the earliest church could make mistakes. I would suggest first they are human, under persecution, did not have a completed Bibles as we do nor the study tools that we do; we are at a great advantage. Also, consider the Corinthians as one example who had the apostle Paul teaching them for a few years and yet they were allowing false teachers to corrupt the gospel and the Galatians as well. What about 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation that Jesus had warning about. So the idea that they would somehow have it perfect is very far fetched at best; don’t you think? *​

Hi, “Gotta Go”, Thanks for the friendly tone, even if inquisitive. Well, I do not try to resolve every point for myself. That is the role of the Church, and she has done so, right from the beginning. The Council of Jerusalem, described in the books of Acts, is an example, as is the work of the Apostles among the local churches. St. Paul corrected the Corinthians in their false ways and thinking. Today the Church should do the same, although timid and P.R.-driven popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI do not live up to their responsabilities (as, for example, the last great Pope, Pius XII, did live up to them unflinchingly and without undue concern to personal popularity) as many popes, alas, have not presided as uncompromisingly as they should do or have been weak or corrupt in the past for all kinds of other reasons.

Further, I have my own doubts about the Papacy’s claims, anyway, as I do about other points of doctrine where the Eastern Church differs from the Western Church (e.g. purgatory, indulgences, limbo, all of which the Orthodox Church rejects); I just put them on hold for now, which I think is the best attitude from Christian humility. I think that a truly universal Council of the reunited Church, not just one or more of exclusively Eastern or Western Councils, is needed to sort all of such matters out definitively. Time will tell if the Papacy’s claims are false, when a Pope, acting on his presumed infallible basis, stumbles so badly and irrevocably wrongly that all can discern the falsity of the Papacy’s claim. Truth to tell, I share more of the Eastern Orthodox view of authority in the Church than I do the Roman Catholic Church’s papal-centred attitude. The Church is more than the Pope’s personal fan club! So, I bide my time and keep my own council where I have doubts, but not brazenly in defiance of appointed authority.

The Church (and Jewry before that) always has had as much of the Bible as it needed at the time. God unveiled His Revelation providentially. When Revelation had attained its fulness, Scriptural Revelation ceased.

Much blessings in studyint God’s Truth, guy (or gal) who cares for Our Lord Jesus and His truth!

Jerry Parker

Hi there,

On this point, I would have to totally agree with you. I didn’t know the Orthodox Church rejected the doectrine of purgatory and indulgences!

 

[benedictus2]

Looks from this particular section of Scripture “that those who had believed were together”; so from that passage yeah, believe the gospel and you will justified

Nope. Still in Acts 2 verses 36-38
Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Therefore membership into this body is not just MERE believing. How they became part of this body is by baptism.

That is why in 1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

and looks like the Lord is doing the adding of those believers. Do you see anything different? If so, what?

Yes, indeed the Lord is adding to those believers, but these group are not MERE believers, these group originated with the 12 at Pentecost and grew. And how they were added was through baptism. Those who believed were then baptised.

I answered you question; perhaps you might answer mine; thank you.

And I already have. That is why I said the Church is indeed the Body of Christ. And you rightly pointed out Ephesians. And what you completely missed in reading Ephesians is that Paul was already talking about the living and growing Body of Christ. But to become a member of this Church, more is required than just MERE belief. That is what I was trying to point out which you missed.

So yes, as verse 16 goes “from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”
Each of us has a part to play as part of the entire Body. BUT FIRST, WE MUST BECOME A PART OF THAT BODY AND HOW THAT HAPPENS IS THROUGH BAPTISM.

 

[Bengoshi]

Agreed - and further to your point, as the “scriptures” referred to were in that verse were the “Hebrew scriptures”, the respondent’s contention would suggest we wouldn’t need the New Testament scriptures/cannon for every good work.

Blessings,

Brian

Biblical hermeneutics teach us that the Bible has both historical particularity and eternal significance. When the Bible says Scriptures, even in the OT, it should be deemed to include all of the canon of Scripture as we have it today, lest we also limit the other passages to the time and situation to which the text was written. Of course, context should be taken into account but due to its eternal significance, its application should not be so limited.

 

[benedictus2]

You have a “funny” Bible translation; mine mentions nothing about Jesus appointing a pope, much less a Pope Peter.

That is because you are clueless as to the nature of the Papacy. Read more about this Holy Office and why we have a Pope then we can talk.

My Bible, which must read differently than yours (I use the NASB generally) says the Jesus restored Peter from his previous 3 denials of Christ, then used him as a leader to the rest of the apsotles and minister of truth as he spread the word to his Jewish brethren.

Naaah. In John 21, Jesus says to Peter : feed MY sheep, feed MY lambs. So Jesus here is actually telling Peter to be guardian of HIS (Jesus’s) sheep. So while Jesus is Eternal Shepherd, He has appointed someone else (Peter) to look after His (Jesus’s) Sheep.

So unless you are part of the flock that Peter and his successor is tending to, then you probably do not belong to Jesus’s flock

Matthew 16 Jesus said “I will build my church”, which is continuing to do as we post.

Agreed. That is why the Catholic Church exists through to this day. Empires have come and gone but the fact that the Catholic Church continues to exist from that day on Pentecost is a testament to its Divine Nature.

No Peter could hold such a structure as this; the real rock, that being Jesus, can and does build such a spiritual body. Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the head on earth and heaven. Isn’t that what the Bible actually teaches and confirmed by Jesus and the apostles?

Wrong. Peter is the Rock. Jesus Himself renamed Simon as Rock If you have a problem with that then it is not the Church you have a disagreement with but Jesus Himself.

 

[Robbinson]

Biblical hermeneutics teach us that the Bible has both historical particularity and eternal significance. When the Bible says Scriptures, even in the OT, it should be deemed to include all of the canon of Scripture as we have it today, lest we also limit the other passages to the time and situation to which the text was written. Of course, context should be taken into account but due to its eternal significance, its application should not be so limited.

Fair enough - but then, if we are to take the quoted verse as suggesting “scripture alone” is sufficient (which I still believe that verse does not in fact state), where in scripture does scriputre define itself (e.g., - is there an inspired table of contents telling us which books are scripture?). No, ironically, we all rely on “tradition” (the determination of the Catholic Church (the then Church authority) to determine, as guided by the Holy Spirit, which books were/are scripture and which are not.

So - “Scripture alone” is neither stated in “scripture itself” nor does “scripture itself” tell us what is scripture. This is fundamental problem (and quite ironic problem) with the doctrine.

Not to mention that “scirpture alone” has led to 30,000 plus denominations since once you take away tradition and Church authority, everyone is their own interpreter, each claiming the power of the Holy Spirit in interpreting, yet reaching different conclusions on many core doctrines of faith. Is that not empircal evidence of a problem (e.g., the “fruit” of the doctrine is bad fruit, not good fruit")?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[steve_b]

how do you account for a Pope as head of the Church as Jesus and the apostles all say it is Jesus?

Here is what Jesus said and did for Peter, in front of ALL the apostles.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102

 

[benedictus2]

“All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

It says EVERY good work. So, it follows that Scripture is sufficient for us to do everything we need to do to honor God and advance His kingdom. The Bible doesn’t need to contain everything, but only everything we need to know.

Yes, yes, yes. You are correct. The Bible contains what we need to to be able to do EVERY GOOD WORK.

So here’s what the Bible says:

Jesus founded a Church, He did not go around writing the Bible. So He said to Peter: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus said to the Aposles : Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

And He also said: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

And He also said: “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

And (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Yes indeed, the Bible contains what we need to be able to do every good work because in the Bible we find ALL THE SACRAMENTS

 

[benedictus2]

With regard to the death of John, it is not true that there was no Bible yet because John himself wrote a Gospel and 3 epistles.

Exactly. John wrote a Gospel and 3 Epistles. But 1 Gospel and 3 Epistles does not make a Bible

So NT texts were already in existence, not to mention the Gospel of Mark which was the earliest known Gospel to be written.

The fact that they were in existence does not make your case because it could not be said that they formed part of the Bile. That came around a hundred years later when they came up with the canon.

As to the prayers of the saints in heaven, I believe that their prayers are definitely efficacious. What I am doubting is whether or not they could hear our prayers, especially if those prayers were only done mentally.

Based on experience, I could say that they do hear our prayers. Based on the amount of miracles that have happened after asking for the intercession of saints, then they must hear our prayers. You tend to think in a space-time continuum. The saints are outside of the space-time continuum. God in His great mercy has made it possible for them to hear our prayers so that we our brothers and sisters in heaven can petition for us.

This is something that has impacted greatly on me of late. On the feast of St Francis of Assis I thought wow, by the virtue of my baptism, he is truly my brother. And I have all these wonderful brothers and sisters all just wanting to help me get to my final destination.

Only God is omniscient, not even the angels are, so what more the heavenly saints?

But being Omnipitent, He can do anything. If He can create the whole universe from out of nothing, getting our glorified brothers and sisters to hear our prayers is a piece of cake.

I know a usual answer to this that Catholics posit, (I heard this from John Martignoni, a Catholic apologist) namely, that the saints in heaven hear our prayers through God, but wouldn’t that be absurd?! I mean, imagine this, God would tell the saints in heaven that so and so are praing to you for you to pray for them to me. Don’t you think that’s stupid?

Your understanding of this is rather impaired. Through God (meaning because of God’s allowing it to be so) they can hear our petition, not necessarily that it passes through God then to them. We don’t know how exactly they are able to hear our prayers. But they do by the evidence that they have been able to get our petitions answered.
We don’t really know how the world came to being but we do know that the world is here.

As to Peter, of course he was an apostle. However, the popes and other bishops were not.

There is such a thing as an office. The Popes and bishops succeeded to their office. Same way Arroyo followed Estrada.

We know that there is an office by the fact that they had to fill the position of Judas and based on Peter’s speech before the ballot.

They cannot be infallible. Also, some posters here sent me lots of readings from the popes and RC bishops regarding Peter’s primacy but I woul only accept as infallible scriptural proof texts, not that other writings don’t have bearing, it’s just that they are still fallible.

Of their own, no they are not infallible. What makes them infallible is the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise that He will not allow the gates of hell to prevail over His Church.

If you do not believe that they have been protected from error then you do not believe that Jesus Christ is capable of keeping His promise. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is not capable of keeping His promise then you do not believe the Jesus Christ is God.

 

[benedictus2]

Exactly my point. Nobody calims that Protestant reformers were infallible. They all committed some mistake in one form of another.

Mistakes do not constitute a break of infallibility. Infallibility applies only to doctrinal error. And yes, the Protestant Revolters cannot claim infallibility, that promise was not given to them.

Moreover, it is only the RCC which claims that it is ONE and UNITED, not any Protestant denomination.

True, true. As PO18Guy once wrote: The Holy Spirit Unites, the Devil divides.

However, in spite of the apparent disunity in Protestantism, we still considered each other, regardless of denomination, as brethren in Christ and therefore mambers of His body.

If you have been baptized yes, if not no.

Also, I never said that “the protestant movement is no better than the Catholic in this limited regard.” In fact, what I’m trying to say is the other way around.

And if you are saying that the Protestant Movement IS better than the Catholic Church then you are dead wrong. The proof is in the fact that there are thousands of denominations which clearly goes against Jesus’s Christ’s own prayer that “they be one”.

 

[benedictus2]

If you apply your methods; how do you account for a Pope as head of the Church as Jesus and the apostles all say it is Jesus?

Gottago can you give me the verses in the Bible where ALL the apostles says it is Jesus who is the head of the Church?

How do you account for a priest forgiving sins when all the apostles say it is God alone? I could go on, but no point in being overwhelming or overbearing.

Same question here. Can you give me the verses where all the apostles say it is God alone who forgives sins.

I on the other hand can give you this verse: John 20:21-23 Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

 

[benedictus2]

He changed his name to demonstrate he was 1) correct on the revelation Jesus was the Christ, which would soon be proclaimed throughout the world (the gospel) and 2) that he was going to be used by Jesus to help lay the foundation of the church.

Wrong again.

Here is a more detailed explanation of Matthew 16:13-19 and why Jesus went all the way to Ceasaria Philippi to rename Simon as Rock and to promise him that he will be the rock upon which Jesus will build His Church.

Background:

Caesaria Philipi is around 20 miles ( a rough two days journey up the mountains) from Galillee.

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene?

Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip.

In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high.

On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine).

To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

With that scene in mind, let us now read Matthew 16: 13-19

**When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” **
**He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” **
**Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

Comment:

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep.

Steve Ray also notes the implication of the water in the cave. He comments that when you think of Peter being the rock and the water from this Rock now waters Gods’ people.

Also, since this cave is the origin of the Jordan river where Jesus was baptized and went with His disciples when they went baptizing, you can see in this symbolism the whole salvation theology including that of baptism as a sacrament of incorporation into Christ’s Church.

Another thing, and this is very important, neither Jesus nor the Father made any teaching about Jesus’ true identity and mission. This teaching THEY caused to be pronounced through Peter.
Christ could have gone around proclaiming He is the Son of God but He didn’t. He let that be declared through Peter.

If you notice, even His apostles had no real clue as to who Jesus was. Peter cuts through all that speculation and pronounces the TRUTH about Jesus Christ. Through the ages to this very day, his successors continue to pronounce the truth about who Jesus is and what His mission is all about.

 

[benedictus2]

What are Christians? Little Christs. Christ is the rock bed foundation and we are stones, just like Peter and the other apostles and the rest of the individuals that make up the body of Christ.

Nope Peter was not a stone. Jesus was very clear about that.

I have replied to this before but here it is again.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic for rock is Kepha. In Aramaic Matthew 16:18 would have gone like this: And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church, “. Straight English translation would have gone “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church”.

So why the Petros and petra problem? The Greek language have genders for things. Since Simon is a man, they cannot translate the Aramaic Kepha into Petra because that is a feminine name. So they gave him the male equivalent which is Petros.

Also, although there is a pebble/rock distinction in classical Greek, by the time of Jesus this distinction has gone, so petra and petros are both used to refer to rock.

In John 1:47 and elsewhere in Paul’s letter, Peter is called Cephas and Cephas means rock not stone.