C
cfrancis
Guest
Well, yours aren’t really fun to read, but they do help us understand your take on Calvin’s theology.
- Status
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
Matthew 16:18 (From bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm)
What version of the Bible are you using that does not include the verse that clearly says that Peter is the rock?
Although you are correct in saying that it is Catholic Tradition, because the whole Bible is Catholic tradition.
Love is Patient
R
Reformed
Guest
The petro, petra has always been the historical debate and division. It’s nothing new. This is the main verse which Roman Catholicism teaches apostolic succession. It is the main verse that all Roman Catholic must believe dogmatically. I will post links to the historic Protestant understanding of this verse.
Matthew 16:18 (From bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm)
What version of the Bible are you using that does not include the verse that clearly says that Peter is the rock?
Although you are correct in saying that it is Catholic Tradition, because the whole Bible is Catholic tradition.
Here’s a good one in regards to Peter according to the Church Fathers (sacred tradition) from a Protestant perspective.
christiantruth.com/mt16.html
Here is the conclusion of the work above:
Conclusion
From the primary documentation of the writings of the fathers and the comments of Church historians we can summarize the patristic understanding of Peter and the rock from Matthew 16. Generally speaking, the fathers viewed the rock and foundation of the Church as the person of Christ, or Peter’s confession of faith which pointed to Christ. Sometimes they speak of Peter as the rock or foundation in the sense that he is the example of true faith—that he exemplified faith. But they do not teach that he is representative of a papal office or that the Church was built upon him in a legalistic sense. They also viewed Peter figuratively as representative of the unity of the entire Church. What Christ spoke to Peter he spoke to the Church as a whole and what was given to Peter was given to all the apostles and through them to the entire Church. The keys are a declarative authority to teach truth, preach the gospel and exercise discipline in the Church.
Though the fathers spoke in very exalted terms about the apostle Peter, their comments were not applied in an exclusive sense to the bishop of Rome, nor did they view the Roman bishops as given universal jurisdiction over the Church. Although they saw the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter, they did not see them as the exclusive successors of Peter, nor as the universal rulers of the Church, nor the see of Rome as the only apostolic see. Roman Catholics assume that when a Church father speaks of Peter he is also talking about the bishops of Rome but this is not the case. That is to read a preconceived theology into their writings. The fathers teach that all bishops are successors of Peter. In their interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21 we do not find any affirmation of the teaching of Vatican I on papal jurisdiction and infallibility.
This reveals two important points from both a theological and historical perspective. Theologically, there is no evidence of patristic consensus to support the Vatican I papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 equating the rock with the person of Peter, assigning to him and the Roman bishops the place of preeminence of rule in the Church through the authority of the keys. The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to the ‘universal consent of the fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from both the East and West demonstrates that the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman Catholic Church today. The fact is, apart from the popes themselves—beginning in the late fourth century—and with those who have an interest in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.
C
cfrancis
Guest
shouldn’t take long to post 500 years worth of info on this!The petro, petra has always been the historical debate and division. It’s nothing new. This is the main verse which Roman Catholicism teaches apostolic succession. It is the main verse that all Roman Catholic must believe dogmatically. I will post links to the historic Protestant understanding of this verse.
I literally laughed out loud when the link took me to William Webster’s work; no kidding, laughing out loud in my office!
Your credibility has sunk to a new low with this!
Here’s a good one to refute Webster: Webster Stumbles “Upon this Rock”
R
Reformed
Guest
My creditibility is meaningless on this fourm site. I am not a man pleaser. I don’t think you can make an accurate distinction between tradition and Sacred Tradition because you probably are unable to know the difference. The doctrine of Sacred Tradition is a man made idea to convince the laity to believe everything that Rome tells you to believe. It is not good enough to say it’s true because Rome tells you that it is true. Trust in God through His Holy Scriptures. Faith is based on biblical revelation and not sources that cannot be supplied when requested.
C
cfrancis
Guest
And we’re back to that fundamental question you are so keen to avoid:
What is the Biblical proof for the canon you accept and believe?
After all, in order to trust Sacred Scripture, I need Sacred Tradition to tell me which writings were actually inspired by God.
You have, on this thread, admitted to this.
R
Reformed
Guest
Sacred Tradition are acutal written documents, correct? Can you supply it to me? If I am missing revealtion from God, I think it’s important for me to have them. Does it come in Latin and English too?
R
ryanoneil
Guest
You are mixing apples with oranges. please answer my question and I’d be happy to discuss this further.
The Ephesians lost the love they first had (while in a state of grace).
My question still stands. Why would Jesus give the Ephesians a warning about losing their salvation if his finished work had them covered?
Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. (Rev 2:4-5)
Unless I really misunderstand Calvinism, this makes absolutely no sense to me. Jesus is warning the elect who already have the lampstand of salvation (because their sins are covered) that they might lose their salvation.
Just in case they are not the elect they can examine themselves, but it doesn’t matter what they discover because there is nothing they can do about it anyway.Unless, you think God was the one who caused them to lose their love.
C
cfrancis
Guest
Are you capable of answering the question posed to you:
What is the Biblical proof for the canon you accept and believe?
After all, when I stated:
You replied:cfrancis said:
Reformed said:I already have that part of catholic Tradition. Could you please give me a link to the larger porition of Sacred Oral and Written Tradition…please?
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
I trust in God through his Holy Scriptures.
I trust the Catholic Church–not the secular city of Rome–because God, in his Holy Bible, tells me to (1 Tim. 3:15).
If you have a problem with Catholics trusting the Church, you’re going to have to take it up with the Lord.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a man made idea to convince the laity doctrine is created by cherry picking verses, instead of reading the Bible as a unified witness to God.
It promotes bickering over what the Scriptures mean, because under this system, you get dozens of opinions, but no real answers. It has resulted in strife, confusion, and division.
Lord God, change our hearts.
St. Theresa of Avila, pray for us. (It’s her feast day today.)
Love is Patient
R
Reformed
Guest
I think you need a good convesation with Michael and try to settle your understanding of the invisible church. Sheeps and goats, weat and tares, under-sheperds and wolves are words from Jesus. Don’t you see Revelation as being adressed to the seven churches?You are mixing apples with oranges. please answer my question and I’d be happy to discuss this further.
The Ephesians lost the love they first had (while in a state of grace).
My question still stands. Why would Jesus give the Ephesians a warning about losing their salvation if his finished work had them covered?
Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. (Rev 2:4-5)
Unless I really misunderstand Calvinism, this makes absolutely no sense to me. Jesus is warning the elect who already have the lampstand of salvation (because their sins are covered) that they might lose their salvation.
Unless, you think God was the one who caused them to lose their love.
R
Reformed
Guest
Never mind, you are not able to supply Sacred written and oral Tradition. At least when I discuss things with Mormons, they are able to provide their sacred tradition to me. I used to have The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price alongside of my Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Companion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We used to carry these sources in our door to door ministry.
Heck, if you put a stack of all written Sacred Tradition next to the Holy Bible, the bible stack would probably be about 1% in size as compared to all that Sacred Tradition.
If the pile of Sacred Tradition becomes too large, all you have to do is believe whatever the Catholic Church tells you to believe. That’s quite a risk considering what’s at stake for you, your family, friends and neighbors, don’t you think?
C
cfrancis
Guest
Do you ever tire of all the bobbing and weaving you do here? When you went door-to-door, did you ever answer questions posed to you?Never mind, you are not able to supply Sacred written and oral Tradition. At least when I discuss things with Mormons, they are able to provide their sacred tradition to me. I used to have The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price alongside of my Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Companion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We used to carry these sources in our door to door ministry.
Heck, if you put a stack of all written Sacred Tradition next to the Holy Bible, the bible stack would probably be about 1% in size as compared to all that Sacred Tradition.
It really is a simple question, Reformed:
What is the Biblical proof for the canon you accept and believe?
Or you can supply the tradition you believe supports your belief in the canon.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
I think I can safely assume that Michael believes we can lose our salvation. (I apologize if I’m wrong)
How about you do me a favor and explain (Rev 2) as it pertains to (Eph 1).
"To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write this: " 'The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this: "I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors. Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. " ‘“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.”’
I’m particularly interested in how (Eph 1: 13-14) relates
In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit, which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory.
R
Reformed
Guest
That’s a good question and don’t have an answer for you. The Book of Revelation is a difficult book, and might not be the best to get essential doctrine. We both agree that Revelation is addressing specific churches, right?
P
Pier
Guest
Agreed - Christ is indeed seated at the right hand of God the Father, but where Christ is seated wasn’t the subject…LOL…thanks for the laugh. Jesus is at the right hand of God the Father.
.
If Protestants don’t need another right-hand man or lady, then why do they follow Calvin’s (or whoever’s) spin on the Bible, while dismissing Christ’s Church that was entrusted with God’s Book through the authority of His Holy Spirit?
You have been mislead. Jesus Christ called Peter the rock - how can you deny this?
P
Pier
Guest
Not when they’re incorrect.
P
Pier
Guest
Amen.
Matthew 16:18 (From bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm)
What version of the Bible are you using that does not include the verse that clearly says that Peter is the rock?
Although you are correct in saying that it is Catholic Tradition, because the whole Bible is Catholic tradition.
& I love your signature!
R
Reformed
Guest
Petro…petra… Rock…rock… so that’s the only claim we have in Scripture for apostolic succession? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints use a very similar kind of verse to support their apostolic succession claim too. Here is their claim to fame.
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. - John 10
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hellshall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. - Matt 16
Maybe “this rock” is the testimony of Peter’s that Jesus is the Christ? So, here is some Calvinism for you. Why did Jesus tells his disciples not tell no one that He is the Christ? And why did Jesus speak in parables according to the Scriptures?
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Yes, but there are many layers to the book.
- Status