So, when Jesus established the Church...?

[fhansen]

But you in turn can hold us accountable to a vision of the Church capable of making such dogmatic definitions. If the gates of hell did not in fact prevail against the medieval Church, then we Protestants are bound to proceed as if that Church is part of our heritage to which we are accountable. If (as I believe) II Nicaea made a decision about a matter (the nature of idolatry) concerning which the Church cannot be wrong without ceasing to exist, then we Protestants have to question much of the basis for the Protestant Reformation (at least in its Reformed version). If the medieval Christian range of opinions concerning justification by faith left room for the Gospel, then we have to question whether Luther’s “article by which the Church stands or falls” is anything of the kind. And so on, and so forth.

Edwin

These and other questions are exactly the kind which drove many of us to-or back to-the CC.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…and told Peter that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, how do we reconcile some of the evils that has infiltrated the Church? Not to beat a dead horse here, but all the typical examples such as, the sex-abuse scandal, the crusades, various anti-popes, liberalized liturgies, etc.

It seems to me that the phrase I quaoted above seems to be stating that evil shall not be allowed in the church heirarchy, yet it seems to happen. I certainly realize that evil is individualized, but isn’t that an example of where hell IS prevailing?

Just curious what everyone’s thoughts are on this matter…

SG

The word katischuō = “prevail against”] may mean:​

• the gates of hades will not be able to hold out against the Church when the Church assaults it
• the gates of hades will not be able to overcome the Church when the Church is assaulted
  **So: **
• is the Church under attack
• or attacking
• **or is one or other meant depending on the circumstances ? **
  ISTM that the text is meant to mean both. What is not in doubt, is the final result: whatever happens, the "gates of hades" (hades is the word used here, FWIW) are not going to overcome: the result is a foregone conclusion. (like other acts of God - which is not an excuse for Christians to laze about.)

**That’s not the end of it though - for, while the final result is certain, there is nothing to say, in the immediate text, or anywhere else in the Bible, that the “gates of hades” won’t “prevail” in some of the battles of the war. Certainty of final victory is perfectly compatible with many heavy defeats in the meantime. In the war against Hannibal (218-202 B.C.), the Romans were (at least militarily) the victors - but not before some disastrous defeats, as at Trasimene (217) & Cannae (216) - they lost 130,000 men in those two battles alone. But they won the war. Or take the two World Wars - tens of millions died on both sides; **
**not on the losing aside alone. **

**So ISTM that the Church is given no guarantee of unfailing victory in all battles - I don’t see any hint of this anywhere: if it is were so, ISTM it would be a bonus; but in view of the terrible evils & many disasters that have happened, not to mention the less spectacular but no less evil wrongdoing that is known only to a few or to God, it is very hard to see how that interpretation can be squared with what has happened. OTOH, it can be squared with an interpretation that sees in His words a promise of final victory despite all evils until then. **

**If there were not many evils in the Church & in Christians, He would not be able to be seen as victorious over them - they serve His Purposes, despite those who do them. He cannnot be thwarted, & this incident may be an application of that. If so, it is a preparation for His decisive victory won on the Cross over hell & its powers. ****It is after all His Church (not ours) & His Faithfulness (not ours) that is its mainstay - it would not be able to endure one moment, without Him as its Strength. **

 

[bookgirl32]

The word katischuō = “prevail against”] may mean:​

• the gates of hades will not be able to hold out against the Church when the Church assaults it
• the gates of hades will not be able to overcome the Church when the Church is assaulted
  **So: **
• is the Church under attack
• or attacking
• **or is one or other meant depending on the circumstances ? **
  ISTM that the text is meant to mean both. What is not in doubt, is the final result: whatever happens, the "gates of hades" (hades is the word used here, FWIW) are not going to overcome: the result is a foregone conclusion. (like other acts of God - which is not an excuse for Christians to laze about.)

That’s not the end of it though - for, while the final result is certain, there is nothing to say, in the immediate text, or anywhere else in the Bible, that the "gates of hades" won’t “prevail” in some of the battles of the war. Certainty of final victory is perfectly compatible with many heavy defeats in the meantime. In the war against Hannibal (218-202 B.C.), the Romans were (at least militarily) the victors - but not before some disastrous defeats, as at Trasimene (217) & Cannae (216) - they lost 130,000 men in those two battles alone. But they won the war. Or take the two World Wars - tens of millions died on both sides;
**not on the losing aside alone. **

**So ISTM that the Church is given no guarantee of unfailing victory in all battles - I don’t see any hint of this anywhere: if it is were so, ISTM it would be a bonus; but in view of the terrible evils & many disasters that have happened, not to mention the less spectacular but no less evil wrongdoing that is known only to a few or to God, it is very hard to see how that interpretation can be squared with what has happened. OTOH, it can be squared with an interpretation that sees in His words a promise of final victory despite all evils until then. **

**If there were not many evils in the Church & in Christians, He would not be able to be seen as victorious over them - they serve His Purposes, despite those who do them. He cannnot be thwarted, & this incident may be an application of that. If so, it is a preparation for His decisive victory won on the Cross over hell & its powers. ****It is after all His Church (not ours) & His Faithfulness (not ours) that is its mainstay - it would not be able to endure one moment, without Him as its Strength. **

You’re missing the whole point, but making one at the same time. All of the issues you’re taking to be evidence of the Gates of Hell prevailing against the Church in the way we’re saying are actually evidence FOR the fact that they did not. Through bad people, bad events, bad everything, the Word of God contained in and interpreted by the Church through Tradition and Scripture has stayed the same. That’s the whole point.

 

[Seeks_God]

So, by saying that hell has prevailed against the Church you are in effect saying that Christ either lied to Peter or He was wrong in His statement…both of which we know are simply impossible…rethink your assertion.

Interesting conundrum, isn’t it…now, the problem would exist for a non-believer, but not someone who decides to believe, right? IF I were someone who needed convincing abouth the authenticity of Jesus’ divinity, this would be a serious point of contention… Did Jesus lie??? Granted, it’s blasphemous to believers, but isn’t a problem for someone trying to decide on His divinity?

I see all the scandals and sinful inviduals that have been in the Church over the centuries as further PROOF that the gates of hell have not prevailed. As badly as we sinful humans try to bring down the Church, either conciously in a few cases or unconciously, the Church still stands and the truths She has taught from the beginning still stand.
You see, God is the One ensuring that the gates of hell do not prevail against His Church…it is not by the power of any of us simpletons.

Point taken…

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

I think this is a question whose answer depends very much on what one means by “Church” and what Jesus meant when he used the term. By Church do we mean the corporate body of individuals including the Saints in heaven, the group Paul calls the Body of Christ? Do we mean a system of official teachings,sacraments, and liturgy? Are we talking of the hierarchy from the Pope on down to the clergy, but not the laity? Obviously we are not talking about a building. In my opinion once the term Church gets sorted out we will be on our way to an answer. It already sounds that there are deferring concepts of the phrases “gates of hell” and “prevail against”.

I think that was well stated…

SG