To Non-Catholics: Why Peter IS the Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_Larkoski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheTruth:

Don’t forget the pagan symbol most embraced and venerated by the Catholic Church (and all Christian denominations as well): THE CROSS.

It comes down to this: all you have done is attack SteveG. Looking at Steve’s earlier posts, he presents a very solid argument, that, what it boils down to, is that the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus established upon Peter. There are several other threads that cover the True Church of Christ by giving examples from Early Church Fathers, evidence from the Catacombs, etc. You can deny these facts until the cows come home, but can you seriously find an early Christian who denied the authority of the Pope and apostalic succession? If not, then would Christ’s True Church all of a sudden deny Apostalic succession and break into thousand of denominations that are founded on the Bible, which DID NOT EXIST until over 300 years after Christ’s death? What did these early non-Bible Christians go to for Truth about Christ? Can we “Biblical” Christians go somewhere for Truth about Christ (and how to correctly interpret the Bible) that is not in the Bible (as St. John says: “There are many things that are not recorded in this book . . .”)? If so, where? Perhaps the same Church that the early Christians found Truth in?
 
And it couldn’t be that since the scriptures are interpretable different ways that in fact, this could be a case where no one is wrong…

TheTruth,
It’s either true or it’s false. Do you honestly believe that there is more than one interpretation of Scripture? It sounds like you’re saying that there is more than one truth and that Scripture can have more than one meaning. Did I misunderstand?
 
Totus Tuus:
And it couldn’t be that since the scriptures are interpretable different ways that in fact, this could be a case where no one is wrong…

TheTruth,
It’s either true or it’s false. Do you honestly believe that there is more than one interpretation of Scripture? It sounds like you’re saying that there is more than one truth and that Scripture can have more than one meaning. Did I misunderstand?
Click to expand...
There could very well be more than one interpretation…

You did not misunderstand…that is my point exactly.
 
The Truth

Logic and reasoning endorse catholicism.

Lets look at Luther, he broke away from the Church and decided that “the teachings/doctrine” of the catholic Church were wrong/evil.

Now lets accept that as true initially. If the doctrine of the Church is wrong then Luther must be given the true teachings/doctrine by God. We know that Luther attacked the teachings in many ways and replaced catholic doctrine with his own doctrine of truths. Now they can only be truths if God ensured they were true.

Was Luthers teaching the true teaching of Christ, lets look at the two possibilities, either they were or they weren’t.

If they weren’t the true teachings then Luther must have not been guided by God, thus he can only have been guided by the devil.

If they were the true teachings, which if he is guided by God, theymust be, then any one since his time who has followed any other teaching in opposition to Luther must be wrong, only Luthers teachings can be right if he was right in the first place.

I look forward to your reasoning Truth.

In Christ

Tim
 
TheTruth:

See my thread on “Cultural Relativism” in Non-Catholic Religions.
 
Logic and reasoning endorse catholicism.
Click to expand...
Waiting to see the Proof of that claim…
Lets look at Luther, he broke away from the Church and decided that “the teachings/doctrine” of the catholic Church were wrong/evil.
Click to expand...
Or that the interpretations that were being pawned off were incorrect…
Now lets accept that as true initially. If the doctrine of the Church is wrong
Click to expand...
because it was improperly interpreted by MEN
then Luther must be given the true teachings/doctrine by God. We know that Luther attacked the teachings in many ways and replaced catholic doctrine with his own doctrine of truths. Now they can only be truths if God ensured they were true.
Click to expand...
There can be more than one theory of a non proven set of criteria…you have faith that cathiolic theories are true, but there is no independant facts to support it…
 
40.png
TheTruth:
There could very well be more than one interpretation…

You did not misunderstand…that is my point exactly.
Click to expand...
But that would mean that God gave us more than one Truth, and that’s not possible.

There is one God and He is Truth, not truths.

God bless
 
40.png
Strider:
But that would mean that God gave us more than one Truth, and that’s not possible.

There is one God and He is Truth, not truths.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm…I don’t buy that. MAN interpreted what is in the bible, it is therefore subject to that interpretation…that leaves room for mistakes, and multiple possible meanings.
 
latisha

from your earlier post:

“Peter was not even the chief apostle at Jerusalem. Read and study Acts 15:1-19. Here was a Ministerial Conference (verse 6). Peter rose up to make his point (verse 7). But it was James, the physical brother of Jesus Christ, who made the final decision (verses 13-19). James was the chief apostle, not Peter.”

It is clear from this entire reading that Peter is claiming authority over the Gentiles, and that he is the one to make the decision regarding circumcision. James’s later remarks follow Peter’s lead. So how can you argue from his support of Peter that James is the chief apostle?
 
40.png
TheTruth:
Hmmmmm…I don’t buy that. MAN interpreted what is in the bible, it is therefore subject to that interpretation…that leaves room for mistakes, and multiple possible meanings.
Click to expand...
This is ecactly the crux of the discussion. If Jesus founded the Church on Peter, the Rock, and "I will give you the keys to 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."Mt 16:19
He gives Peter the power to bind and loose

And Mt 18:18 “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
He gives the rest of the apostles the power to bind and loose.
And, Mt 28:19, 20 Go, therefore 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 command you…"

So, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power to bind and loose, to interpret Scripture inerrently, among other things.
And there was only One Church and One Truth until Martin Luther, a man, came along and tried to interpret Scripture on his own. Now how many Christian denominatons and sects are there?
The Truth still resides with the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus on the Rock. All the rest are founded by men with endless interpretations of the “truth” in Scripture.
 
posted by the Truth
Hmmmmm…I don’t buy that. MAN interpreted what is in the bible, it is therefore subject to that interpretation…that leaves room for mistakes, and multiple possible meanings.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you that when you leave it in the hands of a man, there is room for mistakes. However, Christ did not leave it just to A man, He left it to a church with a man at its head. The Bible tells us that the church is a “pillar and foundation of truth.” We can trust God to keep His church a “pillar and foundation of truth.” Men will fail us, God will not and neither will the Church Christ founded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top