Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

[Mishakel]

Yes, but in Matthew 16 Jesus is speaking only to Peter.

I could get into some of the Greek texts but I think it’s easier to understand if you step back and look at the overall picture. Christ did not grant the power mentioned in Matt 16:19 at that moment. I say that knowing Peter (and the rest of the disciples) will not be infused with the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost. This is the key to understanding multiple chapters when read together. If you (or Catholicism by nature) claims Peter received this power at that moment it would mean Peter would be relying on himself and his own nature to discern what to bind and loose in doctrine.

Christ says " On this rock I will build My church" and “I will give you the keys”. Both statements are clearly meant for the future and we know the day of Pentecost was the day the official Church, or body of Christ’s followers began. We also know that Christ told all the disciples at the same time they would receive the power to bind and loose what constituted doctrine.

In all charity, Protestants reject authority and rely only on their own private interpretation of what they think God is saying in the Bible.

There are millions of those who read and receive the same meaning. It’s hard to argue that it’s my own personal interpretation when so many others would agree.

But you do, you yield it to yourself, when you rely on your own personal interpretation.

Again, in all charity how do you know that your interpretation of God’s Word is correct, especially when the other person at the other denomination down the road has a totally different interpretation. Doesn’t that go against “being led in to all truth” and “do not lean on your own understanding.”

This kind of goes along with my last answer. This brings up another authoritative difference. I think you and I would agree that scripture teaches us that the Holy Spirit’s role is to guide us in truth. I have to rely on God as the Holy Spirit for guidance. I love that you brought up lean not unto your own understanding but both verses of Proverbs 3 support my intellect on this subject.

5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths

The NIV states

5Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight

I am but a lowly sinner and our time on earth is short. All that I am I owe to God. It’s my duty and privilege to give God all the glory for everything, including giving us his Word which to live by so that we have the chance of salvation. I am bound to believe what God through the Holy Spirit leads me to believe and all of my trust is in him. I can not trust Catholicism, or any denomination for that truth.

Time is short atm but I hope that makes sense.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Christ did not grant the power mentioned in Matt 16:19 at that moment. I say that knowing Peter (and the rest of the disciples) will not be infused with the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost.

Christ being the second person of the Trinity, knew absolutely how Peter was able to make that statement and He tells Peter that the Father has revealed it to him, so no Peter was not acting on his own but was given a divine revelation.

There are millions of those who read and receive the same meaning. It’s hard to argue that it’s my own personal interpretation when so many others would agree.

That is incorrect. I can say for sure that millions do not read and come to the same conclusion for every Bible verse or even most Bible verses. That is why there are so many denominations and within each denomination, every person has their own opinion about different verses and each person says they are led by the Holy Spirit in to believing what they believe… As I said, I used to be protestant and worked in a multidenominational environment. I heard all the time by each person, that they were being led by the Holy Spirit and there was nothing but disagreement.

God bless and you are right, time is short. Obedience is extremely important.

 

[Mishakel]

That is incorrect. I can say for sure that millions do not read and come to the same conclusion for every Bible verse or even most Bible verses. That is why there are so many denominations

I completely understand the logic behind that statement. I don’t think you will find as much disagreement among protestants on the key verses which separate us from catholicism. Forget all the denominations. If I read the bible completely on my own I don’t see how the many aspects of catholicism would ever make sense to me. I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of each one but suffice to say the history and traditions would preclude me from partaking based again solely on scripture.

One thing to keep in mind is that catholicism gives a dogmatic interpretation on very few verses in all of scripture.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I don’t think you will find as much disagreement among protestants on the key verses which separate us from catholicism

Yes, that I would completely agree with. Protestants agree pretty much on the few key scripture verses used for not being Catholic.

Many Catholic converts and reverts will tell you that in their search for truth in Christianity, they would search through the different protestant denominations, always saying to themselves, “anything but Catholic”, “anything but Catholic”. That is usually because of those few Bible verses but somehow, someway the Holy Spirit leads them home to the fullness of truth.

suffice to say the history and traditions would preclude me from partaking based again solely on scripture.

God gives us free will and you can certainly make that choice. I did say that very thing many, many times also, so please be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Will keep you in my prayers.

God bless.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

From my skewed viewpoint, it is easy - too easy - to be Protestant. In many cases, no baptism, no other sacraments, no penance, no confession of sins, no devotions, but most of all: no Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

I wouldn’t agree it is “too easy” being Protestant. The vast majority of my family is Catholic. I have been shunned for even questioning Catholicism. And being Protestant is anything but “easy.” You get it from all sides: Catholic, Protestant, & non-Christian. And Protestants are constantly confessing their sins…the difference is that we confess them daily directly to the Father through Jesus Christ our High Priest & sole Mediator. So, to say Protestants don’t confess our sins is a misnomer. We simply don’t utilize a human instrument, but Christ Himself. And Protestants do daily devotions, either the Bible itself, or some kind of devotional utilizing Scripture references, or a devotion based on it.

“‘X’ never, ever marks the spot.” - Indiana Jones

 

[po18guy]

We err when we judge a faith by its practitioners. Rather, look to the core doctrines and the reasoning behind those doctrines. If one can do that, while avoiding all the familial noise, the fulness of truth is much easier to arrive at.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Okay, that is a very, very long stretch. That is definitely taking a bible verse completely out of the rest of the Bible.

How so? The apostle Paul rebukes any ecclesiastical body, which forbids men from marrying & abstaining from eating certain foods. How is that a “very, very long stretch”?

this is where one goes when one wants to get the Church out of the picture, so they can privately interpret scripture as they personally choose. It is a form of rebellion against God.

Disagreeing that the Catholic church is the “church” Jesus said He would build is not “rebellion against God.” The two groups simply disagree on what the meaning of “church” means in Scripture. So, it is a fallacy to say that non-Catholics want to “get the church of the picture.” That is an erroneous assumption. If anything, Protestants revere the church, because it is the only institute Christ built. And the other assumption that Protestants desire to “privately interpret Scripture as they personally choose” completely goes against what sola scriptura means, as well as what Protestantism is really all about.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

We err when we judge a faith by its practitioners. Rather, look to the core doctrines and the reasoning behind those doctrines. If one can do that, while avoiding all the familial noise, the fulness of truth is much easier to arrive at.

But the difference between Catholics & Protestants is “where” to find those “core doctrines.” For Catholicism, it’s the Magisterium & the Pope and ecumenical councils, as well as select “traditions,” in addition to Scripture. For the Protestant, it is exegeting Scripture by using Scripture, by understanding the meaning of words & phrases from the original Biblical languages, like “petros” from “keph” & “petra” from “'cela.”

"I think it’s time to ask yourself; what do you believe in?” - Indiana Jones

 

[po18guy]

But the difference between Catholics & Protestants is “where” to find those “core doctrines.” For Catholicism, it’s the Magisterium & the Pope and ecumenical councils, as well as select “traditions”,

WHAT??? Apostolic traditions! As taught by the twelve and Saint Paul!!! As Saint Paul admonished Christians to hold fast to! Please read 2 Thessalonians once again. Yes, it’s in there.

For the Protestant, it is exegeting Scripture by using Scripture, by understanding the meaning of words & phrases from the original Biblical languages, like “petros” from “keph” & “petra” from “'cela.”

This, as you will learn later in life, is utter nonsense and leads 100% to theological error. Read Nehemiah 8:5-8. Scripture needs interpretation by someone placed in authority - not someone who has elected themselves, i.e. European Protestantism.

Are you conveniently ignoring the nearly identical Eastern Orthodox? What about them?

You see where this leads? Bible alone believers assert that they alone are correct and 1.5 billion living Christians are all wrong. Does that make any sense at all?

I may once again be wrong, but I see a bunch of ego in that.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

WHAT??? Apostolic traditions! As taught by the twelve and Saint Paul!!! As Saint Paul admonished Christians to hold fast to ! Please read 2 Thessalonians once again. Yes, it’s in there.

I have. And if you read 2 Thessalonians when it talks about “traditions” (as well as in Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians) those “traditions” Paul said to adhere to were “traditions” that had previously been written down. Out of the 14 times “tradition” is mentioned in the NT, 11 times those “traditions” are rebuked, because they either “exceeded” or “transgressed” the Word of God (eg: Matthew 15:1-9). Never are extra-biblical traditions that are not also written down are ever viewed positively.

For example, which “tradition” from Doctors of the Church regarding the identity of Jesus’ “brothers” should we “hold fast to”? Augustine’s “tradition” that said they were older step-brothers from an “alleged” first marriage from Joseph, or the “tradition” from the Doctor Jerome who said they were cousins?

Scripture needs interpretation by someone placed in authority - not someone who has elected themselves, i.e. European Protestantism.

I agree. But how can you objectively discern what the “authority” is without employing circular reasoning? BTW, the Nehemiah passage stated that “authority” was based on translating it from one language to another, not the authority of Ezra himself.

Are you conveniently ignoring the nearly identical Eastern Orthodox? What about them?

You mean the ones who schismed from the Catholic church in 1054, who still dissents on the Filioque that Catholics & Protestants AGREE is Biblical? The same who have MORE books in their OT canon than Catholics? The ones who reject the supremacy of the Pope (which they AGREE with Protestantism)? No, not ignoring them, or why bringing them up is relevant.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

You see where this leads? Bible alone believers assert that they alone are correct

Again, no, that’s not what Protestantism asserts, nor what sola scriptura means. The fact not all Protestant sects “agree” with each other on every single passage, doesn’t mean sola scriptura is fallacious or isn’t supported Scripturally. It simply means that obviously most of them are wrong, and that many are not truly following sola scriptura but even they are adhering to the “traditions of men.” And some things in Scripture do allow for Christian liberty, because Scripture isn’t explicit (like the frequency of serving communion). And if “1.5 million living Christians are ‘wrong,’” which is your accusation, then even “if” this is true (and I am NOT saying they are), that has no bearing on what is true & what is not. “Majority” does not always equate with being “correct.” What happens when the “majority” of the world will be Muslim one day soon? Does that mean Islam is “correct” because they will be in the “majority”? Of course not, as we would both agree they would not be at that future time.

Not even all Catholics agree on certain issues. Some believe priests should marry, others do not. Some Rites allow them to, others do not. Some believe infant limbo exists, others do not. Some believe unbaptized babies who die go to Heaven, others do not. So, Protestants don’t corner the market in differing in Biblical views. It’s rather a matter of the difference in how Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and others understand what Jesus & the Bible means by “church.”

 

[SaberBob]

"And I tell unto you, hold fast to those traditions I taught unto you, by either letter or word of mouth–except for the word of mouth, hold on to only those which were prior written down.’–things never said by Paul

 

[RaisedCatholic]

"And I tell unto you, hold fast to those traditions I taught unto you, by either letter or word of mouth–except for the word of mouth, hold on to only those which were prior written down.’–things never said by Paul

I didn’t say Paul said that latter phrase. What I said was when Paul said to “hold to THOSE traditions,” what he meant by “those” was the traditions he had just previously written down, which you have to go back several verses to find out the “traditions” he is talking about. So, when he talks about “those traditions I taught unto you, either by letter or word of mouth,” in context he wasn’t talking about ONE set of traditions by letter (Scripture) and ANOTHER SEPARATE set of traditions by word of mouth (oral). Rather, Paul was saying the SAME tradition spread either BY letter OR by letter, which - again - if you read back several verses, you find out what those “traditions” he was talking about, which he had just written down.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

I find it funny how often it is that a scriptural exegesis ends up looking like the theology of the exegete themselves.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I find it funny how often it is that a scriptural exegesis ends up looking like the theology of the exegete themselves

The truth is, anyone who has a differing viewpoint could make the same claim. What’s important is upon comparing and testing the different viewpoints by comparing them “to” Scripture like the more noble-minded Bereans did, which view is best supported by the exegete of SCRIPTURE, not by the individual him/her self.

 

[whatistrue]

spread either BY letter OR by letter

Sorry, that doesn’t make sense. And you seem to be twisting a lot to try and deny the plain meaning of the passage in question. I thought the claim was supposed to be that the meaning should be plain, but maybe not?

I like to think of the Magisterium as sort of the Catholic Church equivalent of the US Supreme Court. Everybody and their brother can read the Constitution and try to figure out what it means, but the only body that can give a definitive official interpretation that is binding on all US citizens is the Supreme Court. Of course, it is not a perfect analogy, since the Supreme Court can and has changed its mind on fundamental questions (see Plessy v. Ferguson as opposed to Brown v. Board of Education).

 

[SaberBob]

The example of the Bereans has to be one of the most often quoted out of context supposed supports for Sola Scriptural. Seriously, if the “Noble Bereans” ONLY had the Septuagint they could have compared *scripture to scripture" all day long and NEVER would have come up with the Gospel without the oral teaching of the Apostles.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The apostle Paul rebukes any ecclesiastical body, which forbids men from marrying & abstaining from eating certain foods. How is that a “very, very long stretch”?

Your comment is implying that the Catholic church can not be the pillar and foundation of truth because 1 Timothy 4: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith …forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”.

Paul when writing to St. Timothy, whom St. Paul ordained as Bishop of Ephesus, was referring to gnostic heretics, Encratites, Marcionites and the like who believed that meat was evil and marriage was evil.

The Catholic church does not believe this. Marriage is held very highly and is a sacrament, and considered holy, so it doesn’t forbid marriage. If referring to priests, they made a vow to God, Catholic priests are standing in persona Christi. They are married to the Church, which is the Bride of Christ, but there are rites in the Catholic church that do allow married priests.

The Catholic church also doesn’t believe that meat is evil. God is the creator of all creatures and they are good. We are to eat with thanksgiving. On Fridays and during Lent we abstain from meat, not because it is evil but because it is good and we are giving up a good because Christ gave up His life for us. It is showing God our love.

… simply disagree on what the meaning of “church” means in Scripture.

Only one can be right. God only started One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There can not be two truths.

… it is a fallacy to say that non-Catholics want to “get the church of the picture.”

In all charity it is true that many who grew up protestant, don’t think a thing about the Catholic church, some are involved in ecumenism with the Church, but those who were raised Catholic, who were taught the Church holds the fullness of truth but are thinking of leaving and yes some protestants who have heard that the Catholic church is the fullness of truth need to discredit this teaching. It is one of the first steps in interpreting scripture on their own. Then they have a variety of denominations to choose from but most people choose the one that holds to what they already have come to believe.

… Protestants desire to “privately interpret Scripture as they personally choose” completely goes against what sola scriptura means, as well as what Protestantism is

I did not say they desire to privately interpret Scripture but that they do. They pretty much have to, there is no Church for them to take it.

In our town a large Baptist church split because both the pastor and associate pastor could not agree on Bible verses. Those two divisions continued to spit and divide several times over and we no longer have any remainder of that large church.
Both the pastor and associate pastor kept saying the same thing, “I am standing on the authority of the Bible” but both read that authority different.

God bless

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Sorry, that doesn’t make sense. And you seem to be twisting a lot to try and deny the plain meaning of the passage in question. I thought the claim was supposed to be that the meaning should be plain, but maybe not?

Perhaps this might help with the 2 Thesslonians passage:

The ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ These ‘traditions’ were what Paul had just written , because he begins this verse with ‘So then’ or ‘Therefore,’ indicating that the ‘traditions’ he was talking about were what he had just communicated to them in writing , which were about the Second Coming of Jesus (v.1-14).

Of course, it is not a perfect analogy, since the Supreme Court can and has changed its mind on fundamental questions (see Plessy v. Ferguson as opposed to Brown v. Board of Education ).

And let’s not forget, an early SCOTUS ruled the US “is a Christian nation,” yet a recent SCOTUS under the Obama Administration ruled marriage is not limited to man & a woman, to include gay “marriage,” which would go against the previous “Christian nation” ruling, since a Christian nation would limit marriage between a man & a woman.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The example of the Bereans has to be one of the most often quoted out of context supposed supports for Sola Scriptural. Seriously, if the “Noble Bereans” ONLY had the Septuagint they could have compared *scripture to scripture" all day long and NEVER would have come up with the Gospel without the oral teaching of the Apostles.

The whole point of the Bereans, was that they didn’t take the words of even the apostles, including Paul & Barnabas. Even THEY had to have their teachings compared to the OT Scriptures which prophesied who the Messiah would be. And it is from the OLD Testament Scriptures that Paul was preaching from that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah, and fulfilled those OT prophecies.