**2 Pet 3:15,16 **
This changes nothing and I fail to see the relevance of your comments. The church was introduced into the sentence as the topic and then Paul expanded on what the church is. The fact that the word church was introduced during a discussion of how to behave does not alter what Paul claims regarding the church. Namely, that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
It is the upholder of truth. We can agree on that despite your equivocations. “governing body” is not a term I used, although that would seem to be precisely what the NT record shows. This is not, of course meant to justify the NT as the model of the church for all time - that’s just a ridiculous proposal. To bring the gospel to all nations apart from a unified body which upholds the truth of the gospel is simply an impossibility. Logic compels one to realize the necessity of concrete, visible, divinely appointed measure of the truth of Scripture - aka, the Church.
Precisely, and it directly attributes this function to the church.
It neither confirms nor denies the means(ie "making declarations) of upholding the truth - it simply affirms that the church will be doing it. If you dont think it will be by making declarations you need to propose a more reasonable form of communication. Again, the evidence is that the Apostles spoke declarations and wrote declarations and bound Christians to them.
But there is no Scripture at the time of this letter, John, other than the OT. And there is no indication anywhere in Scripture that additional Scripture is forthcoming to serve this purpose, is there??? This statement of yours is simply a rational, but biased opinion which you have interjected into the discussion at hand to explain away what was actually said. Where did it come from? The text? I dont think so. I think if one were most reasonable looking at the 2 letters to Timothy that one would draw a very different conclusion. Paul states that Timothy knows all Scripture and has since his youth, yet he goes on to say that he is writing so that Timothy will know how to behave in the Church. Obviously Paul didnt think that preaching Scripture to Timothy would accomplish what needed to be accomplished.
Bible Apologist,
This also is not clear from the text. Many translations render that verse in the sense of “Do you take your cases before people who are of no account in the church?” It is not a directive, it is a rhetorical question in the sense of “I can’t believe you are actually doing this.”
Not really … given that your renderings of the verses in question are doubtful, it is not at all clear.
My answer to your question will be one to cover all the questions you asked in your previous post.
Jesus didn’t promise to build His church on Peter. He promised to build His church on the revelation of truth by the Father which is in heaven. How else could the Church be the “pillar and ground of truth” if the Church has not received revelation of the truth? Not by flesh and blood, as Jesus did not say Peter was blessed because he received revelation by flesh and blood, but the complete opposite.
So the true church is built on the revelation that Jesus is the truth? Now that makes sense.
Although I did interject the word “scripture” in my response, you apparently mistook my intentions… I do not believe the church is the pillar and ground of scripture alone. But, as I stated in my previous post… the scripture coincides perfectly with revelation through the Holy Spirit.
Sure, I agree with that, but you need to keep in mind that those declarations were not the Apostles philosophies or reason, they were spoken out of the abundance of truth that was revealed to them by the Father. Their declarations were by inspiration of the Holy Spirit… The same Holy Spirit that urged the Apostles to write, the same Holy Spririt that orchestrated the future compilations of those letters, and the same Holy Spirit that teaches Christians indwelt with that Spririt the spiritual teachings of those writings by “comparing spiritual things with spritual”.
It’s hard to believe you are listening to your own words.
Letter to the Smyrneans, Chap 8
bibleapologist, your interpretation is too narrow.
You are correct that you dont have any authority. But you are incorrect regarding the Church having authority - how else could it be the pillar and foundation of truth? How else, apart from the Church’s authority do we have recognition of non-apostolic Gospels as Scripture?
Sounds wonderful but the Holy Spirit dwells in all believers, teaches all believers etc etc.and therefore there is nothing unique to your situation which would make your teaching any more valid than those believers who disagree with you.
So you believe the true church is supposed to be everyone independently proclaiming the truth that they believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to them while at the same time they are to do it recognizing that they have no authority to do so? Im sorry but that is just seriously lacking in reason, Scriptural support and practicality.
Actually, that is precisely what he did. This illogical linguistic dance of yours aimed at altering the most simple statement to mean something you personally need it to mean simply doesnt fly IMHO. Most scholars Catholic and non-Catholic, disagree with you.
Ah, a purely logical error on your part. You seem to believe that origin of the revelation(God) and its medium for delivery(Peter) are somehow mutually exclusive or separable. Not so, my friend. The Father chose to reveal that truth through Peter. They cannot be separated - that is how the Father has willed it. The church is to be built on the Truth of the Father revealed through Peter. Think about it. It is no different than the fact that God could have willed salvation differently than he did, but he chose to do it through the person of Jesus Christ - inseparable will and medium.
It amazes me how far off target your logic and my own are. How do you come to the conclusion that “the Church has not received revelation of the truth?” It did receive it - and there is no question of that. The question is how, once it was received, was it REVEALED. And the answer is that it was revealed THROUGH PETER. And although Peter did not receive it through his own efforts (his own flesh and blood) he received it as a spiritual gift of God.
Yeah, this idea of different churches having different beliefs seems contradictory to Scripture. Paul specifically says in 1Cor 4:17 …“Just as I teach EVERYWHERE IN EVERY CHURCH”. The entire Church; all the individual churches received a UNITY of belief.
Be forthright John. I did not “mistake” your intentions, you did not write what you “intended” to say, and you were unaware of it until it was brought to your attention. No biggie.
Yeah, but that is an entirely separate topic, John. We both agree that “Scripture coincides perfectly with revelation through the Holy Spirit.” but you haven’t moved an inch closer to explaining how we are to identify Scripture from non-Scripture apart from the Church with the authority to do so. You simply changed the subject from the identification of what it is Scripture to the subject of what are the divine qualities of Scripture. So the question remains how do you know what is Scripture apart from the Church?
Ibid John. Some Apostles wrote Scripture and some didnt. Some non-Apostles wrote Scripture and some didnt. On what basis, exactly, do you claim that the same Holy Spirit that urged the Apostles to write…orchestrated the future compilations of those letters…and…teaches Christians …the spiritual teachings of those writings"? Im looking for a Scriptural reference to indicate that
I wish I could tell you nice try also, but your post didn’t make much sense.
That’s interesting. Because in the verses in question…
The name Peter is translated from “Petros” meaning literally a “piece of rock”. Just after that Jesus says “this rock” the Greek word translated to “rock” is “Petra”. “Petra” is the feminine tense of “Petros”, and “Petra” is used when speaking of a “rock” figuratively. Therefore, it a safe assumption that Jesus was not referring to Peter at all as the rock, but a figurative rock (as the feminine tense alludes).
Although I agree with the symbolism here, but again, Peter is not the source of truth… “revelation” is the revealing of truth, and the Father is the source. Peter was only the one whom truth was revealed to.
This is the line of reasoning that I cannot comprehend people believing. You are saying, that Although we have the preserved authored letters of the Apostles, translated and scribed through the ages, a more sure testimony to the teachings of the Apostles is "word of mouth’? I can tell you this… A person can be told something, and unintentionally pervert that statement, or the tense of it five minutes after they heard it.
OK, your explication of the Catholic Church teaching just keeps digging a hole, that eventually you will have to bury your preconcieved notions in.
It certainly is one man’s philosophy, and that Man is Jesus.Looking at that page I personally found this to be interesting.
Q Don’t these people have to repent to be forgiven?
A The answer is no. This idea that a person must repent of thier sins to be forgiven is intellectually satisfying (it makes us feel like we have done something to “make up” for what we have done wrong). This idea is really only man’s philosophy though, it is not an idea that is derived from the Bible.
Your statement that the Catholic Church views the Bible as “uninspired” shows a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching. At the Mass, when the lector finishes reading from the Scriptures, she says, “The word of the Lord.” Catholics do believe that Scripture is inspired by God. And no, we do not believe that the Scriptures are subordinate to Apostolic teaching. Scriptures ARE Apostolic teaching.
I agree with you. But, from this portion of scripture we cannot assume that Paul was speaking of a collective world wide church. He was only speaking of a visible assembly of believers (ekklesia).
No, the wrong-doer does not have to listen to each and every Christian alive… remember you are referring to the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Church… which is a “local assembly”, as opposed to “universal”. The local church, if the majority of the members are led by the Spirit, will make the correct judgement concerning one who is unrepentant. If they are not led by the Spirit, they will invariably apostacize, and would not benefit from disassociating with an unrepentant member anyway.
This verse explicitly names the “general assembly” as all Christians united… and this only occurring at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:19). This has not occurred yet… not matter how often it is attempted to be duplicated by the Catholic Church through the mass.
Although the greek “Petros” and “Petra” are found in the greek we must realise that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic he would have said “Anath-her kipha, v’allhode Kipha.” Even the Baptist Biblical Professor D. A. Carson states
If Jesus wanted to make St Peter a “little stone” he could have used ‘evna’ in Aramaic. And if Matthew wished to do likewise in the Greek he could have chosen ‘lithos’. We know Jesus changed Simon to Kephas from John 1:42; Kepha meaning ROCK.
So Matthew should be read