What's Your Authority?

[eazyduzit]

Are you trying to imply that the Catholic Church, the only Church Jesus established, doesn’t have “the riches of the spirit?” Do you really think that leaving that same Church and joining the Pentecostal sect, started by man some 1800+ years after Christ built His Church, one will find that “riches of spirit”? Nonsense. The sacraments, which are the greatest manifestation of the spirit on this side of heaven, are far more real than the emotionalism that comes from a revival.

Jesus built one Church, the Catholic Church. Seymour and Wigglesworth may have been good men who lived holy lives, but they were not in full unity with the one, true church. Therefore, their teachings are not in any way authoritative.

God’s word says that “To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good”(1Cor.12:7) ISV
Jesus said “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me:…and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him”. The bible makes no connection between sacraments and manifestation of the Spirit.

It was not Seymour’s or anyone’s intention to start a new church. All they intended to do is humble themselves before God. Everything else was up to the Holy Spirit.

Who has raised more people from the dead than Wigglesworth? If you want to believe him an heretic then that is your judgement.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

The passage from Mt18 is only concerned with a dispute between two brothers.

So, you acknowledge that the Church has authority to settle a dispute between two brothers?

What if the dispute between two brothers is that one believes in the doctrine of purgatory while the other does not? Both accuse each other of following traditions of men, heresy. Does the Church not settle this dispute between two brothers according to Mt 18?

The resolution of how circumcision fits in the NT clearly follows the algorithm of Mt 18. The issue was taken to Paul and Barnabas (two or three in the name of Jesus). They could not settle the issue, so they took it to the Church (cf. Acts 15) to settle the dispute between brothers in Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

#1. The priesthood
A separate priesthood was never God’s original intention. He wanted all of Israel to be priests before Him. What spoiled it was sin.

Everyone who is baptized takes part in the common priesthood of all believers. But God established the ministerial priesthood long ago, designating certain men to offer sacrifice and intercede on behalf of all the people.

#2. Purgatory
This doctrine only serves the pride of man. True humility is admitting that Jesus paid it all.

Purgatory does nothing of the kind. It shows forth the mercy of God. If that isn’t humbling I don’t know what is.

#3. I see the Catholic politicians as possibly more confused on these issues.

Sorry, but Jesus calls the scriptures “My word” at least 16 times in the gospels. They will be His for eternity and He personally guarantees them for ever.They are not the possession of the Church.

Who do you think established the Church, the Body of Christ? And if Jesus is the Head of the Body, the Church, then they do indeed belong to the Church because they belong to Christ. If the Church was an invention of man then I would agree. But, at least in the case of the Catholic Church, we can demonstrate that our founder was Christ himself. I have never understood the proclivity to separate Christ from his Church. It is his presence on earth, the means of salvation for all the world.

 

[Ron_Obvious]

God’s word says that “To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good”(1Cor.12:7) ISV
Jesus said “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me:…and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him”. The bible makes no connection between sacraments and manifestation of the Spirit.

It was not Seymour’s or anyone’s intention to start a new church. All they intended to do is humble themselves before God. Everything else was up to the Holy Spirit.

Who has raised more people from the dead than Wigglesworth? If you want to believe him an heretic then that is your judgement.

Are you trying to say the sacraments are not the work of the Holy Spirit? Just for clarification, it is your *personal, non-authoritative interpretation of the bible *that, “makes no connection between the sacraments and manifestation of the Spirit.”

I would reference CCC 1114-1134 on this.

As to the comment that it wasn’t Seymour’s intention to start a Church, that may or may not be the case, but that’s what happened. The Pentecostal sect has separated from the historic church in belief and practice on a number of issues. True humility before God would also mean listening to the leaders Christ left us…the apostles and their successors.

“He who hears you, hears me,” (Luke 10:16)

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Jesus calls the scriptures “My word” at least 16 times in the gospels. They will be His for eternity and He personally guarantees them for ever.

The Church established by Christ affirms that Jesus is the Word of God and that His Word will abide forever!

They are not the possession of the Church.

“About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.” St. Joan of Arc

“Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.” He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, “in everything he [is] preeminent,” especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.” CCC 792

“Christ and his Church thus together make up the ‘whole Christ’ (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ…” CCC 795

“He is the head of the body, the Church…” Col 1:18 (RSVCE)

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church,” Col 1:24 (RSVCE)

“For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” Rom 12:4-5 (RSVCE)

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi eazyduzit. If I may offer my :twocents: on your objections below?

#1. The priesthood
A separate priesthood was never God’s original intention. He wanted all of Israel to be priests before Him. What spoiled it was sin.

In the OT there was a ministerial priesthood alongside the priesthood of all believers too. Did you hear what happened when some tried to usurp the ministerial priesthood (Korah’s rebellion?)

#2. Purgatory
This doctrine only serves the pride of man. True humility is admitting that Jesus paid it all…

Purgatory is the subjective application to individual souls of what Christ did objectively for mankind. It is the continuing of sanctification (albeit post mortem).

I think if pushed we might see that we may be closer than you think. We all agree that no one is sinning in Heaven right? Yet I’m sure we’d both agree that most Christians are still sinning at the end of their lives. What happens in your view between death and Heaven for such a one? When is sanctification complete in your view?

…The passage from Mt18 is only concerned with a dispute between two brothers. It has nothing to do with the general authority of a church.

I would recommend looking at what the words “bind” and “loose” mean in a Jewish context (keep in mind that St. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience and Jesus is a Jew speaking to Jews in 1st century Palestine.) explains regarding these terms (in how they are used in Mt. 16:18-19: )Catholic Encyclopedia

“The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority.”

Also pay attention to the words that immediately precede the verse about binding and loosing in Mt. 18:

“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

What does it mean to be considered as the heathen and publican?

Regards,

Nick

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow, the poor Bereans took quite a beating on this thread! Shall we demand that Paul take back his comment that they were “more noble”?

Of course not. We simply have to recognize that they were NOT more noble because they were sola scripturists…because they weren’t!

 

[eazyduzit]

Everyone who is baptized takes part in the common priesthood of all believers. But God established the ministerial priesthood long ago, designating certain men to offer sacrifice and intercede on behalf of all the people.

Purgatory does nothing of the kind. It shows forth the mercy of God. If that isn’t humbling I don’t know what is.

Who do you think established the Church, the Body of Christ? And if Jesus is the Head of the Body, the Church, then they do indeed belong to the Church because they belong to Christ. If the Church was an invention of man then I would agree. But, at least in the case of the Catholic Church, we can demonstrate that our founder was Christ himself. I have never understood the proclivity to separate Christ from his Church. It is his presence on earth, the means of salvation for all the world.

I happy we agree on the priesthood of all. But my question is WHY a separate priesthood? Does it not send the message that like in the OT sin stands between people and a holy God? It says to me that the sacrifice of Christ made no difference. Was not the veil in the temple torn in two? What I see is that now, through the high priesthood of Christ I can approach the throne of God with boldness,(Heb 4:16) and have perfect fellowship with God, just as Adam originally had before there was any sin at all.

What is the purpose of Purgatory Steve? Is it not because of sin? Is it not a cleansing fire? However, what I see in 1Jn 1:7&9 is that the blood cleanses us from ALL sin and that we are also cleansed from ALL unrighteousness (v.9). It means to me that if there is ANYTHING that Purgatory can accomplish regarding sin, then the blood of Christ was shed needlessly.

Jesus did not establish His Church as a replacement for Him on earth. In fact, He never even said He would establish a Church, because the Church is not an establishment. He only said He would build his Church. He is the head of the Church and this Church belongs to Him. The head is not to be confused with the arms, hands, feet etc. The head rules, everything else obeys.The Holy Spirit is His presence one earth. We (the Church) are the manifestation. The church is not the means of salvation, but it is to preach the means of salvation (Rm.10:8,14)

I’m not here to try to prove that someone is wrong but this is just how I see it and what works for me. But maybe I will learn something helpful and have a better understanding of WHY we have differences.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am very impressed with your research Randy. I just have never liked some of the liberal dudes like F.F. Bruce. There are also plenty of conservative commentaries that take the other side. Here is what Matthew Henry says: “Eliakim’s advancement is described. Our Lord Jesus describes His own power as mediator, Rev. 3:7,that he has the key of David. His powerin the Kingdom of heaven is aabsolute… Eliakim was compared to a nail in a sure place; all his family are said to depend upon him. In eastern houses rows of large spikes were built up in the walls. Upon these the utensils and moveables were hung. Our Lord Jesus is a nail in a sure place. That soul cannot perish…He will set before the believer an open door, which no man can shut a d bring both body and soul to eternal glory. But those who neglect so great salvation will find that when he shutteth, none can open, weather it be shutting out from heaven or shutting up in hell for ever”.

Let me add that I find no example of Peter ever using his unique authority. It would seem that the bible should give us an example of how to use this authority if it is to be of ultimate importantance in church governance. Paul did not neglect to tell us a great deal about bishops and deacons because of their importance in the body.

Acts 1 - Who interpreted the OT passages in a new way to explain the need for the election of Matthias?

Acts 2 - Who preached to the crowd on Pentecost which led to the conversion of thousands?

Acts 15 - Who silenced the debate at the Council of Jerusalem with the doctrinal decision?

But what you are arguing is that for three years, Jesus groomed Peter to take over the leadership of the Church (and you can see this all through the gospels), but then Peter never actually did anything important after Jesus ascended.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am perplexed that you have given up the riches of the Spirit to go back to religion. Something that is about observing holy days and times and seasons. Paul says “But now after ye have known God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months and times and years.”(Gal.4:9,10)

That’s because in your mind, the two are distinct from (and opposed to!) one another. However, if the Holy Spirit is leading the Church (as Jesus promised), then the Church contains the riches of the Spirit that He has placed within it.

Wigglesworth is a great hero for me. Who has demonstrated a more unmovable faith? He never let the devil back him down. He was unschooled, his wife taught him to read, and he would never read anything but the bible. Yet, whoever led a more victorious life? Another huge inspiration is John G. Lake . He had incredible stern determination.

So have you now come to believe that Azuza Street was a work of the devil? And that these men of God were frauds? I really don’t understand.

Of course not. I believe that those revivals were genuine movements of God. Unfortunately, much of what I observe in the Pentecostal world strikes me as man attempting to recreate or force a movement of the Spirit.

Have you read of the Welsh revival? When the Spirit fell, schools and business closed because people were so deeply affected, they could not go about their daily affairs. That’s not what’s happening in American Pentecostalism right now. When a true revival comes, you’ll know it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, but having the truth and freedom is not dependent upon any church according to this passage. Rather, Jesus said it depends on “continuing in My WORD”. No mention of church here.

You do acknowledge that Jesus promised to build one Church, however, right?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I happy we agree on the priesthood of all. But my question is WHY a separate priesthood?

Because Jesus set it up that way.

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

The New Testament Priesthood Proved from Scripture

1. Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)

1. The Ministerial Priesthood

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

1. The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

 

[eazyduzit]

Hi eazyduzit. If I may offer my :twocents: on your objections below?

In the OT there was a ministerial priesthood alongside the priesthood of all believers too. Did you hear what happened when some tried to usurp the ministerial priesthood (Korah’s rebellion?)

Purgatory is the subjective application to individual souls of what Christ did objectively for mankind. It is the continuing of sanctification (albeit post mortem).

I think if pushed we might see that we may be closer than you think. We all agree that no one is sinning in Heaven right? Yet I’m sure we’d both agree that most Christians are still sinning at the end of their lives. What happens in your view between death and Heaven for such a one? When is sanctification complete in your view?

I would recommend looking at what the words “bind” and “loose” mean in a Jewish context (keep in mind that St. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience and Jesus is a Jew speaking to Jews in 1st century Palestine.) As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains regarding these terms (in how they are used in Mt. 16:18-19: )

“The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority.”

Also pay attention to the words that immediately precede the verse about binding and loosing in Mt. 18:

“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

What does it mean to be considered as the heathen and publican?

Regards,

Nick

I get what your saying about Purgatory, but what I need right now is a way to draw near to God, not in the next ,life. Heb 6:19 says: For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by which we draw nigh unto God. The blood of Christ is applied to me now, not in the sweet by and by. In Rm. 8:30, Called, Justified, and Glorified are all in the past tense. Rm. 5:1 says “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”. Therefore I am able, right now to approach the most holy throne of God with boldness Heb.4:16. For the Lord sees me as the “righteousness of Christ”, right now.
I can enjoy the same fellowship and confidence with God as Adam had, before there was any sin at all. And yes I will never be totally free from sin in this life (whatever is not of faith is sin). But when were my sins purged? Was it not 2000 years ago? At that time were not all of them in the future?

Jn.17:17 says we are sanctified “through thy truth”. 2Thes. 2:13 agrees.

I agree that we need to see the Mt. 16 passage from a Hebrew perspective for how else could a Jewish fisherman understand it? When Jesus said the word for rock, how could Peter have thought of anything but the psalms of David. Who constantly calls the Lord "his rock and fortress. It is a theme that stands out in the prayers of David recorded the historical books also. But Jesus had already renamed or nicknamed Simon in Jn. 1:42 “Cephas, which is is by interpretation, A stone”. And as we know in Peter’s first letter he refers to believers as also “living stones” implying that he also is that. What I am saying is that it is doubtfull that he would see himself as “the rock” because it would make him equal with God because it is such a common analogy.

 

[JaKael02]

I have read every post in this forum thread and I’m currently on page 8. I wanted to chime in here and make a couple quick observations.

1.) Our protestant “brothers” sort of get ganged up on.
2.) Our protestant “brothers” sometimes spoken to too harshly.

It’s as if they are supposed to just accept these truths as obvious and forgo their 20+ years of protestant tradition, beliefs, and understanding of the Catholic Church due to our forum thread posts.

Lets try to dialogue with an understanding of their perspective. Be patient and recognize these guys are our bro’s. They suffer beside us. They are at the foot of the cross along side us. They may come across rude to us and get snappy, but who wouldn’t after each post gets tackled by 3 trained Catholics. They may be way off base, but it takes time to accept these truths. The Pope is a pretty HUGE step for them to grasp. It’s the equivalent of a Catholic accepting the bible alone.

Just my perspective on the first 8 pages I’ve read.

 

[pablope]

I get what your saying about Purgatory, but what I need right now is a way to draw near to God, not in the next ,life. .

Eazy…Jesus gave us His true Body, blood, soul and Divinity…all you have to do is actually believe and partake in it.

How can it not be more clearer than:John 6:56: 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them

And if you want an example, I would recommend reading the life of St. Francis of Assisi or St. John of the Cross.

 

[SteveVH]

I happy we agree on the priesthood of all. But my question is WHY a separate priesthood? Does it not send the message that like in the OT sin stands between people and a holy God? It says to me that the sacrifice of Christ made no difference. Was not the veil in the temple torn in two? What I see is that now, through the high priesthood of Christ I can approach the throne of God with boldness,(Heb 4:16) and have perfect fellowship with God, just as Adam originally had before there was any sin at all.

I see Randy has already answered this part of your question. I have nothing to add as far as scriptural evidence. I realize that this does not fit in real well the position that it is just “Jesus and me”, but it has never been that way. It is why Jesus started a Church rather than handing out Bibles to everyone and telling them “good luck”? Our priests offer the one, acceptable sacrifice to the Father “from the setting of the sun to its rising”, and that sacrifice is Jesus Christ.

What is the purpose of Purgatory Steve? Is it not because of sin? Is it not a cleansing fire? However, what I see in 1Jn 1:7&9 is that the blood cleanses us from ALL sin and that we are also cleansed from ALL unrighteousness (v.9). It means to me that if there is ANYTHING that Purgatory can accomplish regarding sin, then the blood of Christ was shed needlessly.

Purgatory is the mercy of God in action. Yes, it is required because we have sinned. Purgatory exists precisely because Christ shed his blood for us and our sins can be forgiven. Many of us will die with some sin still staining our souls. Because nothing impure can enter heaven, if we die in sin which is not mortal we must be cleansed after we die. Here is a little blurb from Catholic Answers which gives scriptural support for the doctrine:

"Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage."

Jesus did not establish His Church as a replacement for Him on earth.

Agreed. I don’t think any Catholic would say different. He promised to remain with his Church until the end of time. As I said, the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus is its Head. That is why the voice of the Church is the voice of Christ. So, the Church is not a replacement for Christ, it is his Body and he can never be separated from his Body. The Church, then, is the means of salvation for the world because it is Christ’s presence on earth and possesses the sacraments established by Christ through which we are forgiven, fed and sanctified.

In fact, He never even said He would establish a Church, because the Church is not an establishment. He only said He would build his Church.

Well, we can parse words if you like but establish also means to “begin”. I think you would agree that Christ started or began his own Church.

He is the head of the Church and this Church belongs to Him. The head is not to be confused with the arms, hands, feet etc. The head rules, everything else obeys.

We agree completely. Christ cannot be separated from his Body. It is the head which commands the body. Not sure how this supports your position that the Scriptures do not belong to the Church. If they belong to Christ then they belong to the Church because WE ARE ONE BODY. Does the food I eat only belong to my stomach? Do the words I hear only belong to my ears? Do the steps I take only belong to my feet? No. everything I do belongs to my entire body, from my head to my toes.

The Holy Spirit is His presence one earth. We (the Church) are the manifestation. The church is not the means of salvation, but it is to preach the means of salvation (Rm.10:8,14)

Preaching is certainly one of the things the Church has been commanded to do. However, when Jesus commanded the Apostles to “teach all nations” he, in the same breath, also commanded them to Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; i.e. to administer a sacrament. The Church was established in order to carry on the work of salvation started by Christ while he walked the earth. Why do you think he gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins if all they were to do was to preach? Why did he give them the authority to bind and loose, if all they were to do was preach? Why did Christ command them to eat his flesh and drink his blood and to do this in remembrance of him, if all they were to do is preach?

Peace.

Steve

 

[LionHeart777]

I get what your saying about Purgatory, but what I need right now is a way to draw near to God, not in the next ,life. Heb 6:19 says: For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by which we draw nigh unto God. The blood of Christ is applied to me now, not in the sweet by and by. In Rm. 8:30, Called, Justified, and Glorified are all in the past tense. Rm. 5:1 says “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”. Therefore I am able, right now to approach the most holy throne of God with boldness Heb.4:16. For the Lord sees me as the “righteousness of Christ”, right now.
I can enjoy the same fellowship and confidence with God as Adam had, before there was any sin at all. And yes I will never be totally free from sin in this life (whatever is not of faith is sin). But when were my sins purged? Was it not 2000 years ago? At that time were not all of them in the future?..

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand you are interacting with multiple posters and will understand if you get overloaded so to speak. If I may respond, I would like to share some of the insight I have gained on these topics because they were hurdles for me, so to speak, on my journey into the Catholic Church (I was a Protestant with a more Baptist/Presbyterian type view.)

Your response above perhaps opens the door to other questions and points where we disagree (forensic justification–which you seem to imply above— vs. deification/theosis, as one example.) Perhaps we could touch on those later if you and I both feel like, but without so much focusing on those, let me ask you to explain some things from the view point of your tradition.

You cited Romans 5, and I assume that being a Pentecostal you do not hold to what is referred to as “the eternal security of the believer”. Is that so?

I’ll move on to the concept of post-morten sanctification, or better the continuing of the sanctification process post-mortem. In my last post I said:

“We all agree that no one is sinning in Heaven right? Yet I’m sure we’d both agree that most Christians are still sinning at the end of their lives. What happens in your view between death and Heaven for such a one? When is sanctification complete in your view?”

Let me give a similar scenario. And I look at it from a Protestant point of view. Johnny is a believer and has been for some years, but before he was he had sins he was caught up in; namely substance abuse and womanizing. For most of the time he has managed to steer clear of these (he stumbled along the way but repented every time and resolved not to do it again.) Yet throughout his life he was never free of the attachment to these things. Johnny passes away in a state of grace (he’s saved) but yet finds himself in the afterlife. Can Johnny enter into Heaven having this certain attachment to these sins? Do these attachments to sin need to be removed? Do these somehow disappear in your view? If so, how?

Thanks. I will talk about the authority question in a follow up post to make reading easier.

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit #328
But Jesus had already renamed or nicknamed Simon in Jn. 1:42 “Cephas, which is is by interpretation, A stone”. And as we know in Peter’s first letter he refers to believers as also “living stones” implying that he also is that. What I am saying is that it is doubtfull that he would see himself as “the rock” because it would make him equal with God because it is such a common analogy.

Unfortunately this is another misnomer, and misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Are you interested in the truth?

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].

Cephas is Aramaic for Rock and *Petra *is the Greek. When he said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the two words meant the same thing.

 

[eazyduzit]

That’s because in your mind, the two are distinct from (and opposed to!) one another. However, if the Holy Spirit is leading the Church (as Jesus promised), then the Church contains the riches of the Spirit that He has placed within it.

Of course not. I believe that those revivals were genuine movements of God. Unfortunately, much of what I observe in the Pentecostal world strikes me as man attempting to recreate or force a movement of the Spirit.

Have you read of the Welsh revival? When the Spirit fell, schools and business closed because people were so deeply affected, they could not go about their daily affairs. That’s not what’s happening in American Pentecostalism right now. When a true revival comes, you’ll know it.

As I have said, the gifts of the spirit are available to all (1Cor. 12:7). With God there is no respect of persons. It is dependent only on how much the individual is willing to empty himself.
I agree that Pentecostals will try to force revival and the works of the Spirit. You can’t just put it on the church calender and except God to move.
The Welsh revival was begun by a simple miner, Evan Roberts, who determined to fully yield himself to God.
I am expecting God to send more than revival but an Awakening that will trully impact America.
100 years after Azuza we have more knowledge but less yielding.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand you are interacting with multiple posters and will understand if you get overloaded so to speak. If I may respond, I would like to share some of the insight I have gained on these topics because they were hurdles for me, so to speak, on my journey into the Catholic Church (I was a Protestant with a more Baptist/Presbyterian type view.)

Your response above perhaps opens the door to other questions and points where we disagree (forensic justification–which you seem to imply above— vs. deification/theosis, as one example.) Perhaps we could touch on those later if you and I both feel like, but without so much focusing on those, let me ask you to explain some things from the view point of your tradition.

You cited Romans 5, and I assume that being a Pentecostal you do not hold to what is referred to as “the eternal security of the believer”. Is that so?

I’ll move on to the concept of post-morten sanctification, or better the continuing of the sanctification process post-mortem. In my last post I said:

“We all agree that no one is sinning in Heaven right? Yet I’m sure we’d both agree that most Christians are still sinning at the end of their lives. What happens in your view between death and Heaven for such a one? When is sanctification complete in your view?”

Let me give a similar scenario. And I look at it from a Protestant point of view. Johnny is a believer and has been for some years, but before he was he had sins he was caught up in; namely substance abuse and womanizing. For most of the time he has managed to steer clear of these (he stumbled along the way but repented every time and resolved not to do it again.) Yet throughout his life he was never free of the attachment to these things. Johnny passes away in a state of grace (he’s saved) but yet finds himself in the afterlife. Can Johnny enter into Heaven having this certain attachment to these sins? Do these attachments to sin need to be removed? Do these somehow disappear in your view? If so, how?

Thanks. I will talk about the authority question in a follow up post to make reading easier.

Lion-

I have often wondered what will happen when I’m walking down the streets of heaven and pass by a beautiful saint from some unknown century, and I think to myself, “Wow…did you see the wings on that one?”

That is an example of an attachment that must be purified before I enter heaven.