Which Church??

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s assume that its figurative, because there was an actual place called Babylon.
The obvious reason to liken Rome with Babylon would be either center of governance, Idolatry, or captivity. These would be more specific to Jews.
The Roman Empire was made up of different races, cultures, languages etc. Peter was not writing to believers in Jerusalem who understood ‘Babylon’ that way, but to believers who were spread out in cosmopolitan cities and regions. Except in Revelation where Babylon is also used figuratively, we see Paul using the word Rome. Nowhere does even Luke in the book of Acts refer to Rome as Babylon.

The readers of Peter’s letter were of the same region where the seven churches of Revelation are based. If Peter’s audience understood Babylon to refer to Rome figuratively, then the 7 churches interpreted Rev. 17 the same.

As the head of the Church which was being persecuted by Jews and Romans alike, Peter was not going to say, “Hey, everybody here in Rome sends their greetings” because that would have given away his location. He was being hunted.

But as the historian, Eusebius, points out, saying he was in “Babylon” would have created the very ambiguity that you are struggling with? Was Peter in Persia? Maybe that’s what he wanted his persecutors to think.

I’m yet to get your post on “quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who admit that Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18.” I’ll look for it.

Posts #646-648 in this thread here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12639742&highlight=Cullman#post12639742

 

[Randy_Carson]

Baptism from the original practice and meaning is by immersion.
Apostle Paul has explained baptism in Rom6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Here, the apostle teaches that baptism is symbolic. It does not make one a child of God.
Apostle Peter in 1Pet1:5: says; Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Faith in Christ is the one that makes a person a child of God. There is no one place that says that when one is baptized he becomes a child of God, even Jesus never implied that perception.

Apostle Paul in 1Cor7:14: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. He teaches that at birth what determines whether a child is clean is the faith of the mother. Afterwards, the laying of hands by a man of God; Jesus also laid hands on children and stated that the kingdom of God is of those who’ll be like children. Luk18:16: But Jesus said, let the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Thereafter, the responsibility is upon the parents to consecrate the child to God daily until he’s able to learn faith in God.

Romans 6:3-4
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Baptism is not symbolic. You must be baptized into Christ in order to be raised with Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Indeed, a question of primary importance, but as I break it down, you will see that it is hopeless to think we can ever agree, since we are coming at it in order to serve two opposing goals.

For me, only Jesus can be the rock since He claims to be the only solid point of reference that can never move, shift, or vasilate. His word has been established in heaven for ever.
I see that the very point of the passage is to put the focus on Jesus. Everything must flow from the answer to “Who do you say that I am”.

Now for some reason the CC wishes to shift the focus of stability to Peter. Why? Because it needs to do this to establish an exclusive authority claim for itself. This is huge because now the CC has carte blanc to establish anything it wants and no one can question. How great is that?

My motivation is that the focus must always be Jesus. He is the reason for everything. He is the purpose and the center of everything the Father does. To shift any of the glory away from Him,would be an unthinkable position.

I concur with you eazyduzit!

Gentlemen:

The Catholic Church is not “trying to shift the focus of stability to Peter” for its own benefit. The Catholic Church is holding fast to the teaching of **Jesus who promised to build upon Peter. **

We Catholics know scripture, too. We know that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone in another verse and that all of the Apostles are the foundation stones in the book of Revelation. We really do know this, okay? :yup:

But what we know that you, apparently, do not know is that in Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus made some extraordinary statements and promises.

1. 
   *]Jesus said that God had revealed who Jesus was to Peter. God enabled Peter to answer the question from which you say everything else flows. God chose Peter. Who are you to argue with God?
   *]Jesus gave the keys of the office of Royal Steward to Peter (cf. Mt. 16:19). God also enabled Joseph to interpret Pharaoh’s dream, and God chose Eliakim to replace Shebnah (cf. Is. 22:20-22). In all three situations, GOD was directly involved in the establishment of the Royal Steward who would serve the king. Jesus is the King, and Peter is his steward - that’s why Peter has the keys of the office of the steward.
   *]Jesus told Peter that “whatever” Peter loosed on earth was loosed in heaven, etc.
   
   Now, eazyduzit, I understand that you are anti-Catholic. You have been misinformed BADLY about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.
   
   Jesus is the head of the Church, His body, and Jesus only has ONE body. That body of believers began calling itself the “Catholic Church” as early as the end of the first century, and it still does to this day. Jesus built it, the Holy Spirit leads it.
   
   Now, the plain fact of the matter is that YOU wish to shift the focus AWAY from Peter, and the reason is simple: by denying the authority of any man on earth to bind your conscience you have carte blanche to believe and do to anything YOU wants and no one can question you. How great is that?
   
   This is the fatal flaw of non-denominational Protestantism. Sola Scriptura and private judgment give you and you allow the right to determine what the proper interpretation of scripture is.
   
   And Chong, you have a “bishop” over you? Can he trace his apostolic succession all the way back to the Apostles? Mine can. But you accept his authority only because you believe that his interpretation of scripture agrees with you. Not the other way around. If you decide that his interpretations is incorrect and he refuses to change his views, you will seek out another church to join. And so the scriptures are fulfilled:
   
   2 Timothy 4:3
   For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
   
   Gentlemen, we do not stand in judgment of the Church as it moves through history; the Church established by Christ stands in judgment of us and corrects and guides us on our journey through life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I realize that.

I hope the referee is going to allow some stoppage time due to all these official posts.

 

[benhur]

Yes, great question, and let me add that the reason Jesus must be the rock on which the Church is built and no man, is that He is the only one who is an immoveable point, eternally stable without a hint of wavering. EVERYTHING else is shifting sand, but any one building on Him will be stable and secure.

Now, the reason the CC must choose Peter is not because he is seen as such a massive bulwark of stability, but because of the claimed connection which, in turn, is the source for all authority claims in this church.

There are two apposing motivations operating here so it is useless to think we could ever agree.

Yes, one must discern motivation, especially when the doctrine/implementation “develops”. From my understanding the rock discourse was first "used’’ interpretively to mean Peter to bolster Rome’s bishop as head or “over” other bishops/patriarchs in mid third century.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Report what? Jon is an able debater. Topper is a bit of a novice. They seem to be handling things fairly well. The only person who appears to be offended is you.
Make sure you report this post too.

A simple word of advice to a good friend.

 

[JonNC]

=Chong;12661271]Baptism from the original practice and meaning is by immersion. Apostle Paul has explained baptism in Rom6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Source, please. I don’t think scripture is specific on immersion. And even the Didache gives reasonable options:

7 Concerning Baptism

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.

7:3** If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.**

7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.

Here, the apostle teaches that baptism is symbolic. It does not make one a child of God.
Apostle Peter in 1Pet1:5: says; Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Faith in Christ is the one that makes a person a child of God. **There is no one place that says that when one is baptized he becomes a child of God, **even Jesus never implied that perception.

1st Peter does.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

If someone is saved, they are clearly a child of God. At Christ’s baptism, the Spirit descended on Him like a dove. We, too, receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism. A baptized infant receives the Spirit in this way, which is the beginning of faith.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the clarification.

I normally don’t chime in like this.
Correction, it says
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs. Meaning the individual you are debating with.
We hardly thought that needed to be emphasized.
Now if you want us mods to start narrowing that down to people or groups, whether Catholic or Protestant, that lived hundreds of years ago, we’re going to have a pretty empty forum.

I don’t think anyone here would make serious accusations without good reason. That being said, it seems like it should be allowable to make a serious accusation (like deliberate dishonesty) IF the historical record supports that charge.

As an example, I don’t think anybody could possibly object to the charge against Luther of deliberate dishonestly with regard to his official role in Prince Philipp’s bigamous second marriage. After all, the actual history of the issue is very well documented. Even Roland Bainton has no choice but to admit it, and in fact, also points out that Luther also counseled others to lie also:

“……then Luther counseled a lie on the ground that his advice had been given as in the confessional, and to guard secrets of the confessional a lie was justified.” Bainton, pg. 389.

Of course, there was nothing ‘confessional’ about Luther’s sanction of bigamy.

I guess my point is that serious accusations should NOT be made UNLESS they can be properly documented. When they CAN be fully documented as being in complete accord with the historical facts, then they really are not ‘accusations’ at all, but are simply the documentation of actual history.

Does that make sense in the context of the rules?

God Bless You Eric, Topper

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The mods are discussing this.
We’ll let you know.

 

[benhur]

Why not do the Catholic thing and embrace the Both/And?

Yes, the old both/and. I have often said this of some CC dogma or rationale, being one or the other and not “both /and”.Unfortunately, they slip my mind but you have them also(one or the other) where we have both…

Now that I think about it,maybe this thread topic fits , where C’s say it is only one church that is truly the church, and not all of us as in " both/ and", though vat 2 takes a half step toward that.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, the old both/and. I have often said this of some CC dogma or rationale, being one or the other and not “both /and”.Unfortunately, they slip my mind but you have them also(one or the other) where we have both…

LOL!

And here you are imposing another ONLY on us, when it is not needed: You are asserting that Catholic dogmas must ONLY be both/and.

Nope.

We believe both: some Catholic dogmas are ONLYs or ALONEs (we are saved by Jesus ALONE through His Body, the Catholic Church ALONE)…but not ALL Catholic dogmas are ONLYs. Some things are both/and: we are saved through faith AND works. Jesus is God AND man. We use faith AND reason.

Again, the good old Catholic both/and…it’s way too formidable to refute, benhur.

 

[eazyduzit]

So the foundation of the Apostles is shifting sand, even though it is sitting on the rock Jesus. Have you actually thought through your personal theology?

And I don’t know about you, but my motivation is the truth, which is who we seek to worship, the One who IS Truth.

You’re trying to twist my words here, zz. I already admitted that anyone building on Christ will be stable. So I have not said what you claim.
1Pt.2:5 reads, “ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house”. This includes all believers as well as the writer himself. Also in ch1:24, Peter says that " all flesh is as grass", and he does not give himself special exception.

Good that your motivation is “truth” but that says nothing to me. Any cult will claim that, but they will not state that the glory of Christ alone is their sole motivation.

Why is it so hard for it to come out of your mouth?

 

[joe371]

You’re trying to twist my words here, zz. I already admitted that anyone building on Christ will be stable. So I have not said what you claim.
1Pt.2:5 reads, “ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house”. This includes all believers as well as the writer himself. Also in ch1:24, Peter says that " all flesh is as grass", and he does not give himself special exception.

Good that your motivation is “truth” but that says nothing to me. Any cult will claim that, but they will not state that the glory of Christ alone is their sole motivation.

Why is it so hard for it to come out of your mouth?

Yes, the glory of Christ alone is every Christians sole motivation, or at least it should be. Moreover, it is through Jesus’ mystical Body the Church, that He imparts life-transforming/saving grace to the members of His Body, of which Jesus is the Head and Savior. Jesus and His church are one and the same, inextricably/eternally bound, wouldn’t you agree?

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-…”

 

[zz912]

You’re trying to twist my words here, zz. I already admitted that anyone building on Christ will be stable. So I have not said what you claim.
1Pt.2:5 reads, “ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house”. This includes all believers as well as the writer himself. Also in ch1:24, Peter says that " all flesh is as grass", and he does not give himself special exception.

Good that your motivation is “truth” but that says nothing to me. Any cult will claim that, but they will not state that the glory of Christ alone is their sole motivation.

Why is it so hard for it to come out of your mouth?

“The glory of Christ alone is my sole motivation.” - ZZ912

Does this now prove I’m not in a cult?

Is the Church the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[PRmerger]

Also in ch1:24, Peter says that " all flesh is as grass", and he does not give himself special exception.

The Catholic Church gives a hearty amen! to 1 Peter 1:24.

Were you operating under the misapprehension that we view the popes’ flesh as supernatural or something?

Good that your motivation is “truth” but that says nothing to me. Any cult will claim that, but they will not state that the glory of Christ alone is their sole motivation.

Why is it so hard for it to come out of your mouth?

I proclaim here, as an orthodox Catholic loyal to the bishop of Rome: the glory of Christ alone is my sole motivation.

 

[pablope]

Yes, one must discern motivation, especially when the doctrine/implementation “develops”. From my understanding the rock discourse was first "used’’ interpretively to mean Peter to bolster Rome’s bishop as head or “over” other bishops/patriarchs in mid third century.

There is always two sides to the story…benhur…your viewpoint seems only to look positively at the side opposed to the pope…and the pope’s side in the negative.

If you would care to take a second look…you will see that Rome had to assert its primacy because it started to be challenged…have you care to find out why?

Here is a historical look at it…if you care to challenge your viewpoint:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

monomakhos.com/essay-bin/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/

 

[benhur]

LOL!

And here you are imposing another ONLY on us, when it is not needed: You are asserting that Catholic dogmas must ONLY be both/and.

Nope.

We believe both: some Catholic dogmas are ONLYs or ALONEs (we are saved by Jesus ALONE through His Body, the Catholic Church ALONE)…but not ALL Catholic dogmas are ONLYs. Some things are both/and: we are saved through faith AND works. Jesus is God AND man. We use faith AND reason.

Again, the good old Catholic both/and…it’s way too formidable to refute, benhur.

Come now PR, it is a new year and let’s be sharp . Interpreting my “some” to “only” facilitates your “win” ?

" I have often said this of** some** CC dogma or rationale, being one or the other and not “both /and”, my original post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1,000!

:clapping::extrahappy::dancing:
:bowdown2:

Say goodnight, Gracie.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1001

 

[benhur]

There is always two sides to the story…benhur…your viewpoint seems only to look positively at the side opposed to the pope…and the pope’s side in the negative.

If you would care to take a second look…you will see that Rome had to assert its primacy because it started to be challenged…have you care to find out why?

Here is a historical look at it…if you care to challenge your viewpoint:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

monomakhos.com/essay-bin/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/

I believe I stopped just short of any positive /negative rationales/motives. I understand there are both. For instance we both agree on Popes stand on Arian but is questionable on dating the celebration of Easter or whether to re-baptize or not “lapsing” saints under persecution. One thing is dogma (Arianism), another is the practice or application of it (Easter.baptism).