C
Canto
Guest
The Bible or your own private interpetation of the Bible?
- Status
T
TheosisM
Guest
T
TheosisM
Guest
Catholics put their faith 100% in Jesus Christ. It is because of our 100% faith in Jesus Christ that we are Catholic. You need to understand that first. We believe that Jesus Christ paid the full price for eternity, and that it is only through Jesus Christ that one is saved.
The fact is that Catholics put their faith 100% in Jesus Christ, and you claim you do as well. The difference is in our understanding of what that means.
Also, please answer my request in the post above this one. I’m very interested in what you have to say, as a “former Catholic”.
G
graceandglory
Guest
As a Catholic, I believe that a born-again Christian who believes all which you said is a believer and will be saved. They are heaven-bound. The Catechism calls them our separated brethren. They believe the bare necessities to get them there.
I also believe that God created us for much more fulfillment on earth, Christ left us His Church, and He left us His Holy Spirit to lead and guide us. The Church has been here for 2,000 years leading and guiding the faithful to lead holy and virtuous lives.
You have just condemned me to hell. I will not condemn you to hell. The Catholic Church will not condemn you to hell.
I believe ALL of Scripture. Not just a few proof texts that back up your belief.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
You “have researched this plenty,” and you think that Peter wasn’t in Rome?!
You’ve gotten plenty of answers here, you are just too stubborn to see any other point of view. I find this happens quite frequently when people leave a faith. They seem to feel like that past faith was purposefully hiding the “truth” from them so they will no longer even attempt to here anything about it ever, it’s really sad actually.
And by the way, if you keep posting like you did earlier in this thread (I’ve only read the first two pages), you’re kinda on your path to getting banned, so I would tone it down if I were you.
B
Brendan
Guest
Matt 7:21
So Christ Himself teaches that simply claining that God is Lord is insufficent, that we actually have to DO something in addition.
Once again, you show that your theology is not Biblical, and that you are therefore a false prophet.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Read carefully to the answer to this common misunderstanding…
Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament
Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
a] Peter means rock.
Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
S
SavedByJesus
Guest
- Catholics do not believe that Jesus is re-sacrificed on an altar
- Catholics do not believe that priests are above Jesus
- Catholics do not believe that God takes orders from priests
Other than that I rest my case because most here have already made their mind up and put their trust in a “religious system” that cannot save you, instead of in God alone.
There is no arguing with a religious system or individuals who claim to have more authority over the word of God than God himself.
The saddest remark I have seen so far was the one stating I should “quite idolizing the Bible”
Well thank GOD some of us still respect God’s written authority in the Bible as the one truth and only truth. The fact is I don’t idolize it…I respect it as God’s infallible word…I don’t need the Pope to tell me what it means. That is why we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Only the Holy Spirit indwelling in each of you now can help you know the truth.
In the name of Jesus I pray. God bless.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, what you are trusting in is your own fallible interpretation of the Bible which is not the Complete Word of God.
Well, duh. Jesus specifically left Peter in charge as shepherd of the Church. There is no dichotomy between following Jesus and following the Church which Jesus Himself promised to build.
Right. Catholics follow the shepherd that Jesus established while you are reinventing the wheel for yourself as you see fit - just as every non-Catholic Bible Christian is forced to do.
Amen! You got that right, brother, and boy, are YOU in for a big surprise.
S
SavedByJesus
Guest
I respectfually must disagree…either it’s Peter or Jesus as the ROCK.
I stand firmly on the ground that Jesus ALONE is the ROCK.
I could go on and on debating this but it appears that everyone’s ears here are closed to the truth. All I can do now is pray that you too can come to know the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ because tomorrow may be too late.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Prove your assertions by presenting hard evidence.
The Catholic mass is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice and not a re-sacrifice of Jesus. You are ignorant of Catholic teaching.
Could you document HOW Catholic priests are above Jesus? I don’t think you’ll be able to do this.
Please provide evidence that Catholics believe that Priests are above God or Jesus.
If you are not here to debate these issues, then what is your purpose? To proclaim your ideas of “truth” to the lost?
Did you even understand the meaning of that statement?
Since you have the Holy Spirit leading you into all truth, can you answer a question for me?
Infant baptism…is this from God or from men?
I ask because many non-Catholics visit this forum claiming to be led by the Spirit, but they disagree with one another on this, and I don’t understand how they can be led by the Spirit into contradictory positions on this.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You could go on and on but you won’t…wonder why that is? Don’t you want to convince us of the truth?
Now, let the following convince you regarding the Rock in Matthew 16:18:
Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock
W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…**one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. **“To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)
“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).
Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)
G
graceandglory
Guest
Saved,
I’m afraid it is your argument against the Rock. Your view has been weighed and found wanting. Your interpretation doesn’t encompass ALL of Scripture, just a few verses, called in apologetics “proof texts.” Your argument isn’t going to win. Most of us know our faith. It sounds like you really want to reach souls for Christ. There are better places to do that. This is an apologetics forum. If you want to discuss apologetics, show some integrity and read what Catholics have lovingly spent time and stayed up late sharing with you.
I would suggest to you this organization so you can realize the error in your beliefs. Orthodox (ie: right believing) protestants know that Catholics are “saved.” Check out
**Evangelicals and Catholics Together. ** You would be able to understand it, I think, because they write in “evangelicalese,” in words you would understand.
Go down to the section “We Affirm Together”. Then come back to discuss what you don’t think Catholics believe.
firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals–catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2
So Saved,
If I believe everything in this box that you are supposed to believe as a Christian, am I still not “saved” in your opinion?
F
Filioque
Guest
There must have been a “Revival” Style Anti-Catholic speaker who got a nice fat check from the flock at “Saved’s” church recently. I’ve in the past been invited to some of these events dating back to the days when the late “Bart Brewer” was defaming Jesus and His Church.
Usually (in those pre-internet days) there would be a flurry of tracts put on the windshields of cars at Catholic parishes on Sunday. Then the tactic of Brewer to dress men up with roman collars and women up in nun’s habits. They would try and pass themselves off as Catholic clergy and religious to pass out the same disproven lies as Saved is cutting and pasting here.
Attacks will continue against Christ by people like Saved, but Jesus promised He would remain with His Church, not with the multiple private interpretations.
Usually (in those pre-internet days) there would be a flurry of tracts put on the windshields of cars at Catholic parishes on Sunday. Then the tactic of Brewer to dress men up with roman collars and women up in nun’s habits. They would try and pass themselves off as Catholic clergy and religious to pass out the same disproven lies as Saved is cutting and pasting here.
Attacks will continue against Christ by people like Saved, but Jesus promised He would remain with His Church, not with the multiple private interpretations.
S
SavedByJesus
Guest
You say you beleive it but follow the laws and commandments of men and rely on rituals and the sacraments to get you to heaven.
This my dear friend is where the RCC has led you astray.
As far as providing evidence…the answers are there in your own church doctrines, Catechism and yes even Zenit.
Seek the truth in the Bible and there you will find it.
Test all things that they are of God.
This my dear friend is where the RCC has led you astray.
As far as providing evidence…the answers are there in your own church doctrines, Catechism and yes even Zenit.
Seek the truth in the Bible and there you will find it.
Test all things that they are of God.
F
Filioque
Guest
Just because the people who tell you how to think say Catholics have not tested all things, does not make it so. I investigated both the Protestant claims and those of Jesus and His Church, Jesus won out, so I became a Catholic.
G
graceandglory
Guest
Saved.
You continue to believe lies about the Church.
We have lovingly explained otherwise. The Church doesn’t teach that rituals get me to heaven. We say we believe it because we do. You are not showing any integrity in this discussion. I am losing my patience.
Do you read anything, or just argue? They will know we are Christians by our LOVE.
D
Des
Guest
Hey look at you Saved. I was just talking about ex-Catholics like yourself not too long ago actually who knew nothing about their faith before being seduced by the doctrines of men in the protestant faith.
You being a Catholic for 40 years should have clearly understood the Church has never taught that the Eucharist is a re-Sacrifice of the Cross. Tsk…Tsk.
T
TheosisM
Guest
Just saying “yes they do!” doesn’t prove anything to me. You haven’t given any support for your erroneous claims against the Catholic Church, and those of us who have done extensive research into the historical and theological basis of the Catholic Church and beliefs know otherwise. You have already made up your mind to believe the anti-Catholic propaganda that is not based in reality.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
You’re calling them rude? Have you not noticed “saved”?
- Status