Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"The Great Apostasy" [Very Catholic]
http://blog.steveskojec.com/2014/03/28/something-wicked/ ^

Posted on 03/29/2014 7:53:18 AM PDT by STJPII

"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked.....

There was a time, not long ago, when Catholicism was synonymous with clear, unequivocal teaching. Like her or hate her, people knew where the Church stood on every important issue. The Baltimore Catechism, the precepts of the Church, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, the Code of Canon Law, the various papal teachings that upheld truth and condemned error in no uncertain terms…people who had never darkened the doorstep of a Catholic Church were not ignorant of her most basic teachings. Catholic schoolchildren, on the other hand, could recite many of these core beliefs from memory.

Over the course of the 20th century, however, that began to change."


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Religion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 03/29/2014 7:53:18 AM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: STJPII
"Thou art Peter. And on this rock I shall build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Be not afraid!!

2 posted on 03/29/2014 8:13:46 AM PDT by CWW (Pray for God's Protection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWW

Agreed. Not afraid. Just trying to reconcile all the incoherence. But for the mystics none of this would make sense to me.


3 posted on 03/29/2014 8:20:31 AM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CWW
"Thou art Peter. And on this rock I shall build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Be not afraid!!

Actually, the Catechism says that Christ would build His church on Peter's confession. Not Peter.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9 (683, 552)

4 posted on 03/29/2014 8:39:08 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

It is very clear that Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope and the Apostles as the first bishops. But the main point of my comment is the Jesus has told us not to fear the threats, but rather to persevere because in the end His church will triumph.


5 posted on 03/29/2014 8:53:27 AM PDT by CWW (Pray for God's Protection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CWW

But how can Catholics say this when the official teaching of the church as based on the catechism, and the plain reading of the Biblical text, says Christ will build His church upon Peter’s confession?


6 posted on 03/29/2014 9:00:26 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”284 Christ, the “living stone,”285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286 (880, 153, 442, 424)
553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.”288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (881, 1445, 641, 881)

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/OEBPS/15-chapter5.xhtml#para552


7 posted on 03/29/2014 9:08:03 AM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STJPII
Doesn't this...

,”285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church.

contradict this?

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9 (683, 552)

8 posted on 03/29/2014 9:19:02 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CWW

It was not upon Peter which the Lord said He would build His church, but upon the truth Peter uttered when Jesus asked “but who do you say that I am” to which Peter responded, “ you are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.


9 posted on 03/29/2014 9:36:17 AM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STJPII
Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

Mat 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

As we can see, binding and loosing was given to all the disciples...Not just Peter...I am a disciple of Jesus just as every born again Christian is a disciple...

We all have the power to bind and loose...

If your religion was based on what Jesus taught, your religion wouldn't and couldn't exist...

10 posted on 03/29/2014 10:09:13 AM PDT by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You should argue this with Martin Luther.

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” – Martin Luther

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/trueman-and-prolegomena-to-how-would.html

The facts are overwhelming. Peter’s name is changed to Rock (Name changes in scripture are momentus Abram etc.). Matthew 18 fails to mention the “Keys” which is a clear reference to Isaiah 22, where Eliakim was given real, absolute authority to govern.


11 posted on 03/29/2014 11:39:59 AM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Only if it’s either or, which is a modern notion not held by Martin Luther.

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” – Martin Luther

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/trueman-and-prolegomena-to-how-would.html


12 posted on 03/29/2014 11:42:04 AM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STJPII
And if Martin Luther was in the Bible, I might be inclined to go along with that.

However, he is not.

The passage in Matthew is clear that Jesus is building His church upon Peter's confession. Not Peter.

It seems the Catholic doctrine is to have it both ways which is in contradiction of Scripture.

The church is either built upon Peter or his confession. It can't be both.

Does He give Peter the keys to the kingdom? Yes. But these keys were the authority to open the doors of Christendom to the people.

We see Peter doing this at Pentecost and then later to the Gentiles in the House of Cornelius.

The notion of apostolic tradition is not supported by Scripture unless you take passages out of context which some have done to support their position.

We are reminded that we are all a "royal priesthood" in this passage from 1 Peter.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

This sure sounds like we are all commanded to spread the Gospel.

We are also told in Acts 8:4 that after the church was scattered they went about preaching the word. These were everyday believers of Christ.

This supports the idea of a priesthood of believers.

13 posted on 03/29/2014 12:46:18 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CWW

It is very clear that Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope and the Apostles as the first bishops.


Ch and verse please.


14 posted on 03/29/2014 3:35:09 PM PDT by ravenwolf (hat many years.ost void of pend us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Like all reformation Christians, you are trying to build a comprehensive legal case from document not suited to such application. That exercise requires certain inferences that while useful to the “prosecution,” are not comprehensively demonstrable from the source documentation.

Case in point: 2 Tim 3:16 tells us a man of God can not be complete without Scriptures. It does NOT tell us the man of God is complete BY Scriptures.

A somewhat subtle point, but it is the crux of the argument between Reformed and Catholics over the authority of Scripture.

In effect, the dilemma you pose gets no traction with Catholics because it assumes a reformation orientation regarding the authority of Church documents.

A rough explanation, I know. And probably not without faults.

Perhaps the analogy of a “King James Cultist” would work better.

Said cultists have elevated their preference for a particular translation of the Bible to such an extent they perceive a Satanic plot in all other translations. So much so, discrepancies between the King James and all other translations are regarded as prima facie evidence of said plot. (I have even witnessed serious men trying to make the case the Sanhedrin were so incensed by the testimony of Stephen they physically assaulted him by biting)

You see Scripture as a contract, and use inference from other Scripture to fill in the “legal” holes. Catholics see Scripture as a “Constitution” with holes filled in by adjudication by the Church.

Thus, to a Catholic, there is no inherent contradiction between the irrefutably plain statement of our Lord about Peter in Matthew 16:18, and a more metaphoric understanding in the Catechism.


15 posted on 03/29/2014 4:49:21 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect
It was not upon Peter which the Lord said He would build His church, but upon the truth Peter uttered when Jesus asked “but who do you say that I am”

That's not what the Scripture says.

16 posted on 03/29/2014 4:57:08 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
As we can see, binding and loosing was given to all the disciples...Not just Peter...I am a disciple of Jesus just as every born again Christian is a disciple... We all have the power to bind and loose...

Where does it say that?

17 posted on 03/29/2014 5:03:44 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
First, let me say I'm not looking to pick a fight or just argue for the sheer fun of arguing. The comments I post below, and previously, are meant to be a serious examination of what we as Christians should believe. They are not intended to be personal and I apologize in advance if they are taken that way. That is not my intent I assure you. With blogging, as we know, we can't read the emotions or intent of the writer.

Like all reformation Christians, you are trying to build a comprehensive legal case from document not suited to such application. That exercise requires certain inferences that while useful to the “prosecution,” are not comprehensively demonstrable from the source documentation.

I am not a reformation Christian...I am a Christian...a follower of Christ. I believe He died on the cross for all of my sins and has separated them as far as the east is from the west.

Case in point: 2 Tim 3:16 tells us a man of God can not be complete without Scriptures. It does NOT tell us the man of God is complete BY Scriptures.

The verse you cite does tells we are made complete by the Scriptures.

The verse you cite comes at the end of 2 Timothy 3 in which many warnings are given by Paul about apostasy, false teaching, etc.

Indeed in v 15 it tells us "and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ." I note Paul doesn't refer to anything other than the sacred writings which have to be the Old Testament at this point in time.

v16 then clarifies that all Scripture is inspired by God... v17 notes that with the Scriptures the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

the greek word for adequate/complete, depending on English translation, in verse 17 is ἄρτιος and means perfect, complete, ready, fitted.

So right here in the very passage you are sighting we do have a clear teaching that the Scripture (Bible) is able to teach us everything we need to know about teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.

We have Paul telling us in v15 about the sacred writings learned from childhood.

With the inspired Word of God why would you need any man made teachings?

A somewhat subtle point, but it is the crux of the argument between Reformed and Catholics over the authority of Scripture.

If Scripture isn't supreme, especially based on the verse we've been discussing in 2 Timothy, then what is? and why?

In effect, the dilemma you pose gets no traction with Catholics because it assumes a reformation orientation regarding the authority of Church documents.

A rough explanation, I know. And probably not without faults.

Perhaps the analogy of a “King James Cultist” would work better.

Said cultists have elevated their preference for a particular translation of the Bible to such an extent they perceive a Satanic plot in all other translations. So much so, discrepancies between the King James and all other translations are regarded as prima facie evidence of said plot. (I have even witnessed serious men trying to make the case the Sanhedrin were so incensed by the testimony of Stephen they physically assaulted him by biting)

You see Scripture as a contract, and use inference from other Scripture to fill in the “legal” holes. Catholics see Scripture as a “Constitution” with holes filled in by adjudication by the Church.

I guess part of the disagreement is that I don't see any legal holes the Bible has to fill. We have all we need to know about how to come to know Christ in the Bible. It teaches us how to pray. It teaches us how to have forgiveness. It teaches us every aspect of being a Christian we need to know as noted in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

It seems you are saying the Bible is insufficient...which would contradict 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Thus, to a Catholic, there is no inherent contradiction between the irrefutably plain statement of our Lord about Peter in Matthew 16:18, and a more metaphoric understanding in the Catechism.

So which is it then regarding Peter? I don't understand how it can be both as you are claiming. The catechism, which as I understand it, is the official position of the Catholic Church. And it clearly says, and correctly I might add, that Christ is building His church on Peter's confession....not Peter. This understanding about Peter's confession is supported as we read the passage in its context.

18 posted on 03/29/2014 7:07:02 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: STJPII
You should argue this with Martin Luther.

We don't know if Martin said that at all...There was no reference to the source material...

The facts are overwhelming. Peter’s name is changed to Rock

The real facts are that Peter's name was changed to little rock, or stone to show to be a rock but in contrast to the Rock, Jesus Christ...And even if Martin said that sometime during his lifetime, so what...Martin was a Catholic...

Matthew 18 fails to mention the “Keys” which is a clear reference to Isaiah 22, where Eliakim was given real, absolute authority to govern.

Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isa 22:23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
Isa 22:24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

Sorry but any one can see this is a reference to Jesus Christ, not Peter...A type of Jesus Christ...None of your theories pans out...

19 posted on 03/29/2014 7:12:01 PM PDT by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Where does it say that?

I just posted it...Many of the disciples came to Jesus with a question...And when they ask Jesus who was the greatest he said Peter, right??? WRONG...Then as part of his discourse to ALL he said what I posted...

AND THEN, after the discourse, Peter came up and asked a question...

20 posted on 03/29/2014 7:18:03 PM PDT by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
let me address each of your points individually so we don't have a wide break in the dialog.

I am not a reformation Christian...I am a Christian...

Are you not of the "brand" of Christian that takes the Scripture to be the ONLY authoritative rule of faith and practice? If so, then you are a reformation Christian by definition, and quibbling about it will do nothing but derail a potentially edifying dialog.

21 posted on 03/29/2014 7:21:36 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
let me address each of your points individually so we don't have a wide break in the dialog. I am not a reformation Christian...I am a Christian...

Are you not of the "brand" of Christian that takes the Scripture to be the ONLY authoritative rule of faith and practice? If so, then you are a reformation Christian by definition, and quibbling about it will do nothing but derail a potentially edifying dialog.

I do look to the Scriptures as the final and supreme authority for the Christian as I earlier noted in 2 Timothy 3. It was at Antioch where believers in Christ were first called Christians. I would describe myself in that manner.

I think part of our problem in the world today is that we attach too many labels in these type of discussions.

I also think, for some, the term "reformed" has taken on a negative context. So for our discussion, if you would put me in the camp that calls oneself a Christian as the believers at Antioch did I'd appreciate that.

If you want, I'll refer to you as a member of the Catholic Church.

Fair?

22 posted on 03/29/2014 7:29:47 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
The verse you cite does tells we are made complete by the Scriptures.

Nope. Sorry. You are positing the fitting of an essential piece of the puzzle, without which said puzzle can not be complete, is ALL that is needed to complete the puzzle. A that is not a logically supportable proposition, and no amount of fixating on the proper definition of "complete" is going to affect that dynamic.

23 posted on 03/29/2014 7:37:53 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
So for our discussion, if you would put me in the camp that calls oneself a Christian as the believers at Antioch did I'd appreciate that. If you want, I'll refer to you as a member of the Catholic Church. Fair?

No. That is rather like a Anglo American calling it "fair" to refer to himself as American and the native as an Indian.

24 posted on 03/29/2014 7:42:51 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

you were not at the discourse.


25 posted on 03/29/2014 7:44:25 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
With the inspired Word of God why would you need any man made teachings?

Are not your inferences, indeed ANY teaching, that is not explicitly commanded in Scripture, man made? If not, why are yours inspired but mine are not?

26 posted on 03/29/2014 7:49:12 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
With the inspired Word of God why would you need any man made teachings? Are not your inferences, indeed ANY teaching, that is not explicitly commanded in Scripture, man made? If not, why are yours inspired but mine are not?

To base doctrine on something other than the Bible is the concern. This goes to the point Paul was making in Timothy 3 we were discussing.

Example: prayers to Mary.

We have nothing in Scripture that tells us to pray to Mary. Yet, man-made tradition tells us to.

27 posted on 03/29/2014 7:53:13 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
The verse you cite does tells we are made complete by the Scriptures. Nope. Sorry. You are positing the fitting of an essential piece of the puzzle, without which said puzzle can not be complete, is ALL that is needed to complete the puzzle. A that is not a logically supportable proposition, and no amount of fixating on the proper definition of "complete" is going to affect that dynamic.

Well, if we can't agree on what the plain reading of the text in 2 Timothy 3 is saying is saying this may be a quick conversation.

28 posted on 03/29/2014 7:55:12 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
So for our discussion, if you would put me in the camp that calls oneself a Christian as the believers at Antioch did I'd appreciate that. If you want, I'll refer to you as a member of the Catholic Church. Fair? No. That is rather like a Anglo American calling it "fair" to refer to himself as American and the native as an Indian.

No...we are not Anglo-Americans. We are Americans by virtue of our birth in this land. If the native wants to be called something other than Indian, I'll go with his suggestion.

We can't call them Native Americans as they were here long before America was founded. And by using America I mean the country...not the continent.

29 posted on 03/29/2014 7:57:55 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
If Scripture isn't supreme, especially based on the verse we've been discussing in 2 Timothy, then what is?

The Church.

and why?

Because Scripture does not tell you what is a proper hermeneutic and what is not.

30 posted on 03/29/2014 8:03:04 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Because Scripture does not tell you what is a proper hermeneutic and what is not.

Sure it does...

31 posted on 03/29/2014 8:16:22 PM PDT by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
I guess part of the disagreement is that I don't see any legal holes the Bible has to fill.

What would you say to a student who saw no need for Algebra?

You are correct. I am saying the Bible alone is insufficient. And that doesn't contradict 2Tim3 for the previously stated reasons.

That the Bible alone is insufficient is further demonstrated by the fact that it gives precious little insight into sin in all it's forms and guises.

Trying to use the Bible as a legal code is to fall into the same error as the Jews of Jesus' day.

32 posted on 03/29/2014 8:27:23 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Well, if we can't agree on what the plain reading of the text in 2 Timothy 3 is saying is saying this may be a quick conversation.

Agreed.

God Bless.

33 posted on 03/29/2014 8:32:40 PM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: STJPII; ealgeone
You should argue this with Martin Luther.

You should be wary cut and pasting Internet quotes on Luther, as they often misrepresent what he said, if he even said it.

James Swan has put more research into these than any other on the Internet and if would do good if RCs would do a "search site" for quotes, as in,

site:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing

Which should show you Luther: Christ Gave The Keys To Peter?

But that is an issue that saw differences among CFs, while the real issue is perpetuation, and which has been dealt with before often. My fingers are too stiff to say much more now.

Matthew 18 fails to mention the “Keys” which is a clear reference to Isaiah 22, where Eliakim was given real, absolute authority to govern.

I doubt that is even a official RC interpretation, while The Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others assume that Eliakim is the peg, which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in Isa. 22:25, and which position classic commentators Keil and Delitzsch contend is the case. And whether or not v. 25 refers to Eliakim or Shebna, it is evident is that being fastened in a sure place does not necessarily establish perpetuation.

In addition, nothing is provided by way of literal fulfillment of this prophecy in the Old Testament, nor in the New in support of Peter, and when perpetuation of any office is the case then the Scriptures makes that evident. And what is evident as concerns perpetuation is that to Christ it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) Thus this what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah.

34 posted on 03/29/2014 10:06:41 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; ealgeone; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
If Scripture isn't supreme, especially based on the verse we've been discussing in 2 Timothy, then what is?

The Church.

Scripture provides for the church, reason, natural revelation etc. Formal sufficiency is limited. But that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, is abundantly evidenced .

Saying it is the church is an assertion. What is the basis for your assurance of Truth? Are you saying that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God? That seems to be the RC polemic behind "we gave you the Bible...)

35 posted on 03/29/2014 10:18:34 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

More in context of 2 Timothy 3:

II Timothy 3:13-17 NKJV

But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


36 posted on 03/29/2014 10:50:43 PM PDT by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Look at the greek... "thou art Peter"; in the greek is petros = stone or rock...

"upon this rock"; in the greek is petra = bedrock or large stone.

Peter was fallible yet a living stone, which Christ would use as one of the first of many living stones to build his Church. Christ, on the other hand, is that layer of bedrock upon which all living stones are placed in the building of the Church.

Christ is the foundation and it is Christ that is building upon that foundation. Do not err by equating a man as equal to Christ or as Christ's sole representative on earth.

37 posted on 03/30/2014 8:56:24 AM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
guess part of the disagreement is that I don't see any legal holes the Bible has to fill.

What would you say to a student who saw no need for Algebra?

You are correct. I am saying the Bible alone is insufficient. And that doesn't contradict 2Tim3 for the previously stated reasons.

That the Bible alone is insufficient is further demonstrated by the fact that it gives precious little insight into sin in all it's forms and guises.

I'd be curious as to why the Bible is insufficient in giving "precious little insight into sin in all its forms and guises."

I have to admit that's a new one on me.

38 posted on 03/30/2014 10:25:08 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Scripture provides for the church, reason, natural revelation etc. Formal sufficiency is limited. But that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, is abundantly evidenced .

Then give me one... instead of trying to snow me under with a page full of references that beg the question in that the interpretation of said references assumes your original assertion.

As you can see from the disagreement over 2Tim, passionately asserting a statement is comprehensive does not make it so, not matter how much we wish it. Shaving the corners off a square peg does not make it fit the round hole, even if though it will go inside of it.

39 posted on 04/01/2014 6:32:41 AM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

If the Scriptures alone where enough, the Scribes and Pharisees would have been Christians when Jesus got here.


40 posted on 04/01/2014 6:36:15 AM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect
Look at the greek...

I have. Your misguided, but popular mishandling of the language among reformed Christians is the equivalent, in english, of asserting "butterfly" is related to dairy products.

The discrepancy you make so much of was a linguistic accommodation due to the impropriety of referring to a masculine person with a feminine noun.

41 posted on 04/01/2014 6:47:14 AM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
I'd be curious as to why the Bible is insufficient in giving "precious little insight into sin in all its forms and guises."

Ever read any C.S. Lewis?

42 posted on 04/01/2014 6:48:27 AM PDT by papertyger (if disdain of homosexual behavior is "bigotry," is it any wonder hostility to Islam is "racism?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
I'd be curious as to why the Bible is insufficient in giving "precious little insight into sin in all its forms and guises." Ever read any C.S. Lewis?

No I haven't. You still haven't answered why the Bible is insufficient in giving precious little insight into sin in all its forms and guises.

43 posted on 04/01/2014 6:50:29 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Actually, the Catechism says that Christ would build His church on Peter's confession. Not Peter.

And as you know, the context of Matthew 16:18 is that the Rock not Peter, but Christ.

Just five verses after Matthew 16:18, Christ rebukes Peter: "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16:23). Hard to imagine Christ's church being built on a human foundation in that light.

And of course, Peter himself confesses that Christ is the "chief cornerstone" (1 Peter 2:6).

44 posted on 04/01/2014 6:57:12 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Actually, the Catechism says that Christ would build His church on Peter's confession. Not Peter. And as you know, the context of Matthew 16:18 is that the Rock not Peter, but Christ. Just five verses after Matthew 16:18, Christ rebukes Peter: "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16:23). Hard to imagine Christ's church being built on a human foundation in that light. And of course, Peter himself confesses that Christ is the "chief cornerstone" (1 Peter 2:6).

Oh I agree...it's built upon Peter's confession.

45 posted on 04/01/2014 7:02:23 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Then give me one... instead of trying to snow me under with a page full of references that beg the question in that the interpretation of said references assumes your original assertion.

These are no more interpretive evidences that those that testify to the writing of the Constitution and appeal to it to settle a matter. Appeal to the collective light of as being the standard for obedience is an appeal to reason. But since you ask for some examples of texts evidencing that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims,

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)

And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:19)

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. (Malachi 4:4)

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Matthew 4:7)

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Matthew 4:10)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:31)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)

And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)

(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:2)

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26)

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:19)

Neither unwritten oral tradition or church leadership is given this manner of testimony, with the former being amorphous, while Scripture is wholly inspired and testable, and the latter is dependent on Scriptural substantiation.

Nor was an infallible magisterium necessary for writings of God to be recognized and established as being so, and which, as with true men of God, was essentially due to their unique and enduring qualities and Divine attestation given them.

46 posted on 04/01/2014 9:41:32 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
The following is from Bible.org... What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”?... this is my position.

"The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.

The following comment on this verse from The Bible Knowledge Commentary sums up the issue:

16:17-20. Peter’s words brought a word of commendation from the Lord. Peter was blessed because he had come to a correct conclusion about the person of Christ and because great blessing would be brought into his life. The Lord added, however, this was not a conclusion Peter had determined by his own or others’ ability. God, the Father in heaven, had revealed it to him. Peter was living up to his name (it means “rock”) for he was demonstrating himself to be a rock. When the Lord and Peter first met, Jesus had said Simon would be named Cephas (Aram. for “rock”) or Peter (Gr. for “rock”; John 1:41-42).

But his declaration about Messiah’s person led to a declaration of Messiah’s program. Peter (Petros, masc.) was strong like a rock, but Jesus added that on this rock (petra, fem.) He would build His church. Because of this change in Greek words, many conservative scholars believe that Jesus is now building His church on Himself. Others hold that the church is built on Peter and the other apostles as the building’s foundation stones (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). Still other scholars say that the church is built on Peter’s testimony. It seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of building the church on Himself (1 Cor. 3:11).

I leave off with a hope of peace between two believers who differ on some things but surely agree on so many more... God bless friend!!

47 posted on 04/01/2014 12:28:35 PM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
If the Scriptures alone where enough, the Scribes and Pharisees would have been Christians when Jesus got here.

Jesus Christ preached "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms." The Pharisees were locked in their human traditions. This invalidates your statement:

Matthew 15:

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them,Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

48 posted on 04/01/2014 12:51:58 PM PDT by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect
You may find this interesting:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/built-on-sinking-sand-scriptural_27.html

While among other post-apostolic ancients, for what it is worth:

“And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession. -John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew LIV.3 http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-60.htm#P5263_1628465

49 posted on 04/01/2014 6:09:33 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Thanks... something just occurred to me as I was mulling this issue over.

Jesus' comment to Peter, "Thou art Peter", almost seems like an interjection of praise to Peter for his acknowledgement of revealed truth. Peter testifies that Jesus is the "Christ the Son of the Living God", and Jesus responds, "And thou art Peter", as if to say "you're a real brick Peter, I knew you would get it"... then goes on to reveal greater truth that He, the "Rock of Ages" is the foundation on which He will build His Church.

50 posted on 04/02/2014 8:45:20 AM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson