Posted on 03/29/2014 7:53:18 AM PDT by STJPII
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!!
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.
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
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.
I must be slipping...are you seriously telling me you didn't get that reading CS Lewis IS an answer to the precious little insight the Bible gives on sin?
Therein lies much of the problem when dealing with Reformation Christians: they won't entertain the idea they've sinned unless they've committed a carbon copy of some Biblical transgression...hence their outrageous violations of what are classically known as the "seven deadly sins" with nary a whinge of conscience.
If it ain't lyin', cheatin', or stealin', they consider themselves "sinners" only in the abstract sense.
If you can not find it, you must admit your definition of "God's Word" is incomplete, which will call into question all the other Scriptural allusions you improperly interpret as "The Bible."
Such commentary is so much nonsense, attested to by no less than celebrated Protestant Scholar D.A. Carson.
The word Jesus would have used if all this pseudo-scholarly prattle about “petras” were to make sense is “lithos.”
But thank you so much for the kind ending. It is appreciated more than you know, and I hope you do not see my impatience with certain “commentaries” as a reflection on yourself or your intellectual honesty.
Hardly. Our Lord was holding them accountable for weaseling out of, and building a supporting interpretive infrastructure to circumvent, the clear intent of the Law...just as "Bible-only" Christians do with the Church Jesus founded.
I must be slipping...are you seriously telling me you didn't get that reading CS Lewis IS an answer to the precious little insight the Bible gives on sin?
Therein lies much of the problem when dealing with Reformation Christians: they won't entertain the idea they've sinned unless they've committed a carbon copy of some Biblical transgression...hence their outrageous violations of what are classically known as the "seven deadly sins" with nary a whinge of conscience.
If it ain't lyin', cheatin', or stealin', they consider themselves "sinners" only in the abstract sense.
This next paragraph is from EWTN. I presume this espouses Catholic teaching on mortal sins. http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm
Mortal sin is called mortal because it is the "spiritual" death of the soul (separation from God). If we are in the state of grace it loses this supernatural life for us. If we die without repenting we will lose Him for eternity. However, by turning our hearts back to Him and receiving the Sacrament of Penance we are restored to His friendship. Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion if they have unconfessed mortal sins.
The Biblical Position: The Bible teaches that once we place our faith in Christ all sins are forgiven and there is nothing that can separate us from His love. I find no Biblical support for the idea as presented by EWTN. It is non-Biblical.
The concept of venial sins being "slight sins", which don't separate us from our friendship with God.
The Biblical position on sin: The Bible doesn't differentiate between little sins or big sins as far as salvation is concerned. They are all viewed equally by God....they are sin and as such without Christ separate us from God. If you committed just one little venial sin, and let's say that's all you ever did, and didn't have faith in Christ, you don't go to Heaven according to the Bible.
To your questions.
I agree with the Biblical position that I am a sinner. Well, actually, it doesn't matter whether I agree or not...I'm a sinner as made clear by the Bible. The Bible is pretty clear on what a sin is. I don't need to read CS Lewis to understand what sin is.
Do I commit sins on a daily basis? Yes. Did Paul struggle with sins of some type in a regular basis? Yes he did.
Do I intend to commit these sins? Sometimes yes...sometimes no. Did I want to? No. Same goes with Paul.
What are these sins? Anything that is against God.
Am I forgiven of these sins by the death of Christ on the Cross? Yes. So was Paul.
Do I need to confess these sins to Him on a daily basis? Yes I do to retain the proper fellowship with Him. So did Paul.
Can I go straight to Christ and confess these sins to Him? Yes I can according to the Bible. Just like Paul did.
Does Christ forgive me if I ask? Yes He does according to 1 John 1:9.
Your comments are a bit skewed. Who now is building that wall around the words of Christ and the apostles?
No, but Scripture, even as a reliable historical document, testifies to both writings and men of God being recognized and est. as such, long before a church of Rome would presume she was necessary to that. And thus Scripture, and SS, provides for a canon.
Even so, I will pose to you the challenge I have posed here often, and never been answered in any sort of rational fashion: where in the OT was Simeon made aware he would see the Messiah with his own eyes before his death?
Then you have a short or selective memory, as your tried this vain polemic before , and i will reiterate and expand on my answer here.
And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. (Luke 2:26)
The answer to this question is found in Scripture, which you must reference, which reveals this was private revelation. And which Cath. teaching holds is binding only on those who receive it, and does not belong to the deposit of faith. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/private-revelation
But since this is recorded in Scripture then it is part of the assured word of God, and by which all things are tested by, for as said, Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced.
And a study of "the word of God/the Lord" will reveal that when something is called that, then it is subsequently written what it was, as is the case with Simeon here.
If you can not find it, you must admit your definition of "God's Word" is incomplete, which will call into question all the other Scriptural allusions you improperly interpret as "The Bible."
It means neither, but that you are using another refuted RC straw man polemic. SS does not mean that all that can be known from God is in Scripture, as it testifies otherwise, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) But that Scripture alone is supreme standard for Truth as the assured established Word of God, providing, formally to some degree and materially overall, what is needed for salvation and growth toward perfection.
Westminster itself does not hold that only Scripture alone reveals Truth, or formally provides all things, or that it alone can be used in the determination of doctrine and practice, but that it alone is the supreme fallible and sufficient source, standard and judge as God's assured Word.
Cp. VI: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
Nor does this marginalize magisterial need and function, but not as assuredly infallible:
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
And rather than there being more revelation than what is contained in Scripture calling into question what i hold as Scripture, my position is Scriptural, while you gave refused to answer my question which has never been answered by an RC except in a way as to shoot his church and himself into silence:
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...)
As for "the other Scriptural allusions you improperly interpret as "The Bible"' you have not demonstrated anything that is, while the premise that an assuredly infallible magisterium is what determines Truth is what is invalid.
The apostles appealed to private judgment (1Cor. 10:15; 2Cor. 4:2; 1Thes. 5:21) in the light of Scripture, (Acts 2:14-35; 7; 10:43; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 3;4; Heb. 1ff; etc.), as well as natural revelation, (Acts 41:15-17; 17:25) and supernatural attestation, (Acts 2:22,33; 10:38; 2Cor. 12:12) in seeking to convince souls. In such preaching, appeal to themselves was limited to their testimony, including having actually been with, seen and taught by the resurrected LORD, (Acts 10:39-41; 22:14; 1Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:15-17; 1Jn. 1:1) with overt (usually) supernatural testimony being an accompanying characteristic (Acts 4:3; Rm. 15:18,19; 2Cor. 12:12 )
Obedience to their Scripturally-based judgment was enjoined, (1Cor. 11) based on authority that was substantiated, again, by purity, doctrinal integrity, and supernatural power. (2Cor. 6:1-10) “For the kingdom of God is not in word 'self-proclamation], but in power. “ (1Cor. 4:20, cf. v. 21; 5:1-5; 2Cor. 13:3,4) Which the church needs more of.
Why not read Lewis about the subject, as I suggested, instead of going to EWTN to substitute an issue more to your liking than the one I posed?
You mistake organic growth in the Church, something appropriate for this new entity, for "man-made traditions" because your approach to the Gospel is basically the same as the Pharisees, just with an expanded text.
Hardly. A tortured and verbose "nuh-uh" is still nothing but "nuh-uh."
Using Catholic teaching to validate Protestant rationalizations smacks of a Jew using Christian dietary restrictions to get away with eating shellfish.
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.