Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Church of One
Catholic Answers ^ | February 9, 2013 | Karl Keating

Posted on 02/09/2013 2:28:44 PM PST by NYer

Have you ever come across one of those Protestant sectarians who, finding heretics on all sides, has reduced authentic Christianity to just himself? Everyone else has it wrong—certainly the historic churches but just as certainly the denominations he used to be part of. One by one he became disenchanted with them, serially leaving one church for an even smaller church, until at length it was just himself and another fellow, whom he discovered to be as foul a heretic as he had ever met.

That left our sectarian alone but confident that he had settled in the true religion—confident, but not at peace, because now he saw that the whole world was wrong. He was frustrated that no one saw the truth as he saw it. No one saw the truth at all. "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10). He didn’t find himself in Thomas Hobbes' "war of all against all" but in a war of "one against all," and he was the one.

It made for a lonely life: the crushing burden, knowing that he alone was the carrier of full truth; the sorrow, seeing that no one would follow his lead; the compromises, having to compartmentalize his faith to get by even minimally in society; the sidelong glances that came from one-time friends, the cruel jests from neighborhood children, the incapacity of his own children to see him as he saw himself.

Such is the ultimate Protestant sectarian, the man who has ridden his logic to its limit—where he may be startled to bump into a Catholic analogue, such as Gerry Matatics.

A convert to the Catholic faith from a strict form of Presbyterianism, Matatics went through several subsequent "conversions": from conservative Catholic to Traditionalist, then to sedevacantist, and now, apparently, to a church of one.

He has a website that, on its main page, has four articles. One has been there, unchanged, since 2009 and two more since 2006. Only one slot has changed with any regularity. It is the slot in which he hawks upcoming audio recordings. His latest offering, posted on January 31, is a series of 25 talks under the rubric "Riding the Train of Truth All the Way to the End of the Line." He says that the series "enables you to make the case that the authentic alternative to Vatican II Catholicism is NOT the unauthorized, illicit, anarchic, and sacrilegious scene at the chapels served by the illicitly ordained (i.e., in the post-Vatican II era) 'traditionalist' priests and bishops, whether of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or independent variety."

(In case these acronyms are unfamiliar to you: SSPX is the Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebvrist group; SSPV is the Society of St. Pius V, a sedevacantist offshoot of the SSPX; CMRI is the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, a sedevacantist group started by illicitly-ordained bishop Robert McKenna.)

Matatics used to attend SSPX chapels, but he became disaffected when he concluded that the SSPX wasn't forthright in condemning the vernacular Mass as invalid. He traced the invalidity to the now-supplanted translation of pro multis as "for many." That, he thought, made the Mass invalid and those who approved of it, or even tolerated it, heretics. He became a full-blown sedevacantist but soon discovered that each sedevacantist group was wrong too:

"The lack of the necessary mission and jurisdiction (and in some cases, even the lack of validity) characteristic of these pseudo-traditionalist sects (all of which ironically trample upon tradition in the very name of tradition!)—and the dire spiritual consequences of this lack—are fully explained [in his new talks] from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, from magisterial teaching, and from canon law."

Like the Protestant sectarian who became his own church, Matatics did his homework. He investigated the ever-smaller groups he joined or was tempted to join, until he found that none of them would suffice. He holds no grudge against people who still belong to them:

"I don't question either the intelligence, the sincerity, or the spirituality of those who attend such chapels; I attended them myself, for years, before I researched this matter more carefully. I am quite sure that, for the most part, those who attend such chapels do so precisely because they want to be 'law-abiding, faithful Catholics during the current crisis.' Nevertheless, I believe that, objectively speaking, they ought not to be attending them, and that once they are shown the relevant information, those who are of good will—not without an anguished struggle, I'm sure—will realize they can no longer do so."

They ought not to attend these chapels, just as he does not attend them. They should follow his example and his line of reasoning: There no longer is any chapel worthy to attend. There no longer is a valid episcopacy. There no longer are valid priests. This means there no longer is a Mass. All one can do is to honor one's Sunday obligation as he does, by staying home and reciting the rosary and other prayers with one's family. What else is possible in a world where everyone else is wrong? What else is possible when no one else sees the light?

(The image is from the newspaper in Matatics's hometown of Scranton, PA, and shows him receiving a free cholesterol check at an outdoor health fair in 2011.)


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: christianchurch; church

1 posted on 02/09/2013 2:28:49 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Misguided and sad, ping!


2 posted on 02/09/2013 2:30:19 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“sides, has reduced authentic Christianity to just himself? “

Or even worse, reducing the Body of Christ to just one church/denomination...


3 posted on 02/09/2013 2:38:12 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I think Mad Mo’ was one of those.


4 posted on 02/09/2013 2:38:22 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The story is told of a Navy ship that came upon a solitary castaway on a deserted island—he had been there twenty years or more. The rescuers were amazed at how the castaway had single-handedly transformed the island, including building several impressive structures. “What is that over there?” asked a rescuer. “Why, that’s the church I built for myself,” said the castaway. “And what is that other building over there?” “Why, that’s my other church,” said the castaway. “I got mad at what was going on at the first church and had to leave.”


5 posted on 02/09/2013 2:40:42 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Self-marriage
6 posted on 02/09/2013 2:46:38 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper (If you want to ring the bell - you got to swing the hammer hard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Grace and Blessings Dear Sister,

My foray into “evangelical” “denominations” has humorously proven the old adage that it takes two baptists to start a church and three to break it apart. If the reform movement was driven over a “literal” translation of the Bible, how come there are so many flavors?

Stay Tuned!

7 posted on 02/09/2013 2:57:47 PM PST by alpha-8-25-02 ("SAVED BY GRACE AND GRACE ALONE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

more protestant bashing.


8 posted on 02/09/2013 3:04:10 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing

ROFL! Thank you; that made my day.


9 posted on 02/09/2013 3:19:46 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
It's easy enough to forget about the non-gnostic hermits in Egypt and North Africa in the early days.

Some of them were certainly serious men ~ and a lot of them were simply churches with one member, and him not all that reliable.

That aspect of Christianity disappeared after the islamic conquest of North Africa.

That's most of a thousand years before Protestantism came along.

Here's where I remind everyone that all the early Protestants had been either Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christians. This stuff didn't just appear out of the mists. Neither did those early hermits.

10 posted on 02/09/2013 3:59:01 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Yes, for all our Catholic friends out there who cannot bear the thought of "the church of one", here is a list of some of the 9,001 patron saints one can pray to. Please keep in mind this will shortly change with the beautification of other saints.

We should remember, there are the patron saints of animal topics, the patron saints of actors, of airline stewardress, of ammunition workers, of bell makers, of box makers, of boot blacks (not prayed too to much these days I suspect). There are the patron saints of bladder diseases, of blisters, of bowel disorders, of dandruff, of fainting. There are the patron saints of catepillars (not the tractors), dog bites, insect bites, patron saints of bees and, of course, bee keepers (one must have equal time).

It is understandable why our Catholic friends would laugh at a "church of one". They simply must love a party. After all, one can tell who prays to the saint of dandruff by whether they have telltale white flakes on their coats.

11 posted on 02/09/2013 4:36:14 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

To be fair, do not some Roman Catholics do the same?

They are of this rite, or that rite, or, most commonly, are Cafeteria Catholics or CINOs. They become of Father this-and-so or This Holy Order of Nuns. Many official nuns and priests and monks actively oppose official church doctrines - and they aren’t excuseable as “just members.”

I don’t think the charge of sectarianism lies at the feet of Protestants alone. The Roman Catholics are NOT all marching to the same beat.

You might say, well, then they are not true Roman Catholics. I can see that. But then I’d say, all those “Protestants” who deny basic gospel truths are not true Protestants, either. That knife cuts both ways.


12 posted on 02/09/2013 5:21:10 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Persevero; svcw; Colofornian; bramps; Syncro; metmom; boatbums; caww; ...

The RC polemic really is an attempt to negate the validity of any Scriptural challenge to her, as she is akin but more extreme than what it condemns, being the outworking of a premise that it alone is assuredly infallible, that according to her interpretation only her interpretation is correct in any conflict, but which is not the basis for the establishment of truth and the church, whih actually began in dissent from those who likewise presumed of themselves morr than what it written.

Meanwhile, most of what constitutes Rome have their own version of Catholicism, and whom Rome counts, treats and buries as members.


13 posted on 02/09/2013 6:58:13 PM PST 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: Persevero

Great point. Thanks.


14 posted on 02/09/2013 7:04:48 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

The article displays a gross a misunderstanding of what the body of Christ is as any I have read.

Neither the author nor the virtual sectarian he portrays, understand the Scriptural definition of the body of Christ.


15 posted on 02/09/2013 7:46:11 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The guy is just one of thousands, he just shows up a little more.


16 posted on 02/09/2013 10:03:23 PM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Persevero; svcw; Colofornian; bramps; Syncro; boatbums; caww
The RC polemic really is an attempt to negate the validity of any Scriptural challenge to her,

And therein lies the problem for the RC.

There were two views throughout history. The Eastern Orthodox from the beginning looked upon the scriptures (while divine and inspired), to be a living document to be carefully and methodolically changed and altered by the bishops as living circumstances changed. Thus, some of Paul's teachings were not edged in stone but were flexible as the church grew. Teaching could be modified with the approval of bishops but this isn't to be done lightly. While I don't share this view, there is some rational behind it.

This was not true for the western church. The early church fathers (Augustine, Jerome, etc) recognized the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures, and purposely set it apart from Church writings and doctrine. They held a high view of scripture unlike church doctrine that could become corrupted. Scripture could not be wrong. Church views could be. Thus, Church doctrine could and should be changed to conform with scripture when discovered to be wrong.

This worked for quite a while until the Roman Catholic Church started getting challenges to it's doctrine and authority. But at no time was this greater than in the Middle Ages when it tried to set up a king and kingdom on earth, and wanting to tax countries to pay tribute to it and the building of the Vatican. The rebellion of Luther and others was really just a final flash point that had been brewing for over four centuries.

The Council of Trent decided to take the Eastern Orthodox approach in saying that the Church was the authority-not the scriptures. Of course this creates problems for the RCC in that this was never historic position of the western church nor does it make sense with the writings and positions of the early fathers. The RCC no longer truly believes like the fathers in the setting apart of the scriptures. And you'll see this on this board today. While Catholics will tout the scriptures, they'll rely upon the Church positions (usually going no farther back than Anselm). When asked if they believe scripture to be more divinely inspired than church writings, one can hear the sound of crickets in the background.

Unlike the Orthodox who always believed they could change and make modifications to writings and teachings to keep up with the times, Catholics tout that they go back to the very early writings-something that they really ignored. Today it is no wonder that Catholics believe like the Orthodox (we won't even discuss Pelagius' views).

And that is why Roman Catholics don't like to be challenged scripturally. They really no longer recognized the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. It is whatever Rome tells them to believe.

17 posted on 02/10/2013 3:47:51 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer; narses
Have you ever come across one of those Protestant sectarians who, finding heretics on all sides, has reduced authentic Christianity to just himself?

Maybe; but it is DEFINITELY the RCC favorite strawman to build upon!

18 posted on 02/10/2013 5:01:16 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing
“I got mad at what was going on at the first church and had to leave.”


I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
 
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
 
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
 
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
 
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
 
I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
 
I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of GOD or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of GOD!"
 
I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of GOD, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD?"
He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of GOD!"
 
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915!"
 
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
-- Emo Phillips

19 posted on 02/10/2013 5:02:30 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
And that is why Roman Catholics don't like to be challenged scripturally.

Or historically; either!

20 posted on 02/10/2013 5:03:39 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

From one Successor of Peter, to every-man-his-own-pope. There are as many infallible and varied interpretations of Scripture here as there are non-Catholics.


21 posted on 02/10/2013 5:07:15 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
The Eastern Orthodox from the beginning looked upon the scriptures (while divine and inspired), to be a living document to be carefully and methodolically changed and altered by the bishops as living circumstances changed.

Got a source for that?

22 posted on 02/10/2013 6:34:09 AM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: alpha-8-25-02
My foray into “evangelical” “denominations” has humorously proven the old adage that it takes two baptists to start a church and three to break it apart. If the reform movement was driven over a “literal” translation of the Bible, how come there are so many flavors?

So what was your foray; you just drive by a bunch of different Evangelical churches???

If you really would have checked them out you'd have found that there are not so many different flavors...Just a few, really...What there are is a lot of different names...

23 posted on 02/10/2013 8:46:11 AM PST by Iscool (I love animals...barbequed, fried, grilled, stewed,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I would also like a source for this. It is NOT true of the Orthodox.


24 posted on 02/10/2013 9:19:15 AM PST by newberger (Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Even the hermits in the early days of monasticism came together as part of the church on Sunday.


25 posted on 02/10/2013 9:22:20 AM PST by newberger (Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

And thus http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=1985#1985


26 posted on 02/10/2013 10:07:38 AM PST 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 17 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

No Christian or church can claim assured formulaic infallibility, which is what Rome has done, having infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And yet within the parameters of which RCs have great liberty to adopt varied interpretations of Scripture in seeking to support Rome and her traditions, and we have seen many such extrapolations here.

Moreover, while private interpretation is condemned (erroneously invoking 2 Pt. 1:20 as teaching that) due to the fallibility of human reasoning, this is what RC converts must use in deciding to submit to Rome as infallible, and must continue to rely on it in discerning what level a magisterial teaching falls under, and thus what level of submission is required, and to some degree the meaning of such teachings.

Nor did the church begin upon the premise of an office of perpetual assured infallibility as per Rome, but souls came to believe in the light of Scriptural substantiation, in word and in power, (2Cor. 4:2; 6:4-10) and assurance that one has eternal life is provided thereby. (1Jn. 5:13)

While a reasonable man can concur with the advantage of a supreme court to adjudicate issues, to present Rome as being like the apostles is a grievous presumption.

The kingdom is indeed divided, part of that being necessary, but it is what it is, and yet God has worked to rescue multitudes of souls from Rome and institutionalized Protestantism through the historic evangelical gospel of grace, and thus expanded the kingdom of God, even though it is those Rome attacks, not her institutionalized Protestants.


27 posted on 02/10/2013 10:38:56 AM PST 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 21 | View Replies]

To: don-o
Got a source for that?

From Father Michael Azkoul St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO Copyright, 1994 St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church

The Orthodox do not believe their faith have changed over time except for some external functions. (I happen to agree with this.) Roman Catholics on the other hand accept doctrinal development even if it is out of step with the fathers (something I constantly point out that is recorded on New Advent-the Catholic encyclopedia).

I would disagree with the Father when he states this has been within the last century. Doctrinal development for the Roman Catholics began in the 6th century and expanded. The schism of 1000AD between the Catholics and the Orthodox proves this must be so-otherwise there would have been no schism. But the Father's writing is consistent with the point that I was trying to make.

The question then is why am I not an Orthodox. The answer to that is I believe are Orthodox friends have the wrong doctrinal foundation. The true doctrinal foundation was in the west with Augustine and the early western church fathers-not with Pelagius and Cassian; something they would (and have) disagree with me on. To them Augustine is only a minor father while Cassian is much more revered. Hence the Orthodox do not shy away from "free will" or salvation by works.

While I might disagree with our Orthodox friends at least they are consistent. Far more then Catholics and some Protestants.

28 posted on 02/10/2013 12:30:24 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; newberger

Please see above....


29 posted on 02/10/2013 12:31:19 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I do not find anything there which backs the charge you laid on the Orthodox about changing Scripture.


30 posted on 02/10/2013 1:27:01 PM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
From one Successor of Peter, to every-man-his-own-pope. There are as many infallible and varied interpretations of Scripture here as there are non-Catholics.

The infallible church's results:



Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

31 posted on 02/10/2013 1:28:21 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
The Development of Doctrine


 
Is Peter the 'rock'?
 


NIV Matthew 4:18-19
 18.  As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
 19.  "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."
 
NIV Matthew 8:14
  When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.
 
NIV Matthew 10:1-2
 1.  He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil  spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
 2.  These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
 
NIV Matthew 14:28-31
 28.  "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
 29.  "Come," he said.   Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30.  But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31.  Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"
 
NIV Matthew 15:13-16
 13.  He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
 14.  Leave them; they are blind guides.  If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
 15.  Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
 16.  "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
 

As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....


NIV Matthew 16:13-18
 13.  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
 14.  They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
 15.  "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
 16.  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."
 17.  Jesus replied, "
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
 18.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades  will not overcome it.
 19.  I 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."

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
   and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
 
NIV Luke 6:48
   He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.
 
NIV Romans 9:33
  As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
 
 
 
NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
 4.  As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--
 5.  you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
 6.  For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
 7.  Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, "
 8.  and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.


But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS???

 

NIV Genesis 49:24-25
 24.  But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
 25.  because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty,  who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb.
 
NIV Numbers 20:8
   "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink."
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
  He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
   Jeshurun  grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior.
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
  You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
 30.  How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up?
 31.  For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede.
 
NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
  "There is no one holy  like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
 
NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
 2.  He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
 3.  my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn  of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me.
 
NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
  For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
 
NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
  "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior!
 
NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
 3.  The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
 4.  he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.'
 
NIV Psalms 18:2
  The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn  of my salvation, my stronghold.
 
NIV Psalms 18:31
   For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
 
NIV Psalms 18:46
  The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior!
 
NIV Psalms 19:14
   May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
 
NIV Psalms 28:1
   To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
 
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
 2.  Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me.
 3.  Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me.
 
NIV Psalms 42:9
   I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"
 
NIV Psalms 62:2
   He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.
 
NIV Psalms 62:6
   He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.
 
NIV Psalms 62:7
   My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge.
 
NIV Psalms 71:3
   Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.
 
NIV Psalms 78:35
   They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.
 
NIV Psalms 89:26
   He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'
 
NIV Psalms 92:14-15
 14.  They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green,
 15.  proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."
 
NIV Psalms 95:1
   Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
 
NIV Psalms 144:1
   Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
 
NIV Isaiah 17:10
   You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.
 
NIV Isaiah 26:4
   Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal.
 
NIV Isaiah 30:29
 And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.
 
NIV Isaiah 44:8
   Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." 
 
NIV Habakkuk 1:12
   O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

.....No other rock.............
 
And now you know the Biblical position!


32 posted on 02/10/2013 1:29:57 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: don-o
I do not find anything there which backs the charge you laid on the Orthodox about changing Scripture.

Did I say the Orthodox "changed" scripture? I believe I said (or certainly met to say) the Orthodox have been very consistent in their view of scripture. They changed things that they felt were related to Church matters in promoting the gospel. Please note:

Where they needed to adapt, they adapted.
33 posted on 02/10/2013 2:01:24 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Thanks for posting this.

A few comments:

1. This source proves the exact opposite of your original claim. We do NOT believe in changing the scriptures nor the faith to meet contemporary needs. Did I misunderstand your original claim?

2. We do NOT support Pelagius. The idea that one can come to God on their own apart from the work of the Spirit is heresy.

3. We do NOT teach salvation by works. We do teach that works are necessary for the working of salvation in us because salvation is understood as the transformation (by Grace) of the soul rather than an imputed state. Good works are NOT! meritorious. It’s all by grace.

4. It is true that we do not consider Augustine a saint. We refer to him as blessed Augustine. We do however believe that a *consensus* of fathers is necessary to define the faith, not following one man.


34 posted on 02/10/2013 2:47:22 PM PST by newberger (Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: newberger
1. T...We do NOT believe in changing the scriptures nor the faith to meet contemporary needs. Did I misunderstand your original claim?

We might be talking pass each other. Did you noticed the post above yours? (#33 I believe)

2. We do NOT support Pelagius.

True the Orthodox do not support Pelagius. They do support John Cassian who was a student of Pelagius. Please note this from Orthodox Wiki:

It should be noted, as you mentioned in #4, John Cassian is considered a saint in the Orthodox Church while Augustine is not. For good reason.

We do NOT teach salvation by works. We do teach that works are necessary for the working of salvation in us because salvation is understood as the transformation (by Grace) of the soul rather than an imputed state.

I think that is a fair and appreciated clarification. But if works are necessary for salvation, then isn't one saved by their works?

35 posted on 02/10/2013 6:19:57 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Really good work Elsie. May I borrow it, as I need to?


36 posted on 02/10/2013 6:59:06 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I noticed #33 after I posted, Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out.

But if works are necessary for salvation, then isn't one saved by their works?

Not in the sense that St. Paul is talking about in Romans.

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Here St. Paul contrasts works and faith for salvation. The central point here and in the surrounding context is meriting or earning salvation -- expecting salvation as *payment* for the works. We do not believe that our works are earning salvation. Rather the work of God's grace in our hearts produces the righteousness in our that *is* salvation from sin.

Another way to talk about it is that Evangelical theology separates justification from sanctification and considers salvation to *be* justification, seen as a point event involving a judicial declaration but not necessarily a transformation. Orthodox thought has never separated the two. Salvation is justification plus sanctification as a continuous process because salvation involves not only being rescued from guilt but from sin itself.

37 posted on 02/10/2013 7:00:06 PM PST by newberger (Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

Of COURSE!

MAny men DIED to let the world receive those words!


38 posted on 02/11/2013 5:06:09 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: newberger
But if works are necessary for salvation, then isn't one saved by their works?

Let's cut to the chase!


 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


1 John 3:21-24

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.


39 posted on 02/11/2013 5:07:44 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

“”Really good work Elsie. May I borrow it, as I need to?””

I wouldn’t put much faith in NIV or even KJV translations for that matter.

They are not the Word of God properly translated in many cases.

Even other protestants realize this as shown in this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2634145/posts

Before you use what Elsie posted you should do some serious research, otherwise you will be caught looking like a fool

Much of modern theology comes from the NIV-it’s a mess of error

Here is a good start for you courtesy of University of Pennsylvania

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2634145/posts


40 posted on 02/12/2013 4:30:29 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

I gave you the wrong link from UPENN.

Here is the correct one
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/kraft.html


41 posted on 02/12/2013 4:33:14 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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