Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
Do you remember to say that to the many converted Catholics who also write books, blogs, websites and have TV shows? Or is it only the former Catholics that irritate you?
Matthew 16 does not support Catholicism. “The rock” is not Peter, even though this is what Catholicism teaches. Instead, it is the revelation that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. Because without that revelation there is no Kingdom and there is no church. And without that revelation Matthew 16:18 becomes totally purposeless. That is, there can really only be one rock, so it either has to be the revelation that Christ is the Son of the living God or Peter. To believe it is Peter is really a misunderstanding of Scripture. And that is why Catholicism has had it so wrong for so long.
If I was Peter, I would be mortified that for centuries Catholicism has glorified me rather than the Lord Jesus Christ himself.
Too bad for the thief on the cross, whom Jesus told “Surely today you shall be with Me in paradise.”
The thief didn’t have communion, though...so I guess Jesus got it wrong? The guy WON’T be with Jesus in paradise??
Ed
Was that the "scholar" who admitted he only spent three months actually reading the Fathers before converting?
If people really accept Scripture as the divinely-inspired Word of God with which the indwelling Holy Spirit guides into all truth, then, no, Scripture should be sufficient. But, with the nearly daily presence of Roman Catholic threads disparaging Christians who are not Catholics and who warn that hellfire awaits those who reject their church's teachings and who don't "come home" to Catholicism, then I think it is helpful to hear what others think about that idea. It's helpful also to hear what Scripture says and how the early Christians understood those words in their walk of faith because of their proximity to the Apostles and their direct disciples. I trust Scripture far more than I do a fallible man - even if he presumes he is infallible!
If it is so "clear", why did your church take CENTURIES to decide on what it meant? I don't think it is as obvious as you say it is. Of course Jesus meant what he said, but he said a lot of things and you cannot just yank words out of context to make them say what you want. Jesus said a lot of other words AFTER he said the ones you posted and his words were expounded upon by other Scripture writers who were led by the Holy Spirit. They help us understand what he meant.
I trust Dr. Beckwith far more than I do Webster. The man is an excellent scholar. Having him on our side is a coup and I thank you for the article documenting his conversion. :)
“And that is why Catholicism has had it so wrong for so long.”
Which is why Simon Peter’s affirmation of Christ’s divinity elevates him over the other disciples. Sooo close. But so far away.
Of COURSE you do!
“Free Republic Religion Forum gets regular threads posted by Catholics boasting of all the great former Protestants that “swam the Tiber” and joined the Catholic Church”
And we thank you for your contribution in adding to their number.
Like I said - it’s a great story about Dr. Beckwith and his conversion. :) Thanks for edifying our Faith.
“And we thank you for your contribution in adding to their number.”
Ouch! That one will leave a mark.
I accept all Scripture as God breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Yahshua. I believe He was the only begotten son of Yahweh and was also fully God. I am a fundamentalist but I am a Bible fundamentalist. I believe what the Bible says, not what man says.
If this is a rebuttal to the daily Catholic we are the only true church threads some post
Then God bless you
If there was ever a chance I would go Catholic these zealots are insuring it remains very sl
BTTT! Good post.
I'll take Jesus' words, "I am the Bread of Life."
I am the way, the truth and the life."
Sorry, but I wasn’t quoting from the Last Supper but from Christ’s Discourse on the Bread of Life. I’ll take his words, just as they are, thank you.
The grammatical and linguistical arguments as to whether "this" refers to the subject of Peter's confession or Peter continue, but the argument that the latter has unanimous consent of the fathers and or meant an infallible Peter is what is "lawyered" up.
You can argue what you want, however, as Rome has not infallibly interpreted Mt. 16:18 to mean Peter was the rock, thus it can also teach,
“On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church,” (CCC 424) which understanding some of the ancients , including Augustine, concur with.
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.