Replies

I see plenty of Protestants here i

You have already demonstrated that what you see is not necessarily reality, while you fail to see here that your question was not "do some Protestants act differently" regarding what i stated Rome does, but “does any Protestant act differently," and they do, and in fact, they must. For they cannot claim assured infallibility, but instead any claim to be right must be based on exegetical appeal to evidence, not the premise of perpetual assured veracity so that the only interpretation that ever has authority is theirs.

If they do claim so then you can consider them as acting more like Catholics, who have great liberty to adopt passages of Scripture to support Rome, and can insist such things as that abundant life given to believers and judging angels translates into support for praying to departed saints.

a Protestant once who insisted Mary was not at the foot of the cross. When I pointed out that John says otherwise in his gospel, the Protestant insisted he didn’t have to believe that because John is but one witness and scripture demands two for the sake of proof. That’s Protestantism - make it up and claim you got it from scripture.

Presuming what you allege is the case, what some may do does not make this what historical principles of Protestant exegesis examples, as seen by classic evangelical commentators (like Matthew Henry , Jamieson, Fausset and David Brown, Gill, Clarke, Barnes, Poole, etc.), who, if not infallible, affirm such unambiguous explicit statements. (Jn.19:25-27) And or see a typical evangelical teaching on Biblical exegesis. Basing doctrines on what is most clearly and consistently taught, and not on speculation based on what might be, is what RCs attack evangelicals for doing, as it negates such things as PTDS , the Assumption of Mary, etc. Making it up and claiming scripture teaches it is more a specialty of RC apologetics.

“Sure, there are plenty who deny Peter was the rock referred to in Mt. 16:18, based on not only on scholarly analysis of Scripture, but of history, and in which we find Catholic scholar of substance concurring.”

No. First, there is no scriptural evidence that Peter is not the Rock.

Of course RCs see none, for the same reason the car thieves cannot find a police station. Moreover, your defense is a weak argument from silence, while what is needed is affirmation not only for the Roman position on Mt.16:18, that Peter is the rock upon which the church is founded, but also that he was looked to by all the church as its supreme assuredly infallible head, and whose chair and assured infallibility would be perpetuated.

But for which Scripture provides zero actual confirmation. Never is Peter stated to be the rock upon which the church is built, or assuredly infallible (conditionally as per the Roman doctrine), nor were the churches taught to look to him as their supreme assuredly infallible head, nor did he claim he be either. Neither is there any record of apostolic succession (even after James was martyred) except to maintain the original number of foundational apostles (by lot, not as Rome does) after the death of the immoral Christ-betrayer Judas, while Rome herself has elected immoral, unfit men to the papacy and not removed them.

This does not disallow that Peter was the initial servant leader among brethren, in which no one person was singularly exalted as the supreme ruler, and who had a general pastoral rule, and was the first to use the keys of the kingdom, preaching the gospel by which souls enter the kingdom, both Jews and Gentiles.

But Peter and his role in Scripture is in stark contrast to the demigod status Rome has and can give to her popes.

In contrast, the support for Christ being the rock is what RCs can only wish was given to Peter. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8). And who only refers to himself as "an elder," "a servant and an apostle." (1Pt. 5:1; 2Pt. 1:1)

Only those who wish to deny the authority of the papacy deny that Peter is the Rock. There are no arguments from history that Peter is not the Rock.

That is absurd, and you are protesting like a novice. Even some so-called church fathers (not that i hold them as determinative of doctrine) apparently understood Mt. 16:18 as teaching that which it seems you seem to deny, that Christ built his Church on the rock of this faith confessed by Peter, and thus by extension it is built on Christ Himself.

And about Catholic scholars denying Peter is the Rock - I would be happy to see the evidence of that as soon as you deal with the Protestants scholars about which I posted earlier.

There is nothing to really deal with. You mentioned some anonymous Protestants who see Peter as being the rock, which refers to Mt. 16:18, but which does not translate into them supporting what Rome means by that, so now are you ready for Catholic views in Mt. 16:18 as regards Peter being the rock? I do not think you will be happy?

Something tells me I might never see anything about those Catholic scholars.

Vladimir, it is me who practices substantiating things, which is why you wrongly protested, as indeed Manning was upholding Rome as being the only authoritative voice on what constitutes antiquity, having defined herself as being so. Thus you resorted asking if any Protestant act differently then you just suggested the Church acts, in which you were wrong, as despite some anonymous posts tothe contrary, arguing you are right based upon substantiation (which cannot be the basis for your real assurance) is what is taught, and is not the same as claiming assured veracity as per Rome.

And thus i will gladly gather teachings of Catholics scholars as regards history and Peter being the rock, but if true, will you dismiss them if they uphold a different opinion than yours, as i said RCs do?

“Let me know when you want them, but RCs are not encouraged to enage in subjective examination to ascertain the truth,”

We are encouraged to make objective examinations.

to ascertain the truth. Then that would make you as an evangelical, but you are not encouraged to do so as regards Catholic doctrines. As said in this approved work,

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."

“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit.

And if he believes, as he should and does believe, that revealed truth comes, and can come, only by way of external authority, and not by way of private judgment and investigation, he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature and listening to all kinds of heretical sermons. If he does not this, he is false to his principles; he contradicts himself by accepting and not accepting an infallible Church; he knocks his religious props from under himself and stands—nowhere.

The attitude of the Catholic, therefore, is logical and necessary. Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII , "The consistent believer. " (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

Thus as revealed truth (as in Catholic doctrines) is said to only come by way of external authority, that being Rome, which gives him all there is to be had and all else is counterfeit, therefore objective examination Protestant sources in order to ascertain the veracity of Catholic doctrines is rejected, and the former is necessarily false and heretical if contrary to Catholic doctrine, and liberal reading or listening to Protestant preaching is discouraged. The Pharisees would have said likewise regarding Christ and His church.

“as they believe Rome’s version, and that (as said) the corporate entity that was the instrument of Divine revelation and steward of it, and inheritor of Divine promises of God’s presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is necessarily the infallible interpreter of it. But which is not the case.”

Actually it is the case. You keep proving it.

Actually it is NOT the case, and you have proved it, as by affirming this premise then you effectively nuke the church as it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) .

Thus according to the RC model, the people should not have listened to a holy anointed man in the desert who ate insects, and an itinerant Preacher from Galilee who reproved them by Scripture, and whose authority they rejected. (Mk. 11:27-33)

Yet before there was even a church in Rome, truth was preserved, and assurance of faith was realized in the light of Scriptural substantiation in text and in power, upon which the Lord and His church established their Truth claims. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12.)