|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/9/2010 3:37:11 PM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 272
Status: offline
|
quote:
The parable of the Prodigal Son actually confirms the veracity of the biblical truth of Perseverance of the Saints. Unless, of course, you are able to provide Scriptural proof that states the prodigal lost his salvation along the way. (You can't)
Unfortunately, the parable of the prodigal son is a perfect example of a persons free will in action. Thinking this could be interpreted to support once saved always saved is amazing.
What if the son decided not to return to his father? What if when he ran out of his inheritance money he decided to steal and rob and kill to get more money? What if he enjoyed living in his sin?
Would his father have eventually sent out an armed party of servants and dragged his son back kicking and screaming?
But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found'"
The man was lost and dead to his father until he returned and repented.
You must not believe in free will to think this parable means you can't lose your salvation. I know many folks who were once "Christian" and are now happily living in deplorable sins and have no intentions of changing.
I guess I should stop trying to bring them back to the fold, since what does it really matter, they can't lose their salvation.
Catholics out there, this is a prime example of what happens when you read preconcieved notions into scripture. Be strong, your faith is founded on Christ and the apostles he charged to spread the good news of the Gospel. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Peace
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/9/2010 4:46:28 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2016
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
Good afternoon Irish,
quote:
Unfortunately, the parable of the prodigal son is a perfect example of a persons free will in action. Thinking this could be interpreted to support once saved always saved is amazing.
And yet Biblical. I do not wish to continue off of topic but you can read a sound exegesis of the story of the prodigal in the link below.
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html
quote:
What if the son decided not to return to his father? What if when he ran out of his inheritance money he decided to steal and rob and kill to get more money? What if he enjoyed living in his sin?
What if Christ were never raised from the dead? What if...what if??
quote:
Would his father have eventually sent out an armed party of servants and dragged his son back kicking and screaming?
Who knows? The fact is all that we do know about the story is what God revealed to us through His word, and unlike the RCC I do not wish to add to Scripture and claim my additions as inspired truth.
quote:
But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found'"
The man was lost and dead to his father until he returned and repented.
Incorrect. The Father is like the prodigal son's father. When we stray away from God, He patiently waits for our return. This is the point Jesus wanted us to get from each of the three stories in Luke 15.
When the prodigal son returned, he did not feel like a son, but He was. So often with us, when we return we do not feel like a son. It does not mean that during our wilderness times we were not His.
Again I encourage you to read the link that I provided which will give you a better understanding of the parable.
quote:
I know many folks who were once "Christian" and are now happily living in deplorable sins and have no intentions of changing.
Were they truly redeemed? Did you peer into their souls with the eyes of God and confirm this? Did the Father allow you to gaze into the Lambs Book of Life to confirm they "were once Christian?"
I have news for you Irish. There are many people who sit in the pews next to you and I every single week that from all outside appearances lead an exemplary Christian life and are not "happily living in deplorable sins" who will never enter the kingdom of God, and never truly belonged to Christ.
Matt 7:21-23; "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS
quote:
I guess I should stop trying to bring them back to the fold, since what does it really matter, they can't lose their salvation.
Only if your translation does not contain James 5:19-20; My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,
let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
quote:
Catholics out there, this is a prime example of what happens when you read preconcieved notions into scripture
This is a prime example of what happens when you read and exegete Scripture in the overall context of what the word of God is attempting to teach you.
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/9/2010 5:26:18 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1731
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Who knows? The fact is all that we do know about the story is what God revealed to us through His word, and unlike the RCC I do not wish to add to Scripture and claim my additions as inspired truth.
This transgresses the principle of Sola Scriptura, since what you say is not in the Bible.
I find that protestantism is usually adding oral traditions to Scripture, including the idea of Sola Scriptura, and the various oral traditions which nullify passages such as Eph 2:20, in order to refute the plain saying of Mt 16:18 and Jn 1:42. (Also, the idea that "the Word of God" refers to the Written Word alone is not in the Bible.). Another oral tradition is the idea that the keys are promised to all. Cf. Mt 16:19. This has much truth to it, but cannot be founded on Sola Scriptura, where they are only promised to Simon Rock. This tendency to develop novel oral traditions is related to the immediate and grave divisions between the reformers who rejected the Papacy based on the oral tradition of private judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel's Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament --
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 3/9/2010 9:41:38 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/9/2010 10:53:24 PM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 272
Status: offline
|
quote:
And yet Biblical. I do not wish to continue off of topic but you can read a sound exegesis of the story of the prodigal in the link below.
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html
Not to get into a big thing about “once saved always saved” but this is exactly why Christ made sure to leave an authoritative “shepherd” until he returns again. This is exactly why we need a Pope.
To say this is “biblical” and quote a section from “got questions” is hardly convincing.
All you have to do is visit the “salvation and eternal security” thread to see 223 pages (and counting) of sola scriptura in action. Christians from all denominations bashing each other over the head with scripture verses in favor or against this novel doctrine. Luther, the father of the protestant reformation, didn’t believe it. He formed his doctrine from the Bible alone. Did he somehow miss the parable of the prodigal son?
Your going to try to tell Catholics that your view is “biblical” all the while Protestants can’t even agree with each other whether or not the Bible teaches this? Even Baptist’s can’t even agree within the same denomination whether the Bible teaches this or not. Do you have to be a four point Calvinist or a five point Calvinist to believe this doctrine? I can’t keep up.
Hey, I like a good argument just like most on these thread probably do, but maybe you guy’s should follow the Acts 15 model and have an official Church Council to decide the matter once and for all. That way, at least on the Catholic threads, you could offer your scriptural exegesis with some form of unity. Just a suggestion.
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 1:29:11 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. No the CC doesn’t reject this. In fact, it was one of our readings a couple weeks ago. We accept this as understood in the context of the rest of scripture. The doctrines of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth are not built upon carefully selected passages from St. Paul but on the entirety of God’s revelation of Truth.
quote:
The official position of the RCC is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. All instruments of and/or results of God’s abundant grace. Mortal sins may be acceptable for the OSAS crowd, but the CC sees it differently.
quote:
The parable of the Prodigal Son actually confirms the veracity of the biblical truth of Perseverance of the Saints. Unless, of course, you are able to provide Scriptural proof that states the prodigal lost his salvation along the way. (You can't)
The prodigal son asked for his inheritance before his father’s death. In Jewish culture, this would be seen as a total separation from his Father. He then squandered his inheritance. Pretty clear from scripture that he used his free will to turn from the Father and then waste away what was freely given him as a son of the Father. One has to fight really hard to defend the protestant (subset that is) man-made tradition of OSAS in light of this passage. And it’s quite clear from scripture that the son chose to return to the Father. He committed a mortal sin (free-will rejection of the Father) and lost his salvation (inheritance). He was dead/lost and through his repentance and forgiveness of the Father, he was once again made alive. Yes, it’s a beautiful parable about God’s mercy and forgiveness and the free will he grants us. But it certainly doesn’t uphold the man-made tradition of OSAS.
quote:
Care to provide just one?[example of biblical refutation of OSAS] The Prodigal Son is a pretty good one and I could easily come up with many more. There’s a thread to discuss this very topic and it’s quite active with arguments from both sides. It’s full of Protestants who all claim to hold to sola-scriptura but can’t seem to come to agreement on OSAS. In fact, I suspect belief in OSAS might also appear in another thread titled “What are the essentials of the faith?”. When you come to agreement on OSAS with your sola-scriptura brethren and then agree that it is an “essential of faith”, I’ll share my thoughts.
quote:
Come clean on this one friend. You and I both know that you will fully accept whatever interpretation the Magisterium provides you for these passages. Hey I’m not too proud to admit that the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, blessed with God’s Grace for 2000 years, can interpret scripture better than I can.
After I began questioning what I was being told scripture “really means”, I began earnestly studying both scripture and the history of the church. Both were leading me straight into the CC. The more I studied scripture and the Jewish roots of our faith, the more I found Catholic doctrine to be consistent with the entirety of scripture. And studying the writings of saints and martyrs of the early church was the icing on the cake. It was easy for me to accept the Magisterium because scripture and church history testify that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
Our Savior set it up that way and we see it carried out in the earliest of church councils and in the authority of the officers of the bishopric and in the letters they wrote. The first to profess Jesus as the Messiah had no problem accepting this. These Jewish converts were accustomed to a teaching authority, to “bind and loose”, to a Chair of Moses, to a Master of the Palace. Jesus made promises that only the CC believes are still true. What protestant denomination do you know of that dares accept this truth? None that I know of. Instead they will proclaim that scripture is the only source of infallible truth which is a violation of scripture itself!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 3:08:51 AM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2016
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
quote:
Your going to try to tell Catholics that your view is “biblical” all the while Protestants can’t even agree with each other whether or not the Bible teaches this?
Define "each other." Is it the CC church vs. the rest of the world in your eyes? Christian brethren may agree to disagree on the non essentials. Unfortunately the errors in the teachings of the RCC church surpass non essential doctrines.
quote:
Do you have to be a four point Calvinist or a five point Calvinist to believe this doctrine? I can’t keep up
Obviously not. I am not a Calvinist.
quote:
Hey, I like a good argument just like most on these thread probably do, but maybe you guy’s should follow the Acts 15 model and have an official Church Council to decide the matter once and for all. That way, at least on the Catholic threads, you could offer your scriptural exegesis with some form of unity. Just a suggestion.
Unity doesn't equate truth. Standing together united as one while holding fast to false doctrines isn't something to beam with pride over. Not a suggestion - a true statement.
quote:
This is exactly why we need a Pope.
My last statement tells you exactly why you don't.
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 3:22:12 AM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2016
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mortal sins may be acceptable for the OSAS crowd, but the CC sees it differently.
Those who have commited "mortal sins" can praise the living God that HE sees salvation differently than the CC does, and that HE is the One who has declared what one must do to inherit enternal life, not the CC church.
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 3:23:30 AM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2016
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jesus made promises that only the CC believes are still true.
Such as?
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 4:36:15 AM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 272
Status: offline
|
quote:
Define "each other."
O.K.
Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Church of Christ, Non-denominational, Pentecostal Ect. Ect. Ect. Ect. Ect. Ect.
quote:
Is it the CC church vs. the rest of the world in your eyes?
Nope. Just rejected your notion that the parable of the Prodigal son teaches once saved always saved. This is a discussion forum.
quote:
Christian brethren may agree to disagree on the non essentials.
Ah, so telling your congregation that they are eternally secure once they are “saved” is a “non essential” doctrine? O.K. If you say so. Is that an “infallible” decree, by the way? I think your starting to warm up to the idea of a papacy. 
quote:
Unfortunately the errors in the teachings of the RCC church surpass non essential doctrines.
So no Church council then?
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 7:57:27 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
…but you can read a sound exegesis of the story of the prodigal in the link below.
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html
What make’s this sound exegesis? I’m sure there are many sola-scriptura brethren in the “eternal security” thread that would disagree. I would expect a protestant seminary student to offer his own exegesis or maybe even a link to his seminary’s material.
quote:
Only if your translation does not contain James 5:19-20; … Even this quote refutes OSAS. The very person whose soul is “saved from death” is a believer who “wanders from truth”. Fit’s very nicely with the Prodigal Son, one who was to freely receive the inheritance of his Father, yet, out of his own free will, squandered his inheritance and became lost and dead.
quote:
Christian brethren may agree to disagree on the non essentials. … The oft quoted passage of those who do not believe in what the infallible scriptures call the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Yet they can’t even agree on what the “essentials” are. (as if they get to decide!)
quote:
Unity doesn't equate truth. … No it doesn’t. But disunity does mean at least one of the disagreeing parties is wrong. The Kingdom of David, which our Jewish Messiah came to restore, was accustomed to settling disputes over the Torah by the person who sat in the Chair of Moses. This person had the authority to “bind and loose”. Kind of like the authority King Jesus gave to his Apostles who held the authoritative office of bishopric. In the CC, we call this the teaching magisterium, comprised of members of the office of bishopric, the leader of which is the person who sits in the Chair of Peter.
quote:
Those who have commited "mortal sins" can praise the living God that HE sees salvation differently than the CC does, and that HE is the One who has declared what one must do to inherit enternal life, not the CC church. Could you clarify this a bit more for us? What must the believer do if he commits a mortal sin? Must he repent like the Prodigal Son did or should he merrily go on his way praising God that he is eternally secure? If he should repent, what happens if he doesn’t? Does he remain lost and in death like the Prodigal Son? Or was he “never ‘saved’ to begin with”?
quote:
quote:
Jesus made promises that only the CC believes are still true. Such as? That the Kingdom established by Jesus Christ is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. That the Holy Spirit came upon the Church at Pentecost that His Bride might know infallible truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 3:54:21 PM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 272
Status: offline
|
WKirscher,
quote:
What make’s this sound exegesis? I’m sure there are many sola-scriptura brethren in the “eternal security” thread that would disagree. I would expect a protestant seminary student to offer his own exegesis or maybe even a link to his seminary’s material.
This is a very interesting point. Here we have a seminary student interpreting the parable of the prodigal son to bolster the doctrine of eternal security. Sampson believes that the doctrine is "biblical". He is given formal training by professors and teachers as to "proper exegesis"of scripture. Armed with this knowledge, he sets out in the world of apologetics in an attempt to evangelize.
On the other hand we have someone like Rcjames who has been in the ministry for 26 years, probably given thousands of sermons, ministered to thousands of Christians, read and studied scripture until his bibles literally fell apart, and is highly respected on these forums as being a subject matter expert.
Now, at least when it comes to the doctrine of "once saved always saved" they disagree with each other.
They both use the same scriptures. They are both formally trained in scriture interpretation. I would imagine both earnestly pray for discernment from the Holy Spirit.
So why do they disagree? They both cannot be correct. One position is true, one position is not true.
Is this the model Christ left us with? No steward? No earthy shepherd? No authority to settle doctrinal disputes the way they did at the council of Jerusalem?
You came from a Protestant backround. Do any other Protestants wonder why this is so?
Maybe it's just me.
quote:
No it doesn’t. But disunity does mean at least one of the disagreeing parties is wrong. The Kingdom of David, which our Jewish Messiah came to restore, was accustomed to settling disputes over the Torah by the person who sat in the Chair of Moses. This person had the authority to “bind and loose”. Kind of like the authority King Jesus gave to his Apostles who held the authoritative office of bishopric. In the CC, we call this the teaching magisterium, comprised of members of the office of bishopric, the leader of which is the person who sits in the Chair of Peter.
Great point, I completely agree.
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 3:56:35 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2016
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
Greetings irish & wkirscher,
quote:
The doctrines of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth are not built upon carefully selected passages from St. Paul but on the entirety of God’s revelation of Truth.
Yet many of these same doctrines which the RCC claims are based "entirety of God's revelation of truth" prove to be false doctrines and fail miserably when held up to the light of Holy Writ.
quote:
Ah, so telling your congregation that they are eternally secure once they are “saved” is a “non essential” doctrine? O.K. If you say so.
The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith as related to ones salvation. They are 1) the Deity and humanity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace through faith 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the Gospel and 5) monotheism.
I do know that the CC has their own doctrines, such as one must believe Mary to be a perpetual virgin in order to enter heaven.
Does the sect to which you belong teach that at the Judgement Seat of Christ one will need to correctly answer the question from the King "do you believe or reject OSAS" before they are able to enter heaven??
Read it and cross reference it with the Scriptures given. You may be pleasantly surprised to find out that truth can be revealed to you directly by the Holy Spirit without the need of assistance of the Magesterium telling you what you should believe in.
quote:
I’m sure there are many sola-scriptura brethren in the “eternal security” thread that would disagree
Absolutely! And we would agree to "disagree agreeably".
quote:
I would expect a protestant seminary student to offer his own exegesis
Offering sound exegesis is time consuming when one uses Scripture to back ones position. For one I do not have the time to do so (mid term finals) and did wish to spend time that I did not have offering an in depth exegesis that very likely could have been deleted by the mods for being off topic.
quote:
or maybe even a link to his seminary’s material.
We have already discussed this back in post 7857. In case you have forgotten here is my answer to this again. I would not want to attend a Seminary that has ties to a particular church discipline or dogma. My desire was to be instructed in "the whole counsel of God" and not by a Seminary which follows a particular doctrine or theological slant. In my view this very often amounts to nothing more than the blind leading the blind.
I desired a Seminary whose teachings followed and are inspired by historic Christian orthodoxy, and that is exactly where God has led me.
Hence my institution of higher learning takes no "official" stand on this doctrine.
quote:
In the CC, we call this the teaching magisterium, comprised of members of the office of bishopric, the leader of which is the person who sits in the Chair of Peter.
And our LDS friends trust in the Qurom of the Twelve Apostles.
Others derive their definition of "truth" from the writings of such people as Charles Taze Russell and Mary Baker Eddy.
Establishing an authoritive order does make the teachings that come from such an order true.
quote:
That the Holy Spirit came upon the Church at Pentecost that His Bride might know infallible truth
Amen. Which He revealed to us through His written word.
Have a great day gentlemen.
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 5:15:33 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1731
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean 'rock,' it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: 'Your name is "Rock," and on this "rock" I will build my church.' Jesus' meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for 'Peter' and 'rock' are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the 'rock,' corresponding to Abraham of old, who was 'the rock from which you were hewn' (Isa. 51:1)." (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 7:03:59 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 792
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Hi Samson (and everybody else!),
I've been reading along but haven't had much to say lately. [Surprising, I know.] I would like to hear your thoughts on the following question, however.
You quoted several interesting passages of Scripture in support of your belief in OSAS. The one that especially struck me was James 5:19-20. You wrote:
quote:
Only if your translation does not contain James 5:19-20; My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,
let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
First of all, it was refreshing to read quotes from the Gospels from a non-Catholic Christian for a change. Usually, it's all about Paul.
My question is, what do you think St. James meant when he wrote "[he] will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins? I'm curious how this fits into your theological view. IMHO, the Catholic Christian understanding is the only one that makes sense in light of the passages of Scripture you quoted.
Again, just curious how you interpret the passages you quoted.
Thanks!
Pax et bonum,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/10/2010 10:47:58 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2160
Status: offline
|
This was shared close to a year ago, and a friend suggested I share it again to benefit some of the newer posters. 
Bible is indeed God Breathed; when the Holy Spirit penned it through the writers He chose He was specific about the language for a reason: to make clear that the Rock the church was built on was the unmovable Rock of Christ, not the immovable piece of the rock of Peter, who would later flee when Christ was taken in the garden, denying he even knew Him three times.
When the New Testament writers wrote the New Testament they wrote it in Greek. The Latin, English, and other translations were based on the original Greek language. Looking at the Greek text we find that the word Peter and the word Rock (on which Christ was to build His church) were two distinct words. They both have a different meaning. The word Peter in Greek is petros. It means " a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling; a piece of rock; a stone." The word for rock is petra. It means " a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; a rock; a cliff; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring."
The Greek language has masculine and feminine forms for most words, as do many languages other than English. The word for Peter, petros, is in the masculine gender. The word for rock is petra, and it is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are very different words in the Greek. Petros, the name for Peter, means a insecure stone. Petra on the other hand means a solid, immovable rock. We do not have feminine or masculine articles in the English language. In the Greek, just like many of the modern languages, all of the nouns and words that describe or are related to those nouns in a sentence are in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender; most of the time it is a random order, regardless of sex.
Now, the words associated with the noun in a sentence, or article, is very important in Greek. So if a noun is in the masculine form, the article needs to be in the masculine form, and if it is feminine it must have a feminine form. The text in Matthew 16 (in the Greek) uses petros is in the masculine, and petra in the feminine, which are two distinct words with different meanings. Now the question: on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?
Looking at the text: " And I tell you that you are Peter [petros, masculine gender], and on this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. The text clearly shows that the church of Christ is built on petra, not on Petros.
But who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? God’s word states. "and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual Rock [petra, in the Greek] that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4). This passage shows that petra refers to Christ, Peter, petros. From Ephesians 2:20: "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." (Ephesians 2:20) "He is the Rock, His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3).
If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, how could he be overcome” If the gates of hell could not prevail against him, why did he deny his Lord? Right after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome, Jesus said to: " Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:23). Peter tells us who the Rock is when he says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). In Acts 4:10-11, Peter is talking about Jesus when he says: "This Jesus[a] is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone." So scripture tells us that Jesus Christ is be the rock on which God built His church, and the declaration that “You are the Christ the Son of the Living God” is the message on which the Church stands.
Paul also tells us that the petra is Christ. In 1 Cor. 3:11 we read, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Peter is never designated by petra.
Long before Jesus walked on this earth as a man He was called the Rock. Isaiah 28:16: " therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation”. Peter writes: "For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."" (1 Peter 2:6). From Psalms 61:2: "Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I."
If Jesus made Peter as the head of the church, why would the disciples quarrel among themselves about who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46)? If Jesus had made that decision, would they be arguing about it? They always submitted to Him in all His directions, why would they disregard His instruction now? The reason is Jesus did not appoint Peter as the head of the church. The only head was Christ Himself. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11:3 “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” and in Eph. 1:22: ” And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.” These statements clearly state Jesus is the head of every person and also of the church. It is Christ and Christ alone that we are responsible to, not to any man who “stands in His place.”
God chose to use the Greek language as the medium for His Holy word to be spoken to His people. The bible is "God breathed" (1 Tim. 3) and every word He chose to pen through the writers was written because He wanted to be very clear about His meaning. Whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or not is irrelevant. God chose to use the Greek language to convey his message. The Greek language has very specific words that could have conveyed the message that Peter was the rock of the church, but those words were not used. It is more than just masculine and feminine. The word petra could have been used for Peter, but it wasn't. There are no rules in the Greek language that dictate a feminine word must be used for a female person and a masculine word for a male person. The some words are just feminine and do not have a masculine counterpart, so the feminine is used and visa versa.
God used the Greek language and used two distinct words to make His point because that was the message He wanted us to hear.
I just thought of something that might help you understand what I am trying to say here. If you argue that the reason Peter was called Petros was because he was a man and needed to have a matching gender, when Jesus stated "Upon this Rock I will build" we would see the same form of the word because it was still describing a man. (The masculine form Petros again because it was still describing Peter.) But the Greek language allows for you to use a feminine word for a man if that is the only one that conveys the meaning you are attempting to articulate. So the word petra would have been used twice if Jesus was appointing Peter to be the head of His church. But it wasn't.
For a more succinct (and probably better written  ) explanation can be found here.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/12/2010 1:37:07 AM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 83
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
Psalms274,
As a recent participant to these forums, I appreciate your thoughts.
I converted to the Catholic faith because of scriptural exegesis such as this.
Years ago as a Baptist, I would have accepted these arguements at face value, probably because my Pastor would have sounded convicing and scholarly standing behind the pulpit, explaining to us congregants what "he" believed Matt 16:18 really meant.
Anyway, the arguments presented regarding petra/petros have been defended quite easily by the good Catholics on this thread many times over.
But just consider, even if you dismiss Peter as the rock in Matt 16:18, how do you dismiss Peter as the "shepherd" in John 21 15-17?
Jesus implores Peter three times to feed and care for his flock.
Of course, Jesus is the good shepherd. But Jesus, knowing he was returning to his Father, asked Peter to shepherd his flock until his return. An earthly steward (Isaiah 22) given a specific mission by Jesus himself.
Why Peter? Why not Thomas or Matthew or Andrew?
Augustine
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
J
_____________________________
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt 16:18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/12/2010 2:58:50 AM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2016
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
Good evening wkircher,
Your exposit of the parable of the Prodigal below creates a theological dilemma for you and those who adhere to RCC teachings.
quote:
The prodigal son asked for his inheritance before his father’s death. In Jewish culture, this would be seen as a total separation from his Father. He then squandered his inheritance. Pretty clear from scripture that he used his free will to turn from the Father and then waste away what was freely given him as a son of the Father. One has to fight really hard to defend the protestant (subset that is) man-made tradition of OSAS in light of this passage. And it’s quite clear from scripture that the son chose to return to the Father. He committed a mortal sin (free-will rejection of the Father) and lost his salvation
If the son lost his salvation because he committed the mortal sin of free will rejection of the Father, then you surely must believe that Peter lost his salvation when he committed the mortal sin of free will rejection of the Son by denying Him three times.
Is it also your Magisterium's position that your "first pope" lost his salvation and had to regain it?
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/12/2010 4:56:32 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
Turning a blind eye to the office of the Prime Minister of the Kingdom won’t make the office go away. The problem, for you anyway, is that God clearly defines the offices of the NT and “prime minister” isn’t one of them….and it is to that you turn a blind eye.
quote:
quote:
No, the Lord Himself tells us who possesses the “key” of the House of David in Rev 3:7. You keep trying to use this quote as an argument against the Prime Minister of the Kingdom when it actually supports it. In Rev 3:7 the King is returning. The temporary authority granted to the Prime Minister is returned to the King. There is no NT evidence of an individual being granted temporary authority until the Lord returns, let alone a non-existent person such as a pope. You simply make that unsupported assertion. Rather, we have the true Word of God which tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ never gives up His unique authority and rulership of His church:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
quote:
quote:
Hmm, signs, wonders, miracles, the Holy Spirit, salvation….how strange you consider this to be ”merely…corroborating testimony”. Why would any Christian consider the work of the Holy Spirit to be “merely…corroborating testimony”? I’m certainly not downplaying the work of the Holy Spirit. My apologies if that wasn’t your intent, however, your words do seem to imply it…..."merely...corroborating testimony".
quote:
But in the context of our disagreement, the testimony of Paul and Barnabas of the signs, wonders, and miracles are the corroborating evidence to what Kepha testified. This was a vision that directly related to the question of whether or not these Gentile recipients of God’s grace were required to obey Jewish Law - an answer to the question “How then, shall we live out our faith”? Whose “question” is that precisely? I don’t see it in the text. In any event, yes, I agree Paul’s testimony corroborated Peter’s testimony….apparently, both were needed and of equal value since God relates both.
quote:
quote:
Didn’t you read James’ words? He addressed the later part of Peter’s testimony – that God was granting salvation to the Gentiles which is precisely the testimony of Paul and Barnabas. Still doesn’t answer the question …. How then, shall we live out our faith? The Protestant (or subset thereof) answer? Doesn’t matter …. I’ve been “saved” (according to Protestant thinking) so nothing I do or don’t do matters anymore. Ah, the RC version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ....work hard enough and you just might get yourself saved. And, of course, the only way you can muddy the biblical doctrine of eternal security is to misrepresent it.
quote:
quote:
The “post Reformation sense” is clearly seen from Scripture to be “Paul’s sense”. And “Paul’s sense” is clearly seen from Scripture to not be the “RC sense”. As for the “history of their people”, have you not read in the Bible that most were not saved because they put their trust in their works? I’m not saying to put our trust in works. Where do you get that? That would be pelagianism/semi-pelagianism which the Catholic Church has staunchly fought against from the beginning. RC may say it “staunchly” fights against it, nevertheless, that is essentially its method of salvation….works, works, works. So, of course, a salvation based on works can be lost..since there never actually was a salvific work of God - the only work that counts.
quote:
I’m saying to trust in God’s abundant Grace which, when we cooperate with this grace, leads us to good works. That’s exactly right…you must do abundant work for your salvation. Whereas, God tells us He is the Author and Finisher of faith(Heb 12:2), that it is He alone who saves sans man’s work. It is not by man’s works of righteousness(Eph 2:8-9) but totally the sovereignty of God having nothing to do with our “filthy rags”(Isa 64:6).
Always, the will and prerogative of God, not man. Eph 1:5,11 ”Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his wil,….In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:”
He, alone, is responsible for the work of sanctification Phil 2:13 ”For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”.
quote:
What you call “Paul’s sense” is a misunderstanding of the writings of St. Paul. They are inconsistent with the rest of scripture. Protestants tell us works has absolutely no role in our eternal salvation. We tell you that because God tells us that, as can be seen from the above passages and multiple others. Your church is, of course, free to disagree with anything or everything God says. God says works cannot save you….RC says, no God, you’re wrong, we say they can. "Not of works, lest any man should boast."(Eph 2:9).
quote:
Yet Paul tells us in infallible scripture to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12f). Notice it is a salvation which they ALREADY possessed not one they are working for.
quote:
By the way… one of the things that drove me away from protestant “bible only” churches??? - the “forced teachings” of pastors telling me what scripture “really means” as they tried to defend the protestant man-made tradition of sola-fide (as they stayed far away from the “epistle of straw” and cherry-picked their way through Paul’s epistles) . No need to “stay away” from James’ letter. It is perfectly consistent with Paul’s and every other passage throughout the Bible. Man’s works cannot procure salvation, therefore, James is simply saying they are, in fact, the signs of that salvation. Afterall, God just said above in Isa 66 that man’s works are “filthy rags”.
quote:
quote:
Rather pointless assertion on your part, unless, of course, you can find anyone who’s said as much….can you? What is actually beyond the pale is why “anyone Christian” indulges in spurious remarks. Kelman – you’re the one telling all of us that Peter taught error. Here is what you said: Nope, you simply prefer to twist what was said. It's become increasingly apparent why you must do so. Your spurious assertion was, and I quote: "Why anyone Christian would argue that the Apostles couldn't be trusted is beyond me." Unfortunately, as we dig deeper into your post, we will see you continue to engage in such behavior. To no avail I might add, since I will continue to point out each and every spurious assertion.
quote:
quote:
As for Peter’s sin of teaching false doctrine, apparently, he repented and turned from his evil ways. If Peter taught error, then his teachings cannot be trusted. First, God said that he did – not me. Second, the point is moot since we have no teachings of either the Lord Jesus or the Apostles that are not written down in the only infallible word from God that we do have – the Bible.
quote:
If Peter taught error, then there is no reason to suspect the other Apostles didn’t also teach error. No, that’s the RC way of theology. If it's not there, just make-up something and call it “tradition”. However, since God, in His inspired Word, saw fit to tell us of no other Apostles teaching contrary to His command, for those who trust Scripture, there would be no reason to assume any others did.
quote:
quote:
Do you see anything about an inherent infallibility in that passage? Well…. Yes. I personally don’t believe the Holy Spirit teaches error. That the Holy Spirit teaches infallibly does not mean that the Apostles are promised they always would. Peter was given a vision from God, did he teach accordingly?....nope, he did not. You’re simply adding to what the text says in an effort to prop up your church’s doctrines.
quote:
Jesus promised this to the Apostles, I didn’t. Jesus promised “what” to His Apostles?....that they would be infallible?...of course, not. The only perfect area of “infallibility” is the Bible – our supreme rule of faith which alone the Lord calls inspired.
quote:
quote:
So, what we’re being subjected to here is simply a prop for RC’s man-made doctrine of papal “infallibility” – nothing more. Is this why you want to insist that, despite Jesus’ promise, Peter taught error? Nope, not at all. I insist that Peter taught error because God says he did. The real question is why it’s so easy for you to deny what God says – that Peter taught error as he refused to eat with the Gentiles, enter their homes, probably not even participate in the Lord’s Supper with them…on and on. What a terrible thing Peter did. He could have derailed the entire fledgling Christian church by teaching such erroneous doctrines, except by the grace of God, He sent Paul.
quote:
quote:
RC’s canon was decided upon at Trent…. Can’t you please just provide one single reference to an ecumenical Church council that supports the Protestant’s truncated canon of scripture??? Anything??? Anything at all??? Hey, I don’t have a problem with you disagreeing with the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope Gregory, Jerome and many, many ECFs…however, you should. It’s simply a rather inconvenient fact that these folk don't agree with Rome’s assertion that the canon was settled.
"The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
quote:
I never said only Kepha received infallible truths in visions. Well, you still haven't actually denied that Peter was the only one to receive a vision.
quote:
Or are you saying the vision Kepha received in Acts 11 was a fallible vision? If one didn't desire to mislead, he would not continue to build strawmen…why are you so fond of that method of contruction anyway?
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/12/2010 5:12:19 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Peter was brash, outgoing and impetuous and often spoke up first…so? You think that makes him a pope?....now that’s silly. All the more to show God’s Glory. ”Satan, get thee behind me”…I guess Peter was showing “God’s Glory” here also?.....I don’t think so.
quote:
Does it make him a “pope”? Well it’s pretty clear from infallible scripture and from even protestant scholars that Kepha was the leader of the Apostles. Did Peter often lead?....yes. Did Peter manifest any more authority than any other Apostle?...no. Did the other Apostles defer to Peter in any way?....no. All this is made manifestly clear throughout the entirety of the NT.
quote:
It’s also clear from scripture that Kepha was granted the Keys to the Kingdom. No, what is actually clear from Scripture is that the Lord granted the same to the other Apostles(Mat 18:18).
quote:
We also know that Jesus said “Upon this Kepha I will build my Church”. No, what we know is that the Lord Jesus Christ was not speaking about the person of Peter as many ECFs testify.
quote:
Kepha’s brash and impetuous behavior is not what made him the first leader of the universal Church, it was God’s Grace. No, what we know from infallible Scripture is that your opinion is simply that – an opinion - and a biblically, historically unsupported one at that .
quote:
quote:
Shameful to call all those ECF’s “silly” because they knew Peter was not the Rock. What I called “silly” was the petros-pebble error. And the record of the majority of the ECFs writings refute your claim. They understood multiple senses of scripture even though you may not. Nope, regardless of your seeming inability to admit what is not only patently true but historically supported, the ECFs understood Peter was not the rock to which the Lord referred.
quote:
quote:
Leave it to RC to think that God would build His church upon fallible, sinful men instead of the glorious Son of God. What do you mean “instead of”? We believe the glorious Son of God builds His Church through fallible sinful men. It is abundantly clear what is meant by “instead of”. We, otoh, believe, as do many many ECFs, that God builds His church upon the Lord Jesus Christ, the Rock of Mat 16 and not Peter.
quote:
quote:
Nope, no problem at all. I understand, even if you cannot, that God has not given “infallibility” to any man. The Apostle Paul attests to this as he wrote in 1Cor ”For now we see through a glass darkly”. How many times are you going to contradict yourself??? Apparently, no times since you’ve yet to offer anything of substance nor will you, as is evident by the rest of your post.
quote:
It wasn’t too many posts ago that you were insisting that Peter taught error and none of the other Apostles ever did. No. Actually, I said there was no reason to suspect that any other Apostle taught error.
quote:
Now you are telling us that, even though Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to cause the Apostles to remember everything he taught them, he “really meant” something else. What fluff you toss about as you attempt to discredit. Fortunately, you simply discredit yourself. I quoted the words Paul used in 1Cor, apparently they are distasteful to your RC palate. Nonetheless, all your attempts to discredit and twist have come to nothing – as is always the case.
quote:
quote:
Not at all…whatever are you reading...or more precisely not reading? Calvin was speaking about the issue of “brothers”, that’s all. The ordinary (not forced) reading of all the related passages demands that Mary remained a virgin until the Lord was born. Afterwards, the indications are that she engaged in a normal marital relationship. When using the “brothers” passages to deny Mary’s perpetual virginity, Calvin calls this “excessive ignorance”. He said it, not me. So what if he said it? Obviously, your hope is to make some point about my “excessive ignorance”. However, your hopes are dashed since it is evident from your post you're making that point about yourself.
quote:
And no, there is no indication that afterwards she engaged in a sexual marital relationship. You only believe this because of the “brother’s” passages. Or maybe you use the “firstborn” or “until” passages. I use the entirety of Scripture including the above and all the other references connecting Mary and Joseph to their other children. If a desired interpretation is not forced upon all these passages, then the ordinary reading would be that Mary and Joseph had other children after the Lord was born. However, it is of little importance, unless of course, a church wishes to raise a creature to divine status – as does RC.
quote:
There is a quote from John’s gospel that clearly defends the Ark of the New Covenant’s perpetual virginity. Jesus hands the care of Mary to John. This would be unheard of in Jewish culture if Mary had other sons. That’s just plain silly. Why would the Lord hand the care of Mary over to unbelievers?...of course, He never would. None of His brothers were at the cross, but He did have a covenant relationship with John, therefore, He was not in violation of ANY Jewish laws. Read about David and Jonathan in the OT.
quote:
Scripture is full of name changes. Every time it happens, God is calling the person to serve him in a new and more significant role. Same thing happens when God changes Simon’s name to Rock. Peter had his name changed before Mat 16 when he was chosen to serve as one of the Twelve in John 1:42. Did this mean he was destined for a new mission in life?....of course. Did it mean he was a pope?...of course not. There is not even the slightest hint anywhere in Scripture for a papacy.
quote:
quote:
Hmm, now, accusing Augustine of a “forced interpretation”? Not at all. The Saint, Doctor, and Bishop, of the Catholic Church didn’t engage in either/or mentality. He saw Jesus Christ as both spiritually present in the Eucharist and physically present. His writings bear this out quite beautifully. This is why the Catholic Church considers him a Doctor of the Church. LOL…do you see transubstantiation everywhere you read?....even when the context is about Augustine teaching that the “rock” of Mat 16 was not Peter?
quote:
quote:
Yep, those well known “forced” interepretations, such as: ”he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:(Mat 3:11)…. but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost(Mark 1:8)…..he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:(Luke 3:16)….. the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.(Jn 1:23) Not a drop of “water” seen anywhere. Actually a “drop of water” is seen in every single one of these passages. Really? then show us the word water in those passages, instead of showing us your preconceived notions. No, you don’t find one single solitary drop of water in any of those passages and for good reason, they all were speaking of being baptized with the Holy Spirit – not with water. Nor obviously, is water in view in any of the following “baptism” passages:
Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
quote:
Check out what the Greek word “baptizo” means. I know precisely what baptizo, baptismos, baptisma, bapto and baptistes mean. From Scripture we find that baptism is synonymous with washing or cleansing(Acts 22:16; 1Cor 6:11; Rev 1:5; Titus 3:5). Water can wash away dirt from your skin but it can’t wash away one single solitary sin from your soul.
quote:
Always involves water, and after the Baptism of Jesus, where the skies opened and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, also involves the Holy Spirit. Nope, “sometimes” it involves water. The Lord was ceremonially washed before He could offer the sacrificial Lamb since in one sense His priesthood was patterned after the Aaronic priesthood(Heb 9:24, 10:1). John was of priestly rank and was inherently qualified to administer the ceremonial cleansing. The Lord’s water baptism was to ”fulfil all righteousness”(Mat 3:15) and has nothing to do with the command to water baptize.
quote:
Completely consistent with the quotes above and with these: “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5), Only God can wash away sins, and He does so as He applies the water of the Word to our lives – not the water of baptism.
quote:
And you also might take caution with how staunchly you defend “symbolic” baptism. You just might end up refuting the teachings of your Presbyterian/Reformed Church. Water baptism is a sign that points to the washing away of the sins of the one who became saved; or it points to the hope that somtime in the future the individual baptized may become saved. There is no substance in the sign of water baptism. It is a ceremonial command of the NT. As for “refuting” Reformed teaching, there, in fact, some ecclesiastical divides on this issue.
quote:
quote:
Yeah, that one’s a shame isn’t it? Of course, man is more powerful than God. Afterall, man gets himself saved by his works, so, of course, he can “unsave” himself. Scary…how many good works are enough to get you saved, anyway? Who said man was more powerful than God or that we are saved by our works? Looks like you did, since you believe that if you do enough works you will be saved, and if you “choose” not to, you won’t be.
quote:
The only way a person can “unsave” himself is by exercising his God-given free will and turning away from the Father. See?...that’s what I mean, your free will is greater than God's ability to perform that which He promises; and, some of those promises to the truly saved are: ”Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ”…”And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”
No one is saved unless they’ve been given to the Lord Jesus Christ by the Father and, if so, the Lord says He will lose none of them. Therefore, any who ultimately turn from God were never given to the Lord Jesus to begin with – no matter how holy they once “appeared” to be.
quote:
The Prodigal Son did this. So can we. And I’ll bet I can find well over a dozen quotes from scripture that easily refute OSAS. (I never really did accept what I was told these passages “really mean”). That’s too bad, since the prodigal son “really means” that it is an excellent example of God working in the life of his elect just as He promises in Phil 2:13.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/12/2010 8:37:14 AM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 205
Status: offline
|
Of course the pope could lose his salvation, because he has free will.
The pope could also say something was infallibly true when in fact it was not, again because he has free will.
Free will is contrary to OSAS and papal infallibility.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/12/2010 4:00:18 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1731
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Ivor H. Jones (Methodist) --
"...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase 'on this rock' : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter's confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God's people, the church...as the church they represent God's sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction." (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/12/2010 7:29:07 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2160
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JKaplan
Psalms274,
As a recent participant to these forums, I appreciate your thoughts.
I converted to the Catholic faith because of scriptural exegesis such as this.
Years ago as a Baptist, I would have accepted these arguements at face value, probably because my Pastor would have sounded convicing and scholarly standing behind the pulpit, explaining to us congregants what "he" believed Matt 16:18 really meant.
Anyway, the arguments presented regarding petra/petros have been defended quite easily by the good Catholics on this thread many times over.
But just consider, even if you dismiss Peter as the rock in Matt 16:18, how do you dismiss Peter as the "shepherd" in John 21 15-17?
Jesus implores Peter three times to feed and care for his flock.
Of course, Jesus is the good shepherd. But Jesus, knowing he was returning to his Father, asked Peter to shepherd his flock until his return. An earthly steward (Isaiah 22) given a specific mission by Jesus himself.
Why Peter? Why not Thomas or Matthew or Andrew?
Augustine
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
J
Hey J,
It's rather interesting that you converted to Catholicism based on their intellectual explanation that leaves scripture out. My original post was in response to the catholic teachings of perta/petros because they were in error. To date no one has addressed any of the points I brought to the table in this thread, that really does not sound like much of a defense to me. One would think it would have been refuted point by point.
I myself was raised Catholic. I went to a Catholic school as a child and recall hearing stories about "Our Lady of Lourdes" in France by the Pyrenees Mountains and being fascinated with Mary. We had mass in Latin every morning in the basement of the school I attended. My Dad's side of the family were/are strong Polish Catholics and I even have a couple of great uncles who were priests. My mom's side was raised Irish Catholic.
When I finally came to Christ as an adult it was only after searching for the truth night and day for months. If I heard an argument that sounded good to my ears, I went deeper and examined the roots of the speaker ... where did they get their information? Was this information found outside those who believed the same way they did. How did it hold up to scripture? How did it hold up in terms of how the leadership ruled? I was so shocked to find that there were many who reigned as Pope who were down right evil; committing murders, fornicating resulting in children out of wedlock, homosexual relationships, greed. This type of behavior is man driven, not God driven. I also found out that the people were not allowed to have access to the bible until the 1500s when a number of men gave their lives to bring God's word to the people in their own homes. These men were burned at the stake for teaching commoners to read and providing bibles to them to read for themselves. They were killed under the orders of the Pope to keep the people from being able to read the bible for themselves.
The Papacy was a well guarded institution, with its leaders telling the people what God has said and providing "proof" that they alone could provide. Many of the arguments I am reading here in this thread come from sources that are the result of those well guarded secrets. The proof cannot be found outside of the Catholic institution. It reminds me of a communist country where the media is controlled by the rulers and dictators of that country.
I know that there is not an intellectual argument that can persuade the heart of any man or woman. Truth is only found when someone is seeking after the truth no matter what that may look like. They need to be willing to look at the other side and ask the Lord to guide them to find the pieces that are from Him and throw away those things that are from man. It takes being willing to say "I could be wrong about this." In a format like this one, that is very rare. Instead you will typically find both sides more interested in proving themselves to be right and less likely to even read through what someone is saying to them if it does not line up to what they are comfortable believing. The only reason you will find me here occasionally is because it is possible someone may come across this thread and is seeking to find the truth. I post so they can weigh what is said as they bathe it in prayer, seeking the Fathers heart to guide them. I do not expect to change the minds of those who come to argue their point.
I also come to these Catholic threads to pray, because of the memories I have watching my dad die. He was diagnosed with lung cancer four years ago and succumbed to that disease very quickly. The Christmas before he died (we did not know he was ill at the time) I asked him if he were to die where did he think he would go. He answered me "heaven." I asked him why he was so certain and he told me, "because Jesus died for my sins." Well that is all it takes so I left it at that.
His last hours were very difficult. We had him in a hospital bed at home, but the bed had this plastic covering that made the sheets slide down if we propped the bed up. Because of that we could not lift up the bed to aid his breathing because he would slide into a pile at the end of the bed when we tried, so instead we attempted to prop him up with pillows. For five hours he would lose consciousness, then after about a minute or two stop breathing for 30 to 40 seconds, then suddenly awaken crying, "help me, help me" and I would lean over and hold him up so he could breath. I would hold him in that upright position for a couple of minutes and he would lose consciousness again. I then laid him down because it was a hard position for my back and I was unable to continue, and it would start all over again. This went on every four minutes for five hours, when he lost consciousness for the last time.
I later asked the hospice nurse why this was happening (by phone) and she stated that he was most likely in spiritual distress. Dad had his last rites the evening before with a flippant priest who was joking around about an engagement he needed to make and who completely ignored my dad when he was attempting to say something to him. I got a hold of another priest (late in the evening) in case Dad needed to say something to a priest that had been ignored, and this man was gentle and spent time with my dad which was good. Yet the screams continued. I wondered if something spiritual was going on, dad was "religious" about saying his rosary and a friend had been by earlier with some medallion with a saint's image she had blessed, placed it around my dad's neck and telling him as long as he had this on his neck he would wake up in heaven. I began to wonder if dad had really placed his faith in Christ, or was it placed in Mary or whatever saint that had been placed around his neck. The thing is ... only Christ can lead us to the Father. The only hope we have is in Christ alone ... not in some saint or in Mary ... or whatever other goofy thing the various Pontiffs have conjured up. It is only in Christ, nothing else.
So I come here to pray for those who believe you need Christ along with Mary and the Pope and the saints, even though Jesus told us He was the only way to the Father ... just Him, nothing else.
You mentioned the passage about Jesus and Peter talking on the beach after Jesus's resurrection in John 21. Earlier in John 18 Peter had vehemently denied he knew Jesus three times, cursing at one point. This was after Peter told the Lord that he would "lay down" his life for Jesus in John 13:37. You need to remember Peter had the kind of personality that was always volunteering to be first before he understood what was really going on. He was notorious for putting his foot in his mouth by making statements before he understood. At the transfiguration he says they needed to make three alters for Jesus, Elijah and Moses. Right after the Holy Spirit revealed Jesus was the Christ and Peter boldly said "You are the Messiah" which was spot on, he, not even two minutes later, inserts that foot in his mouth again by rebuking Jesus and telling Him He would not be taken away. Jesus's response to Peter at that point is, "Get behind me Satan."
So Peter is the guy who one minute is being lead by the Holy Spirit giving the revelation of who Jesus was, and the next minute taking his cues from Satan. He's the guy so many of us can identify with because he wants to do the right thing, in fact he enthusiastically embraces the opportunity to do the right thing, but often speaks or acts too quickly, looking a bit foolish.
When Peter denied Christ three times, he was crushed by his own denial. He basically gave up on himself telling the others, "I am going fishing" .... and he was back to fishing for fish, something he had not done since Jesus told him he would no longer be a fisher of fish, but instead a fisher of men. The passage you are referring to is where Jesus lovingly assures Peter that He can still use Peter, despite his earlier denials of knowing Jesus. Just as Peter denied Christ three times, Jesus asks Peter to join Him in His work three times.
It is interesting when you look at the Greek language here. Watch this ...
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (the word for love her is agape, which is the unconditional love we read about in 1 Cor. 13) me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love (this word for love is philia, which is a love that is used to describe relationships between friends, buddies, it means you are loyal but not passionate) you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (again, agape) me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love (again philia) you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love (this time Jesus changes His word to philia to match Peter's) me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (again philia) you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
Jesus is being up front with Peter about the kind of death he would endure for following Christ. He is letting Peter know he is still useful for the kingdom of God, giving him a task and telling him to follow. He has shown Peter He understands that Peter does not agape Him yet, but in order to endure this kind of death, Peter will one day agape Jesus. He was not there yet (as we see when he inquires about John when he says, "but what about him" in verse 21), but Jesus is showing Peter that he will one day have the passionate, unconditional love for Christ that he so desires. It has nothing to do with being the shepherd, for Jesus remains in that role. We read from Peter's own mouth in 1 Peter 5 how he encourages the "fellow elders" to shepherd the flock and then refers to the Chief Shepherd (none other than Christ Jesus Himself) who will reward them for their obedience. Peter addresses the elders as a fellow elder, not as their superior elder, but as their peer. Peter did not read into Jesus's words to him as the one who would replace Christ when He ascended. He saw himself as a fellow elder, along side the others who took lead in their various roles as elders in the different areas.
< Message edited by Psalms274 -- 3/12/2010 7:39:02 PM >
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/13/2010 4:13:02 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psalms274
The only reason you will find me here occasionally is because it is possible someone may come across this thread and is seeking to find the truth. I, for one, sincerely hope you stop by more often. Your heartfelt journey in search of truth enlightens and encourages. Your scriptural insights were edifying and a learning experience.
Thanks for such a terrific post.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/13/2010 5:23:43 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2290
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psalms274
I also come to these Catholic threads to pray, because of the memories I have watching my dad die. He was diagnosed with lung cancer four years ago and succumbed to that disease very quickly. The Christmas before he died (we did not know he was ill at the time) I asked him if he were to die where did he think he would go. He answered me "heaven." I asked him why he was so certain and he told me, "because Jesus died for my sins." Well that is all it takes so I left it at that.
Isn't it mysteriously wonderful how the whole gospel message can boil down to such simplicity?!?
Laying aside all argument of tradition and papacy and Sola Scriptura, the bottom line is exactly what your father understood: Jesus died for our sins and made a way for us to be eternally reconciled to God, a way that has nothing to do with any of our works but rather a faith that is given as a gift.
That's it. That's the gospel message. That's the good news. Popes and Reformers be damned, Jesus Christ is still in the business of saving the soul of any who come to him.
_____________________________
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalms 14:1
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" - 2 Cor 10:5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/13/2010 7:13:07 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1731
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) --"The 'keys' are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house -- symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). 'Bind' and 'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page 355-356)
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
