francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
jgredline said:
Jg,
No problem. I am happy to see we agree. It is a better feeling that we can come together and leave in agreement, rather than depart frustrated and divided.
Joe
-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Is Peter the foundation of the church?
- Thread starter golfjack
- Start date
Jg,
No problem. I am happy to see we agree. It is a better feeling that we can come together and leave in agreement, rather than depart frustrated and divided.
Joe
Priority of francisdesales
Hi francisdesales,
If I may take you back to your beginnings - to the hour you first believed - and while you may not have recognised it then - I want to ask you:
Were you a Jew or a Gentile?
The reason I ask this is because 'before' you were Catholic by confession - there was a priority (alignment) assigned you.
I am not trying to bring back 'the dividing wall of hostility' - to the Jew /Gentile discussion but addressing the dividing wall of hostility between Protestants and Catholics.
In this line of enquiry we are headed back to Romans 9 -11 and the olive tree. As a Protestant - it is a 'confession' that I belong to the 'wild branch' grafted into the cultivated olive tree. Are you able to also confess this beginning of your faith? As I said it preceeds your Catholic confession.
In reference to Peter - he was a Jew and belongs firstly to the natural olive branch by birthright and by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His commission as an Apostle was, like Paul's 'to the Jew first and also to the Greek'. Upon receiving 'the keys of the Kingdom' he was an apostle to the Jews prior to receiving his vision of unclean animals. So I am trying to establish 'priority' as we have it in redemptive history. This priority is reflected in the church to the present day.
What concerns me is the 'back projection of history' that occurs in church history that is then used to legitimise our beginnings. This is the approach of mere men who invariably get their beginnings wrong and if the beginnings of our faith are not rightly aligned - what will be the end product of (our) building 'the church'?
I trust in the Lord that we will both rise above the level of 'mere men' (1 Cor 3:3-5 and 21-23) on these issues.
In Christ: Stranger
Hi francisdesales,
If I may take you back to your beginnings - to the hour you first believed - and while you may not have recognised it then - I want to ask you:
Were you a Jew or a Gentile?
The reason I ask this is because 'before' you were Catholic by confession - there was a priority (alignment) assigned you.
I am not trying to bring back 'the dividing wall of hostility' - to the Jew /Gentile discussion but addressing the dividing wall of hostility between Protestants and Catholics.
In this line of enquiry we are headed back to Romans 9 -11 and the olive tree. As a Protestant - it is a 'confession' that I belong to the 'wild branch' grafted into the cultivated olive tree. Are you able to also confess this beginning of your faith? As I said it preceeds your Catholic confession.
In reference to Peter - he was a Jew and belongs firstly to the natural olive branch by birthright and by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His commission as an Apostle was, like Paul's 'to the Jew first and also to the Greek'. Upon receiving 'the keys of the Kingdom' he was an apostle to the Jews prior to receiving his vision of unclean animals. So I am trying to establish 'priority' as we have it in redemptive history. This priority is reflected in the church to the present day.
What concerns me is the 'back projection of history' that occurs in church history that is then used to legitimise our beginnings. This is the approach of mere men who invariably get their beginnings wrong and if the beginnings of our faith are not rightly aligned - what will be the end product of (our) building 'the church'?
I trust in the Lord that we will both rise above the level of 'mere men' (1 Cor 3:3-5 and 21-23) on these issues.
In Christ: Stranger
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Re: Priority of francisdesales
Hello,
I was brought into the Church by proxy through infant baptism. When I first believed, I was already a Christian. However, my "second conversion", that moment in time where God REALLY took on meaning in my personal life, that occured much later. I realize from other discussions that the meaning of "Christian" or who is in the Church is not necessarily monolithic. So we need to keep that in mind in the background so we don't talk past each other.
Ah, I would say I belong to the wild shoot, and I suppose all Catholics are, as well, unless they were first Jews. The beginning of my faith came from my parents' teaching in the house. It was a childish understanding, of course. As most people, I fell away in my late teens for some 20 years. I would say at that point, maybe 6 years ago, I began to realize that God WAS really a part of my life, even if I didn't see that before. At this point, my faith life took on a more adult and mature life in Christ. I suppose by many Protestants, at this point, I was born again, although I would say I was born again at infant Baptism, but the kernel lay dormant until recently.
Yes, there is certainly a priority, Paul speaks of it in Romans (Jews first, then the Gentiles), although God is not a respecter of persons. I take it the priority thing is the chronological order of God's salvation plan. First, the Jews received the written Law - although the Gentiles ALSO received something more vague, the natural Law. With Christ, the Church came to encompass ALL men, not just Jews by nature.
Yes, I can understand that concern. To a degree, it appears that is true, although from my reading of Church history and the Church Fathers, they appear to be writing what they believed to be true and believed to have been passed down to them. I believe they were following the Scriptural warrant to continue to teach to the world all that Christ had taught them. In the end, we must rely on faith to determine the continuity between the first and second century Christians. We weren't there! But upon reading these men, I am convinced that they are relating their own traditions that they had been taught to them by the earlier Christians.
Since ALL history can be "back projected", there must be a point where we can say "OK, there is enough evidence to believe this is first-hand and true, not something made up or invented to justify one's own beliefs". I believe there is ample evidence to come to that conclusion. There does seem to be a natural development of doctrine even in the Scriptures on authority within the community. For example, read Acts 5, then read Acts 15, then read the Pastorals. Notice the difference on the community and its relationship to those in authority? I see this continue with the first writers who are extra-biblical, such as Ignatius of Antioch.
Regards
stranger said:
Hello,
I was brought into the Church by proxy through infant baptism. When I first believed, I was already a Christian. However, my "second conversion", that moment in time where God REALLY took on meaning in my personal life, that occured much later. I realize from other discussions that the meaning of "Christian" or who is in the Church is not necessarily monolithic. So we need to keep that in mind in the background so we don't talk past each other.
stranger said:
Ah, I would say I belong to the wild shoot, and I suppose all Catholics are, as well, unless they were first Jews. The beginning of my faith came from my parents' teaching in the house. It was a childish understanding, of course. As most people, I fell away in my late teens for some 20 years. I would say at that point, maybe 6 years ago, I began to realize that God WAS really a part of my life, even if I didn't see that before. At this point, my faith life took on a more adult and mature life in Christ. I suppose by many Protestants, at this point, I was born again, although I would say I was born again at infant Baptism, but the kernel lay dormant until recently.
stranger said:
Yes, there is certainly a priority, Paul speaks of it in Romans (Jews first, then the Gentiles), although God is not a respecter of persons. I take it the priority thing is the chronological order of God's salvation plan. First, the Jews received the written Law - although the Gentiles ALSO received something more vague, the natural Law. With Christ, the Church came to encompass ALL men, not just Jews by nature.
stranger said:
Yes, I can understand that concern. To a degree, it appears that is true, although from my reading of Church history and the Church Fathers, they appear to be writing what they believed to be true and believed to have been passed down to them. I believe they were following the Scriptural warrant to continue to teach to the world all that Christ had taught them. In the end, we must rely on faith to determine the continuity between the first and second century Christians. We weren't there! But upon reading these men, I am convinced that they are relating their own traditions that they had been taught to them by the earlier Christians.
Since ALL history can be "back projected", there must be a point where we can say "OK, there is enough evidence to believe this is first-hand and true, not something made up or invented to justify one's own beliefs". I believe there is ample evidence to come to that conclusion. There does seem to be a natural development of doctrine even in the Scriptures on authority within the community. For example, read Acts 5, then read Acts 15, then read the Pastorals. Notice the difference on the community and its relationship to those in authority? I see this continue with the first writers who are extra-biblical, such as Ignatius of Antioch.
Regards
Re: Priority of francisdesales
francisdesales wrote:
Yes, I have reached that conclusion. The same can be said of Protestants and the orthodox etc. Now the question arises:
Can one branch of the wild olive tree claim primacy over other wild olive branches? Here I am speaking about churches.
Now the Apostle Peter, who is given the keys to the kingdom, is by birthright and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ - of the natural olive branch:
This leads to the question:
Can a successor of Peter, if they are gentile by birth, be a keeper of the keys given as they were to a Jew?
So francisdesales - rigorous as these protestant perspectives may seem - I am also mindful of the need to 'see' a path from the early church beginnings to the unfolding of the church at the end of the age. This path is wrought in God's purpose and in the continuum of faith.
In many of your posts you reiterate the theme that 'we stand only by faith' Rom 11:20. Amen.
In Christ: Stranger
francisdesales wrote:
Yes, I have reached that conclusion. The same can be said of Protestants and the orthodox etc. Now the question arises:
Can one branch of the wild olive tree claim primacy over other wild olive branches? Here I am speaking about churches.
Now the Apostle Peter, who is given the keys to the kingdom, is by birthright and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ - of the natural olive branch:
This leads to the question:
Can a successor of Peter, if they are gentile by birth, be a keeper of the keys given as they were to a Jew?
So francisdesales - rigorous as these protestant perspectives may seem - I am also mindful of the need to 'see' a path from the early church beginnings to the unfolding of the church at the end of the age. This path is wrought in God's purpose and in the continuum of faith.
In many of your posts you reiterate the theme that 'we stand only by faith' Rom 11:20. Amen.
In Christ: Stranger
I
Imagican
Guest
fran,
Such hostility? I know that I have discussed such issues with you, and others, but having 'someone new' join this discussion, I thought that, perhaps, this person may have some 'insight' that hasn't been addressed as of yet.
I, for one, am constantly seeking 'the truth'. Whether it be 'in Christ' or of the denominational sort. I DO question The Spirit, (or spirit), that guides the understanding of those that follow denominations. NOT trying to bring 'division', (as you accuse), so much as 'truth'.
MEC
Such hostility? I know that I have discussed such issues with you, and others, but having 'someone new' join this discussion, I thought that, perhaps, this person may have some 'insight' that hasn't been addressed as of yet.
I, for one, am constantly seeking 'the truth'. Whether it be 'in Christ' or of the denominational sort. I DO question The Spirit, (or spirit), that guides the understanding of those that follow denominations. NOT trying to bring 'division', (as you accuse), so much as 'truth'.
MEC
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Re: Priority of francisdesales
I don't think there is more than one wild olive branch. Romans doesn't speak as if there are many branches grafted on, but just one. There is only one Church. It appears that Paul sees only one Church, although many communities. He says we are one - one faith, one Lord, one baptism, and one loaf that we share. Thus, it is a universal church bound together.
I believe the office has been given the keys. As I mentioned before when I quoted the Catechism to explain our view, we see the Apostle's ministry continuing forever. Christ continues to work through the Apostles, whom we now call the Pope and bishops. Thus, the ministry of Simon Peter continues in a visible way through the current Pope, whether he was a Jewish convert or not. At any rate, I don't think Christ was giving authority to Simon and the Apostles based on their Jewishness. Clearly, in the Pastorals, Paul and the elders chose Titus and Timothy to lead their respective communities at Crete and Ephesus. They were not formerly Jews, but were given authority over their communities.
Yes, that was what I initially questioned when deciding to become Catholic. I saw a natural continuity between the later works of the Scripture and the earliest work of the Church Fathers. If you read 1 John or Jude or the Pastorals or 2 Peter, you sense a concern for orthodox teaching - in other words, there were ALREADY people who disagreed with the teachings given by the Apostles. The Scriptures show the writers of these letters establishing their orthodoxy or correct teaching by falling back on their connection to the Apostles and Christ directly. And this is continued in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (105 AD) to Irenaeus (180 AD), as they, too, fall back on their claim to orthodoxy by stating their connection to the original apostles - either by being directly taught by them, or refering to the line of bishops of various communities that also could be traced to the original apostles. We call this "apostolic succession". This maintains the continuity between the "Catholic Church" first written about in 105 AD and the Church of the Sacred Scripture, written less than 50 years before.
Regards
stranger said:
I don't think there is more than one wild olive branch. Romans doesn't speak as if there are many branches grafted on, but just one. There is only one Church. It appears that Paul sees only one Church, although many communities. He says we are one - one faith, one Lord, one baptism, and one loaf that we share. Thus, it is a universal church bound together.
stranger said:
I believe the office has been given the keys. As I mentioned before when I quoted the Catechism to explain our view, we see the Apostle's ministry continuing forever. Christ continues to work through the Apostles, whom we now call the Pope and bishops. Thus, the ministry of Simon Peter continues in a visible way through the current Pope, whether he was a Jewish convert or not. At any rate, I don't think Christ was giving authority to Simon and the Apostles based on their Jewishness. Clearly, in the Pastorals, Paul and the elders chose Titus and Timothy to lead their respective communities at Crete and Ephesus. They were not formerly Jews, but were given authority over their communities.
stranger said:
Yes, that was what I initially questioned when deciding to become Catholic. I saw a natural continuity between the later works of the Scripture and the earliest work of the Church Fathers. If you read 1 John or Jude or the Pastorals or 2 Peter, you sense a concern for orthodox teaching - in other words, there were ALREADY people who disagreed with the teachings given by the Apostles. The Scriptures show the writers of these letters establishing their orthodoxy or correct teaching by falling back on their connection to the Apostles and Christ directly. And this is continued in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (105 AD) to Irenaeus (180 AD), as they, too, fall back on their claim to orthodoxy by stating their connection to the original apostles - either by being directly taught by them, or refering to the line of bishops of various communities that also could be traced to the original apostles. We call this "apostolic succession". This maintains the continuity between the "Catholic Church" first written about in 105 AD and the Church of the Sacred Scripture, written less than 50 years before.
Regards
Primacy for francisdesales
Hi francisdesales:
Thanks for your response - may I request we stay within 100AD for the early church as I want to stress the 'beginnings' with reference to the end of the age. Hence Romans 11.
We have spoken of two wild olive branches so far - by the way the notion of 'a wild branch' is not very flattering so I commend you to have confessed that about yourself and the 'gentiles' in the Catholic church. Many Protestants would probably be rubbed the wrong way if I suggested to them that they were of the wild olive branch. Inbuilt into Paul's prophesy and illustration are two 'worms' conceit and arrogance. That I have been 'unbelieving, conceited and arrogant' I confess as a protestant.
Titus (and Timothy) are good examples of apostolic succession - and were to be received in 'fear and trembling' . It is evident that God trained these men through Paul in 'apostolic formation' as well as God's choice prior to taking office.
The point of Romans 11 however stands that at the end of the age, when the full number of Gentles come in, the broken off natural branch will be grafted back into the cultivated olive tree. Though there were gentile apostles .. . and apostles to the gentiles. . . the glory of bringing 'life from the dead' (Rom 11v15) will be an act of God specially pertaining to the natural branch.
This is where your 'tradition' side begins as a source of authority is it not?
I know not the extent of your labour nor what you have uncovered. You do well to care about the faith once handed to fathers.
In Christ: Stranger
Hi francisdesales:
Thanks for your response - may I request we stay within 100AD for the early church as I want to stress the 'beginnings' with reference to the end of the age. Hence Romans 11.
We have spoken of two wild olive branches so far - by the way the notion of 'a wild branch' is not very flattering so I commend you to have confessed that about yourself and the 'gentiles' in the Catholic church. Many Protestants would probably be rubbed the wrong way if I suggested to them that they were of the wild olive branch. Inbuilt into Paul's prophesy and illustration are two 'worms' conceit and arrogance. That I have been 'unbelieving, conceited and arrogant' I confess as a protestant.
Titus (and Timothy) are good examples of apostolic succession - and were to be received in 'fear and trembling' . It is evident that God trained these men through Paul in 'apostolic formation' as well as God's choice prior to taking office.
The point of Romans 11 however stands that at the end of the age, when the full number of Gentles come in, the broken off natural branch will be grafted back into the cultivated olive tree. Though there were gentile apostles .. . and apostles to the gentiles. . . the glory of bringing 'life from the dead' (Rom 11v15) will be an act of God specially pertaining to the natural branch.
This is where your 'tradition' side begins as a source of authority is it not?
I know not the extent of your labour nor what you have uncovered. You do well to care about the faith once handed to fathers.
In Christ: Stranger
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Re: Primacy for francisdesales
Good evening, stranger
Yes, that is a crucial time frame. As a matter of fact, I am going to begin reading a book on this very subject that covers all of the writings of the second century - it is called "From Apostles to Bishops", and discusses how the Church moved in that direction. It will help me "bone-up" on some of the writings. The dust jacket says to expect some things are not quite what some Roman Catholics would expect, although the end result is that Apostolic Succession is a divinely instituted continuation of what we see in the Scriptures. We'll have to see what that means as I read the book!
"Tradition" has some negative connotations in Protestantism, so I would like to use the word "Historical precedent", or "development of practice", or something to that effect when discussing the matter of what occured between say 80-90 AD and 175 AD. I believe we see this even in the Bible itself when discussing authority. I imagine you will agree that authority within the community was different in say, Acts 2-5, then in Acts 15, and furthermore, in 1 Timothy. It appears that there is a historical development that happened. We see it related in Scriptures. I do look forward exploring this more again, as it is a pivotal belief.
"Tradition" properly defined seems to mean "teachings passed down" from one generation to the next. Several things can be argued on that matter... Did God guide this teaching? Did man interject faulty teaching? Did man pass down this teaching correctly? Yes, these are interesting and important questions - and I think in the end, we will end up saying "I believe based on faith" (or not!). I truly do not think one can "prove" the Catholic Church's claim to the point where faith is not required to believe the claims. (in other words, the belief will rest in some degree on faith, although the preponderence of evidence will make the "leap" much smaller)
In the end, we either trust the historian or not.
Regards
stranger said:
Good evening, stranger
Yes, that is a crucial time frame. As a matter of fact, I am going to begin reading a book on this very subject that covers all of the writings of the second century - it is called "From Apostles to Bishops", and discusses how the Church moved in that direction. It will help me "bone-up" on some of the writings. The dust jacket says to expect some things are not quite what some Roman Catholics would expect, although the end result is that Apostolic Succession is a divinely instituted continuation of what we see in the Scriptures. We'll have to see what that means as I read the book!
stranger said:
"Tradition" has some negative connotations in Protestantism, so I would like to use the word "Historical precedent", or "development of practice", or something to that effect when discussing the matter of what occured between say 80-90 AD and 175 AD. I believe we see this even in the Bible itself when discussing authority. I imagine you will agree that authority within the community was different in say, Acts 2-5, then in Acts 15, and furthermore, in 1 Timothy. It appears that there is a historical development that happened. We see it related in Scriptures. I do look forward exploring this more again, as it is a pivotal belief.
"Tradition" properly defined seems to mean "teachings passed down" from one generation to the next. Several things can be argued on that matter... Did God guide this teaching? Did man interject faulty teaching? Did man pass down this teaching correctly? Yes, these are interesting and important questions - and I think in the end, we will end up saying "I believe based on faith" (or not!). I truly do not think one can "prove" the Catholic Church's claim to the point where faith is not required to believe the claims. (in other words, the belief will rest in some degree on faith, although the preponderence of evidence will make the "leap" much smaller)
In the end, we either trust the historian or not.
Regards
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Re: Primacy for francisdesales
Oops, I forgot to respond to this...
Personally, I do not feel belittled by being called "wild shoot". By the grace of God, we have been grafted in, as Gentiles. We are thankful that God has called us and we have responded because of His promptings. Perhaps being part of the root COULD be a cause of pride, as Paul discusses in Romans 11. However, I know some Catholics who can be "triumphant" towards others who are not Catholic - so perhaps they have forgotten where they came from?
At any rate, being "unbelieving, conceited, and arrogant" is not something reserved for Protestants alone. I think the difference is that some realize that they are and beg the Lord to help them become more humble, while others do not see the need to worry about humility.
Regards
stranger said:
Oops, I forgot to respond to this...
Personally, I do not feel belittled by being called "wild shoot". By the grace of God, we have been grafted in, as Gentiles. We are thankful that God has called us and we have responded because of His promptings. Perhaps being part of the root COULD be a cause of pride, as Paul discusses in Romans 11. However, I know some Catholics who can be "triumphant" towards others who are not Catholic - so perhaps they have forgotten where they came from?
At any rate, being "unbelieving, conceited, and arrogant" is not something reserved for Protestants alone. I think the difference is that some realize that they are and beg the Lord to help them become more humble, while others do not see the need to worry about humility.
Regards
Right! This argument about primacy serves no purpose but to divide. But the truth is what we seek and Jesus said there would come a time when men would worship God in spirit and truth. That's what God wants.
The CC gave us the Bible, the book, according to Isaiah, that would open the eyes of the blind. Thankyou very much! Mission accomplished.
Then men began to read the Bible. This is the will of God, that men should be saved by hearing and reading and understanding. Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. That is the truth and the spirit, the rock that the church is built on.
How is a man a rock? By his steadfast immovable faith. And to whom will more be given? To those who hold the words in their heart. Yes, God gave Peter more because he understood his Son. Jesus Christ is the rock that men will stumble over. Men will not understand. And when that happens, the devil will take away what was sown.
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
MarkT said:
Mark,
I agree that Petrine primacy can be divisive. It is meant to be the opposite! But I suppose people do not like to exist under the authority of another. I certainly don't! But I recognize that God has placed men in authority over others - so obedience to them is His will.
MarkT said:
Well, they have - but of course, its mission is not accomplished yet (Mat 28:19-20).
MarkT said:
I can agree with that. However, as you know, many people before 1500 (printing press) didn't have access to the Sacred Book themselves and relied on other means of receiving the Word. In the Medieval era, traveling actors and actresses would go from town to town and do skits based on prominent themes of Scriptures. Many cathedrals have stained glass windows that detail that stories of the Bible. People LIVED the faith, more so than those who "merely" read the Book. I suppose it is more important to put what one reads or hears into action then merely accumulating knowledge.
MarkT said:
Yes, we walk a dangerous journey to God, rife with temptations trying to get us off the narrow path. But by trusting in God and remaining in Him, we are assured of salvation. The wonderful things about metaphors is that they can be applied to many things equally. Thus, Jesus is the stumbling block, but so are His teachings - and so is the Church. People refuse to come into the Church because of the "stumbling block" of its past. But when people first looked at Jesus, an executed crinimal, was He any better off in their eyes? There is an amazing parallelism between Jesus Christ and His Church. Thus, the Church is aptly called "His Body".
Regards
G
Guest
Guest
Was Peter the foundation of the invisible body of the elect chosen before the foundation of the world?
God first chose Christ to be the head of his elect church in eternity. This is equivalent to the foundation.
Also, consider that it was Christ who was slain before the foundation of the world, not Peter, I would think it is clear that Peter is not the Rock of our salvation. Peter was chosen to be part of the elect body of Christ, not the head, certainly not the foundation. Supralapsarianism rulz!
The covenant of Grace was not made with Peter in eternity, and certainly not Mary, but it was made between the persons of the Trinity. If Peter was the foundation, then you think he would have been included in the pactum saludis, but he was not, because he is not.
Furthermore, it was Paul that publicly rebuked Peter. It was Peter who had to publicly repent for his sinful teaching. This destroys the idea that Peter was the "pope". Even if we were to consider Peter to be the pope, the fact that he was rebuked for authoritatively teaching heresy by Paul proves that the pope is not infallible. Bishop Strossmayer, a Roman Catholic Bishop, states as much clearly. Read his famous speech at this link:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=31
Here is an excerpt from an introductory that precedes Strossmayer's famous speech:
"Among the more than one hundred [Roman Catholic] prelates who stood in opposition to the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope at the First Vatican Council in 1870, Bishop Josef Strossmayer was one of the most notable. J. B. Bury, who succeeded Lord Acton as Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, on page 117 of his work, History of the Papacy in the 19th Century (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1930), called him “the most courageous man at Rome.†The following speech, translated from an Italian version published at Florence shortly after the Council adjourned, was given in the closing months of debate."
Enjoy the speech!
Red Beetle
Sola Fide
God first chose Christ to be the head of his elect church in eternity. This is equivalent to the foundation.
Also, consider that it was Christ who was slain before the foundation of the world, not Peter, I would think it is clear that Peter is not the Rock of our salvation. Peter was chosen to be part of the elect body of Christ, not the head, certainly not the foundation. Supralapsarianism rulz!
The covenant of Grace was not made with Peter in eternity, and certainly not Mary, but it was made between the persons of the Trinity. If Peter was the foundation, then you think he would have been included in the pactum saludis, but he was not, because he is not.
Furthermore, it was Paul that publicly rebuked Peter. It was Peter who had to publicly repent for his sinful teaching. This destroys the idea that Peter was the "pope". Even if we were to consider Peter to be the pope, the fact that he was rebuked for authoritatively teaching heresy by Paul proves that the pope is not infallible. Bishop Strossmayer, a Roman Catholic Bishop, states as much clearly. Read his famous speech at this link:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=31
Here is an excerpt from an introductory that precedes Strossmayer's famous speech:
"Among the more than one hundred [Roman Catholic] prelates who stood in opposition to the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope at the First Vatican Council in 1870, Bishop Josef Strossmayer was one of the most notable. J. B. Bury, who succeeded Lord Acton as Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, on page 117 of his work, History of the Papacy in the 19th Century (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1930), called him “the most courageous man at Rome.†The following speech, translated from an Italian version published at Florence shortly after the Council adjourned, was given in the closing months of debate."
Enjoy the speech!
Red Beetle
Sola Fide
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
RED BEETLE said:
Beetle,
As I have explained using the Catholic Catechism, Catholics do not believe that Peter is the foundation of the invisible body of the elect. See my previous comprehensive post on this. He is the visible head of the Church, but his office is built upon what Christ Himself established and taught. Apostolic teaching and authority in the final analysis stems from Christ, not Peter.
Regards
G
Guest
Guest
francisdesales said:
I hate to be the one to tell you, but Peter is not visible on earth.
He can therefore not be the visible head of anything here.
Seeing that Peter is invisible, you only make my point stronger.
Thank you.
When we talk of the "visible" church we are talking about the logical, not sensational, meaning of what the true church professes. Just as you have clearly stated, that logically there is something Peter is based upon (indeed something all believers are based upon), that something is Christ the Rock.
Christ Alone.
Red Beetle
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
RED BEETLE said:
Ah, sorry for not making that clear.
The Church sees that Peter's ministry continues through another person. God continues to work through men here on earth in the same structure that He established, a community with particular leaders. Thus, when Christ gave Peter the keys, He was giving authority to a man who would subsequently pass his authority to another person - since the Church is supposed to last for all time.
Regarding Christ being the Rock alone, sorry, brother, Christ does not have "Rock" for a proper name. Simon does. HE is called Kephas and he alone. Be careful of mixing your metaphors. Scriptures have been written by many different human writers who use the word "rock" differently. But it should be obvious that Christ Himself calls Simon rock - as the NT further makes clear by calling HIM Kephas.
To make matters easier for you, please call to mind that Scriptures have multiple meanings. As I have already detailed, the Catholic Church holds to multiple understandings of Peter's confession. Yes, Christ is the Rock. Yes, Peter is the Rock. Yes, the believer's faith is the rock. None of these understandings are false, and we accept them all. None of them are mutually exclusive.
Regards
G
Guest
Guest
francisdesales said:
The idea that a verse of Scripture has multiple meanings is nothing more than irrationalism. If you were not Catholic I would call you Neo-orthodox.
But, it is good to see a Catholic admit that their exegetical principle is opposed to the basic rules of logic.
Each verse of Scripture has only one meaning. Just as a word can have only one meaning when it is used in a sentence. The law of contradiction, which is deducible from Scripture, clearly teaches this. It is impossible for a thing to be (A) and (not A) at the same time and in the same way.
For example, the definition of Protestant means one who believes that the Bible alone is the Word of God. The definition also contains the negative proposition: one who does not adhere to Catholicism. A word must mean something and it must also not mean something else for that word to be intelligible.
Therefore, if any and every word or sentence has multiple meanings when it is used, then how could anyone determine the meaning? They could not. Even pagan Aristotle, whom Aquinas so often "took" from stated that if a word can mean anything, then it actually means nothing.
So, the attempt on the Catholic Church's part to claim "multiple meanings" within this one particular verse is absurd, but they must for Catholic Bishops like Josef Strossmayer have clearly demonstrated the single meaning of the verse in question by using the immediate Biblical context of that passage, as well as the entire Scriptural context as a whole. Here is the link to Strossmayer's famous speech opposing the pope in case you missed it the first time I gave it.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=31
Thanks for your remarks
RB
Let me go a bit further for those who may have not studied logic.
Here are two different sentences:
1) The dog is bad.
2) The dog is bad.
Why are these two seemingly equal sentences different? Because they have been taken from two different contexts.
Sentence one uses the word 'bad' in the very modern hip use of the word which means "awesome."
Sentence two uses the word in its traditional understanding, so the dog has a proclivity to naughty behavior. The word 'dog' can only be used in one way in each sentence. How it is used depends on specific definition and context, and this also determines the one meaning of the simple sentence: The dog is bad.
I hope this is helpful.
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
RED BEETLE said:
Irrationalism? Well, I guess I am in good company, as the vast majority of Scriptural interpreters, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant see that Scriptures can have multiple layers of meaning.
Do you think the Song of Songs was included in Sacred Scripture because there were perverted Jews on the Canon selection board? Clearly, you are in the minority on this issue, because the vast majority of exegisists see the Song of Songs as a conversation between God and the human soul OR God and the Church...
RED BEETLE said:
You clearly don't know much about the English language. Words can be used literally or as metaphors. They can have multiple meaning at the same time. Or do you believe that God is a literal rock?
RED BEETLE said:
No one is making that claim. No one is saying that "A" can only mean "A" while at the same time, "A" can only mean "B". No one is contradicting anything when they say Scripture has multiple meanings. The law of contradicition is not being broken because no one is saying that "A" can ONLY mean one thing and nothing more.
RED BEETLE said:
I would think that this is not the definition of Protestantism, because it is based on an irrational and self-defeating idea, since the definition that the Word of God is ONLY in the Bible is nowhere found. Where did you come up with that definition, because it isn't in the Bible itself?
Last time I checked the dictionary, a MULTITUDE of words had more than one meaning...
RED BEETLE said:
AH, now you are understanding the need for a Church to interpret the Scriptures for us. No one is making your claim that words mean nothing, so what's with the strawman argument?
RED BEETLE said:
I would say that Bishop Strossmayer was not aware of the various Church Fathers who analyzed Matthew 16:18, since a number of men have clearly seen a variety of meanings behind that verse. However, I won't, because it is more likely that he WAS aware of the multiplicity of interpretations, but you are taking the good bishop out of context. A number of men wrote "Catenæ's", sacred chains, the most famous being Thomas Aquinas. Consider reading his compilation of Matthew 16:18 and you will find various interpretations as I have listed previously. St. Augustine and Origen, for example, had more to say about Mat 16:18 then you suppose. Even Pope John Paul 2 said that Jesus built upon Peter AND the confession of faith of the believer. It depends on the context when reading Scriptures. Certainly, the literal sense is the former - that Peter is the Rock. However, this does NOT exclude the spiritual sense of the Scriptures - that God builds the Community, the Church, upon the believer's profession of faith. Thus, again, your law of contradiction is not addressed here.
By the way, if you expect to discourse with me, you'll have to remove your offensive tagline. I do not desire to talk with people who are so bigoted that they find it necessary to invent lies about the Church and advertise it on every post. ESPECIALLY, so close to the celebration of the birth of Christ, where peace on earth is exclaimed, not what you post in your signature.
Regards
primacy as humility?
In Matt 20: 20-28. The mother of the sons of Zebedee (James and John?) approached Jesus with a request her sons sit at Jesus' right
hand and left in the coming kingdom. The sons affirmed this by answering Jesus' question about drinking from the cup from which He was to drink.
Note the reaction of the other 10 apostles: v24 And hearing this the ten became indignant at the two brothers. Jesus then taught the disciples about humility in serving one another. To be the greatest you had to become the least.
Matt 20: 20-28: The passage speaks about worldly 'authority' and kingdom humility. Something of the Catholic notion of primacy is filtering through to me of it being 'grounded in humility'.
The Protestants, of which I am one, in turn express 'indignation' against the doctrine of Peter's primacy -too often inappropriately - which invalidates many an argument. I am trying to test the doctrine on the basis of scripture (see following post). Love gives no offence but the offence of the Gospel!
In Christ: Stranger
In Matt 20: 20-28. The mother of the sons of Zebedee (James and John?) approached Jesus with a request her sons sit at Jesus' right
hand and left in the coming kingdom. The sons affirmed this by answering Jesus' question about drinking from the cup from which He was to drink.
Note the reaction of the other 10 apostles: v24 And hearing this the ten became indignant at the two brothers. Jesus then taught the disciples about humility in serving one another. To be the greatest you had to become the least.
Matt 20: 20-28: The passage speaks about worldly 'authority' and kingdom humility. Something of the Catholic notion of primacy is filtering through to me of it being 'grounded in humility'.
The Protestants, of which I am one, in turn express 'indignation' against the doctrine of Peter's primacy -too often inappropriately - which invalidates many an argument. I am trying to test the doctrine on the basis of scripture (see following post). Love gives no offence but the offence of the Gospel!
In Christ: Stranger
Some texts referred to so far in this tread:
Matt 16: 15-20 concerning Peter - confession, rock, church and keys. . .
1 Peter 2: 4-10 Living stones. . .metaphors
1 Cor 3:2-23 Mere men . . .
Rom 11: 1-36 jews and gentiles the church/Israel at
the beginning and end of the age. . .
Eph 2: 10-32, 4:1-24 foundation of the apostles and prophets. . .
Matt20: 20-28 sitting at Jesus' right and left hand
Summary Statement
1Cor3:8b' . . .each man will receive his own reward according to his own labour'
Each Apostle Peter, James, John and Paul etc have received their reward for their own labour. Each operated with and within the measure of faith given them. All have contributed to 'building the church' and all were chosen to be Apostles by God. On the basis of the work of the 'apostles and prophets' the foundation of the church was laid.
The 'keys of the kingdom' is a unique 'distinctive' that was given to Peter. Little wonder that Satan wanted 'to sift him as wheat'. As a Protestant I am not at liberty to deny this distinctive as found in scripture - lest somehow I have missed where the Cornerstone was laid.
In Christ: Stranger
Matt 16: 15-20 concerning Peter - confession, rock, church and keys. . .
1 Peter 2: 4-10 Living stones. . .metaphors
1 Cor 3:2-23 Mere men . . .
Rom 11: 1-36 jews and gentiles the church/Israel at
the beginning and end of the age. . .
Eph 2: 10-32, 4:1-24 foundation of the apostles and prophets. . .
Matt20: 20-28 sitting at Jesus' right and left hand
Summary Statement
1Cor3:8b' . . .each man will receive his own reward according to his own labour'
Each Apostle Peter, James, John and Paul etc have received their reward for their own labour. Each operated with and within the measure of faith given them. All have contributed to 'building the church' and all were chosen to be Apostles by God. On the basis of the work of the 'apostles and prophets' the foundation of the church was laid.
The 'keys of the kingdom' is a unique 'distinctive' that was given to Peter. Little wonder that Satan wanted 'to sift him as wheat'. As a Protestant I am not at liberty to deny this distinctive as found in scripture - lest somehow I have missed where the Cornerstone was laid.
In Christ: Stranger
G
Guest
Guest
Here are some responses to francisdesales recent comments.
Francis says:
“Irrationalism? Well, I guess I am in good company, as the vast majority of Scriptural interpreters…â€Â
Beetle:
First of all Francis, you commit the fallacy of ad populum when you appeal to numbers as proof that you are correct. I am not surprised at this since you do not understand the law of contradiction.
Francis says:
“whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant see that Scriptures can have multiple layers of meaning.â€Â
Beetle:
I would agree that Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics hold to your view of irrationalism. Those who hold to the Reformation do not.
Francis says:
“Do you think the Song of Songs was included in Sacred Scripture because there were perverted Jews on the Canon selection board? Clearly, you are in the minority on this issue, because the vast majority of exegisists see the Song of Songs as a conversation between God and the human soul OR God and the Church...â€Â
Beetle:
Again, let me first point out your appeal to numbers when you try to put me in the “minorityâ€Â, as if that proved you were right or wrong. You seem to enjoy the informal logical fallacy of ad populum.
I guess you are referring to Song of Solomon, which does make use of metaphors, but we will see that this only proves my case that a verse only has one true meaning in its proper context. Any other meanings equivocated to it is done out of error.
Francis says:
“You clearly don't know much about the English language. Words can be used literally or as metaphors. They can have multiple meaning at the same time. Or do you believe that God is a literal rock?â€Â
Beetle:
Your fist statement is false. Your second statement, in the context of our argument is false too. Words can NOT be used literally and metaphorically at the same time with different meanings in the same sentence. Let me prove this, again.
Proposition 1) Christ is a rock
The word “rock†either means (A) a stone or (B) the certain basis of our Justification.
When used in the context of Scripture, then it only means (B) and never (A).
It is impossible for Proposition 1 to mean both (A) and (B) at the same time in the same verse of Scripture. You are claiming the contrary, although your last sentence seems to indicate that you don’t realize what you are implying with your own argument.
Francis says:
“No one is saying that "A" can only mean "A" while at the same time, "A" can only mean "B". No one is contradicting anything when they say Scripture has multiple meanings. The law of contradicition is not being broken because no one is saying that "A" can ONLY mean one thing and nothing more.â€Â
Beetle:
You are clearly confused. A thing can only be itself, it can not be its opposite. You are breaking the law of contradiction when you claim that any one verse of Scripture can have different meanings simultaneously while in its proper context.
For example, when James states, “You see then that a man is not justified by works, and not by faith only†(James 2:24).
The verse has one true meaning. If the context of the passage was a discussion on how a sinful man is justified before God, then James would clearly contradict Apostle Paul who states that “man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law†(Romans 3:28).
However, as any child can see, the passage of James is not teaching how God justifies sinful man, but rather, it is teaching how a man professing to be a Christian can demonstrate to other Christians that he truly has saving faith. James states, “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works†(James 2:18). No where in the book of James does it say, “when you add works to your faith, then God will infuse righteousness into your heart and you will be justified.†Nope, James even points out that Abraham had righteousness imputed to him, thus justifying him before God, back in Genesis 15:6, before he mentions the fact that God tested Abraham, thus demonstrating Abraham’s faith to all men. The test did not prove anything to God, for God is omniscient and knows that He has already justified Abraham by imputing righteousness to him long before that incident
Therefore, Catholics, who can not deal with the context of James, must claim a “multiple meaning†in order to attempt to smuggle in their mythic-theory of double justification. This violates the law of Contradiction.
Francis says:
“I would think that this is not the definition of Protestantism, because it is based on an irrational and self-defeating idea, since the definition that the Word of God is ONLY in the Bible is nowhere found. Where did you come up with that definition, because it isn't in the Bible itself?â€Â
Beetle:
You probably will not be pleased to hear that Sola Scriptura is logically deduced from Scripture, since you seem so opposed to logic. The evidence is throughout Scripture abundantly. Remember when Christ was confronted by the devil in the wilderness? Every time the devil would cite Scripture incorrectly (You see the devil is a big fan of Scripture having multiple meanings too), then Christ would come back and cite Scripture Alone. Christ did not refer the devil to the teaching of some pope, nor did he recite the Rosary, or cite some other Roman Catholic tradition, thus warding off the devil and proving him wrong. Christ commands us to “search the Scriptures.†He never commands us to anything else. And, when Christ commands you to Scripture and nothing else, then that is the same thing as saying Scripture Alone. Acts 17:10-11 demonstrates how Christians use ONLY Scripture to put the words of Paul, or any teacher, to the test. The Berans did not compare what Paul taught to “tradition.â€Â
Francis:
“Last time I checked the dictionary, a MULTITUDE of words had more than one meaning...â€Â
Beetle:
Correct, most words have about 5 different meanings, but a word only has one meaning when it is being used in a sentence in proper context. If word “x†has 5 different meanings, and word “x†appears once in a paragraph, then the context must be examined to determine which of the 5 meanings is being used when word “x†appears. Word “x†cannot appear in that paragraph with different meanings simultaneously. The intention of the writer is determined by logic and context.
Francis:
“AH, now you are understanding the need for a Church to interpret the Scriptures for us. No one is making your claim that words mean nothing, so what's with the strawman argument?â€Â
Beetle:
Your first sentence demonstrates my point that Roman Catholicism embraces irrationalism in hopes of confusing the public to such an extent that they will simply give up on trying to understand the Bible. It also proves that you are teaching that every verse in Scripture has a multitude of contrary meanings at the same time, thus violating the law of Contradiction.
The Roman Catholic claim that any one word has a multitude of different meanings simultaneously in the same sentence, regardless of context, certainly leads to this conclusion.
Francis:
“However, I won't, because it is more likely that he WAS aware of the multiplicity of interpretations, but you are taking the good bishop out of context.â€Â
Beetle:
How do you know I am taking the bishop out of context. You simply prove you have not read his speech with such rhetoric. Let me give you a nice portion for your enjoyment.
Strossmayer states,
“Penetrated with the feelings of responsibility, of which God will demand of me an account, I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the Old and New Testaments, and I have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is truly the successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church. To resolve this grave question I have been obliged to ignore the present state of things and to transport myself in mind, with the evangelical torch in my hand, to the days when there was neither Ultramontanism nor Gallicanism and in which the church had for doctors St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John-doctors to whom no one can deny the divine authority without putting in doubt that which the Holy Bible, which is here before me, teaches us, and which the Council of Trent has proclaimed as the rule of faith and of morals. I have then opened these sacred pages. Well (shall I dare to say it?), I have found nothing either near nor far which sanctions the opinion of the Ultramontanes. And still more, to my very great surprise, I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than of Mahomet who did not then exist. You, Monsignor Manning, will say that I blaspheme; you, Monsignor Fie, that I am mad. Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment. Do not refuse me your attention, my venerable brethren; and with your murmuring and interruptions do not justify those who say, like Father Hyacinthe, that this council is nothing, but that our votes have been from the beginning dictated by authority. If such were the case, this august assembly, on which the eyes of the whole world are turned, would fall into the most shameful discredit. If we wish to make it great, we must be free. I thank his Excellency, Monsignor Dupanloup, for the sign of approbation that he shakes with his head: this gives me courage, and I go on.â€Â
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=31
[emphasis my own]
Not even the good bishop could find anything like the modern Catholic Church in the Bible. Erasmus, another Catholic, made the same point in his book “Praise of Folly.â€Â
Francis says:
“By the way, if you expect to discourse with me, you'll have to remove your offensive tagline. I do not desire to talk with people who are so bigoted that they find it necessary to invent lies about the Church and advertise it on every post. ESPECIALLY, so close to the celebration of the birth of Christ, where peace on earth is exclaimed, not what you post in your signature.â€Â
Beetle:
I will not remove the tagline. Rather, I prefer to express my mind freely, and I am no liar. At this time your right to post your opinion, no matter how wrong or irrational it is, is protected at this site. I am glad you have that right, even though your statements are heavily biased against Calvinism. After all, to profess Catholicism is to claim that all outside the Catholic Church are cursed. Remember the Council of Trent?
R.B.
Francis says:
“Irrationalism? Well, I guess I am in good company, as the vast majority of Scriptural interpreters…â€Â
Beetle:
First of all Francis, you commit the fallacy of ad populum when you appeal to numbers as proof that you are correct. I am not surprised at this since you do not understand the law of contradiction.
Francis says:
“whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant see that Scriptures can have multiple layers of meaning.â€Â
Beetle:
I would agree that Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics hold to your view of irrationalism. Those who hold to the Reformation do not.
Francis says:
“Do you think the Song of Songs was included in Sacred Scripture because there were perverted Jews on the Canon selection board? Clearly, you are in the minority on this issue, because the vast majority of exegisists see the Song of Songs as a conversation between God and the human soul OR God and the Church...â€Â
Beetle:
Again, let me first point out your appeal to numbers when you try to put me in the “minorityâ€Â, as if that proved you were right or wrong. You seem to enjoy the informal logical fallacy of ad populum.
I guess you are referring to Song of Solomon, which does make use of metaphors, but we will see that this only proves my case that a verse only has one true meaning in its proper context. Any other meanings equivocated to it is done out of error.
Francis says:
“You clearly don't know much about the English language. Words can be used literally or as metaphors. They can have multiple meaning at the same time. Or do you believe that God is a literal rock?â€Â
Beetle:
Your fist statement is false. Your second statement, in the context of our argument is false too. Words can NOT be used literally and metaphorically at the same time with different meanings in the same sentence. Let me prove this, again.
Proposition 1) Christ is a rock
The word “rock†either means (A) a stone or (B) the certain basis of our Justification.
When used in the context of Scripture, then it only means (B) and never (A).
It is impossible for Proposition 1 to mean both (A) and (B) at the same time in the same verse of Scripture. You are claiming the contrary, although your last sentence seems to indicate that you don’t realize what you are implying with your own argument.
Francis says:
“No one is saying that "A" can only mean "A" while at the same time, "A" can only mean "B". No one is contradicting anything when they say Scripture has multiple meanings. The law of contradicition is not being broken because no one is saying that "A" can ONLY mean one thing and nothing more.â€Â
Beetle:
You are clearly confused. A thing can only be itself, it can not be its opposite. You are breaking the law of contradiction when you claim that any one verse of Scripture can have different meanings simultaneously while in its proper context.
For example, when James states, “You see then that a man is not justified by works, and not by faith only†(James 2:24).
The verse has one true meaning. If the context of the passage was a discussion on how a sinful man is justified before God, then James would clearly contradict Apostle Paul who states that “man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law†(Romans 3:28).
However, as any child can see, the passage of James is not teaching how God justifies sinful man, but rather, it is teaching how a man professing to be a Christian can demonstrate to other Christians that he truly has saving faith. James states, “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works†(James 2:18). No where in the book of James does it say, “when you add works to your faith, then God will infuse righteousness into your heart and you will be justified.†Nope, James even points out that Abraham had righteousness imputed to him, thus justifying him before God, back in Genesis 15:6, before he mentions the fact that God tested Abraham, thus demonstrating Abraham’s faith to all men. The test did not prove anything to God, for God is omniscient and knows that He has already justified Abraham by imputing righteousness to him long before that incident
Therefore, Catholics, who can not deal with the context of James, must claim a “multiple meaning†in order to attempt to smuggle in their mythic-theory of double justification. This violates the law of Contradiction.
Francis says:
“I would think that this is not the definition of Protestantism, because it is based on an irrational and self-defeating idea, since the definition that the Word of God is ONLY in the Bible is nowhere found. Where did you come up with that definition, because it isn't in the Bible itself?â€Â
Beetle:
You probably will not be pleased to hear that Sola Scriptura is logically deduced from Scripture, since you seem so opposed to logic. The evidence is throughout Scripture abundantly. Remember when Christ was confronted by the devil in the wilderness? Every time the devil would cite Scripture incorrectly (You see the devil is a big fan of Scripture having multiple meanings too), then Christ would come back and cite Scripture Alone. Christ did not refer the devil to the teaching of some pope, nor did he recite the Rosary, or cite some other Roman Catholic tradition, thus warding off the devil and proving him wrong. Christ commands us to “search the Scriptures.†He never commands us to anything else. And, when Christ commands you to Scripture and nothing else, then that is the same thing as saying Scripture Alone. Acts 17:10-11 demonstrates how Christians use ONLY Scripture to put the words of Paul, or any teacher, to the test. The Berans did not compare what Paul taught to “tradition.â€Â
Francis:
“Last time I checked the dictionary, a MULTITUDE of words had more than one meaning...â€Â
Beetle:
Correct, most words have about 5 different meanings, but a word only has one meaning when it is being used in a sentence in proper context. If word “x†has 5 different meanings, and word “x†appears once in a paragraph, then the context must be examined to determine which of the 5 meanings is being used when word “x†appears. Word “x†cannot appear in that paragraph with different meanings simultaneously. The intention of the writer is determined by logic and context.
Francis:
“AH, now you are understanding the need for a Church to interpret the Scriptures for us. No one is making your claim that words mean nothing, so what's with the strawman argument?â€Â
Beetle:
Your first sentence demonstrates my point that Roman Catholicism embraces irrationalism in hopes of confusing the public to such an extent that they will simply give up on trying to understand the Bible. It also proves that you are teaching that every verse in Scripture has a multitude of contrary meanings at the same time, thus violating the law of Contradiction.
The Roman Catholic claim that any one word has a multitude of different meanings simultaneously in the same sentence, regardless of context, certainly leads to this conclusion.
Francis:
“However, I won't, because it is more likely that he WAS aware of the multiplicity of interpretations, but you are taking the good bishop out of context.â€Â
Beetle:
How do you know I am taking the bishop out of context. You simply prove you have not read his speech with such rhetoric. Let me give you a nice portion for your enjoyment.
Strossmayer states,
“Penetrated with the feelings of responsibility, of which God will demand of me an account, I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the Old and New Testaments, and I have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is truly the successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church. To resolve this grave question I have been obliged to ignore the present state of things and to transport myself in mind, with the evangelical torch in my hand, to the days when there was neither Ultramontanism nor Gallicanism and in which the church had for doctors St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John-doctors to whom no one can deny the divine authority without putting in doubt that which the Holy Bible, which is here before me, teaches us, and which the Council of Trent has proclaimed as the rule of faith and of morals. I have then opened these sacred pages. Well (shall I dare to say it?), I have found nothing either near nor far which sanctions the opinion of the Ultramontanes. And still more, to my very great surprise, I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than of Mahomet who did not then exist. You, Monsignor Manning, will say that I blaspheme; you, Monsignor Fie, that I am mad. Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment. Do not refuse me your attention, my venerable brethren; and with your murmuring and interruptions do not justify those who say, like Father Hyacinthe, that this council is nothing, but that our votes have been from the beginning dictated by authority. If such were the case, this august assembly, on which the eyes of the whole world are turned, would fall into the most shameful discredit. If we wish to make it great, we must be free. I thank his Excellency, Monsignor Dupanloup, for the sign of approbation that he shakes with his head: this gives me courage, and I go on.â€Â
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=31
[emphasis my own]
Not even the good bishop could find anything like the modern Catholic Church in the Bible. Erasmus, another Catholic, made the same point in his book “Praise of Folly.â€Â
Francis says:
“By the way, if you expect to discourse with me, you'll have to remove your offensive tagline. I do not desire to talk with people who are so bigoted that they find it necessary to invent lies about the Church and advertise it on every post. ESPECIALLY, so close to the celebration of the birth of Christ, where peace on earth is exclaimed, not what you post in your signature.â€Â
Beetle:
I will not remove the tagline. Rather, I prefer to express my mind freely, and I am no liar. At this time your right to post your opinion, no matter how wrong or irrational it is, is protected at this site. I am glad you have that right, even though your statements are heavily biased against Calvinism. After all, to profess Catholicism is to claim that all outside the Catholic Church are cursed. Remember the Council of Trent?
R.B.