Is the Papacy a Legitimate Teaching of Scripture?

[francisdesales]

The Catholic Encyclopedia shows the inadequacy of the Roman Catholic False teachings. The articles that I have posted show the lacking of scriptural proofs in the dogma of the RCC teachings, and are written by one that has been in the RCC for many years.

I understand why you do not want the articles that I post presented to this forum; it is because the truth reveals the darkness that prevails in the Roman Catholic Church.

I am sorry, but you'll have to do better than that to prove your statement. I don't accept your infallible word - you will have to provide ample proof just like everyone else here...

Your cut and pastes merely are turning "Christian forums" into Solo's personal web site. If you have something, refer to it with a URL. Those interested can proceed. Otherwise, you are defeating the purpose of this forum, which is communication and discussion.

Regards

 

[Solo]

As shown in the article, "Thou art Peter" the author, Paul Mizzi, shows after much research, the interpretation of the church fathers gives their rendering of Matthew 16 by number their interpretation of who Jesus was refering to as the "Rock":

• 17 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter as the "Rock". 20%
  [/*:m:504ee]
• 44 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter's faith ("Thou are Christ...") as the "Rock". 52%
  [/*:m:504ee]
• 16 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Himself as the "Rock". 19%
  [/*:m:504ee]
• 8 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to the Apostles as the "Rock". 9%[/*:m:504ee]

In his article, Paul Mizzi gives us two quotations by Augustine who corrects his former error of understanding of Peter being the "Rock" to that of Jesus being the actual "Rock":

• "So he said, 'Thou are Peter, and upon this rock' that you have confessed, upon the rock that you have recognized', when you said, 'Thou are Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my church."
  
  "On this rock which you have confessed I will build my church, since Christ is the rock."

In his Retractions, Augustine says:

• "I acknowledge when I was young, I taught that the rock was Peter, but I know afterwards, in very many places I have said these words must be understood to refer to Him who Peter confessed, when he said: "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God," because it was not said of him, "Thou are the rock" (Petra) but "Thou are Peter" (Petros). But the reader can choose which of these two interpretations appears to him to be the most probable."

The Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that Peter is the "Rock", which is an error of understanding according to Augustine, and only 20% of the church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter as being the "Rock". 9% of the church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to the Apostles as being the "Rock", 19% thought that Jesus was referring to himself as the "Rock", and 52% of the church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession that "Jesus was the Christ" as the "Rock" on which He would build His church.

What is Paul Mizzi's thoughts on the papacy?

• "As a former Roman Catholic, when first challenged with the gospel of free grace, I was constrained to submit myself to an intense study concerning the origins and developments of the papacy. It was only when I read Roman Catholic apologists that I became convinced of the antichristian character of the papacy, when I considered their dearth of solid material based on historical facts. The history of the papacy is, to put it mildly, shameful, full of politico-religious intrigue that finally proves how illegitimate power corrupts." - Paul Mizzi, Whence the papacy

 

[francisdesales]

As shown in the article, "Thou art Peter" the author, Paul Mizzi, shows after much research, the interpretation of the church fathers gives their rendering of Matthew 16 by number their interpretation of who Jesus was refering to as the "Rock":

• 17 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter as the "Rock". 20%
  [/*:m:0a865]
• 44 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter's faith ("Thou are Christ...") as the "Rock". 52%
  [/*:m:0a865]
• 16 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Himself as the "Rock". 19%
  [/*:m:0a865]
• 8 church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to the Apostles as the "Rock". 9%[/*:m:0a865]

You must be joking. All you have done is cut and paste verbatum what was written. The author doesn't SHOW anything! All he does is pull numbers out of the air, as far as I am concerned. Having dealt with such misinformation before, I would prefer to see his "evidence" before coming to the conclusions reached above.

The Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that Peter is the "Rock", which is an error of understanding according to Augustine, and only 20% of the church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter as being the "Rock". 9% of the church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to the Apostles as being the "Rock", 19% thought that Jesus was referring to himself as the "Rock", and 52% of the church fathers thought that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession that "Jesus was the Christ" as the "Rock" on which He would build His church.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

________

"Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church."

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church...

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

___________


While some Church Fathers see that the Rock refers ALSO to Peter's faith, (Pope John Paul 2 also saw that the Rock refered ALSO to Peter's faith) they do not make the attempt of separating the two, creating a false dichotomy. Does ANY Church Father DENY that Peter is the Rock? Not as far as I know, as shown by your example of St. Augustine. That, unfortunately, is the incorrect argument you and Mr. Mizzi makes. He leads us to a false dichotomy. We "MUST" accept one or the other interpretation - and as usual, this line of thinking is WRONG! When Church Fathers note that Peter is the Rock and others His faith is the rock, we have clear evidence that BOTH are reasonable interpretations that are NOT mutually exclusive. That is where you and Mr. Mizzi try to force a logical inconsistency upon us.

The Church realizes that the "Rock" of Mat 16 is BOTH Peter AND His faith - they are not separate entities. And in any case, Peter's faith does not refute that fact that Peter HIMSELF is the rock.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

________

"Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church."

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church...

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

___________


While some Church Fathers see that the Rock refers ALSO to Peter's faith, (Pope John Paul 2 also saw that the Rock refered ALSO to Peter's faith) they do not make the attempt of separating the two, creating a false dichotomy. Does ANY Church Father DENY that Peter is the Rock? Not as far as I know, as shown by your example of St. Augustine. That, unfortunately, is the incorrect argument you and Mr. Mizzi makes. He leads us to a false dichotomy. We "MUST" accept one or the other interpretation - and as usual, this line of thinking is WRONG! When Church Fathers note that Peter is the Rock and others His faith is the rock, we have clear evidence that BOTH are reasonable interpretations that are NOT mutually exclusive. That is where you and Mr. Mizzi try to force a logical inconsistency upon us.

The Church realizes that the "Rock" of Mat 16 is BOTH Peter AND His faith - they are not separate entities. And in any case, Peter's faith does not refute that fact that Peter HIMSELF is the rock.

Regards

Thank you for showing your position aligning with 20% of the church fathers. I commend you for your courage.

By the way, your position that Peter is the Rock and his confession is the Rock is a false dichotomy. You must choose one or the other. As an analogy, your position can not make an apple a fruit and a vegetable.

PS. When you decide that the scriptures contain more authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will be so much better off.

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you for showing your position aligning with 20% of the church fathers. I commend you for your courage.

Solo,

First, yoiu haven't proven me that "20% of the Church Fathers" only said that Peter was the rock... From my reading of the Fathers, I disagree with that number.

Secondly, you have misunderstood my last two posts, I think. Let me try again.

"The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church..."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia...

Note, the language refutes an EITHER/OR interpretation, which you attempt to make: "either Peter is the rock or his faith is the rock", you claim. The Catholic Encylopedia refutes the EITHER/OR, because the two (his faith and the man) cannot be separated. Thus, as I have said before (by telling you that the POPE HIMSELF, John Paul 2, has said it as well), the Church interprets this Scripture to refer to BOTH his faith and his person.

To further prove - note, Christ gives PETER the keys; He doesn't give the keys to Peter's FAITH! Let's look at the verses in question again, trying to keep in mind WHO Christ is talking to:

"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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" Matt 16:18-19

Is Jesus talking to the person Simon, or a charecteristic of Simon totally separate from Simon???!!!!

Jesus says "I will give unto thee the keys of heaven"... Is Jesus giving the keys to the faith of Peter separate from Peter??? Certainly not!!!

And later, Jesus tells "thee" that what he (NOT IT!) bounds on earth will be bound in heaven. Does the charecteristic of "faith" alone bind anything? No, people bind and loosen things!

Thus, your either/or interpretation falls flat on its face. Your interpretation logically fails. The Church, using the writings of the Fathers, have determined that Jesus refers to the MAN Simon and his faith as one entity. They are not mutually exclusive.

PS. When you decide that the scriptures contain more authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will be so much better off.

Scripture is not a self interpreting book. The reader interprets the book. Isn't that obvious?

Regards

 

[Solo]

Thank you for showing your position aligning with 20% of the church fathers. I commend you for your courage.

First, yoiu haven't proven me that "20% of the Church Fathers" only said that Peter was the rock... From my reading of the Fathers, I disagree with that number.

Sure you disagree. You have read what the Roman Catholic Church says that the church fathers believed, and those teachings agree with your bias, but you have not researched in depth what the early church fathers really believed or said about these issues.

Understanding the truth of the scriptures is a fairly easy when the Holy Spirit interprets the scripture for you. It is highly suspect that one is born again, when the Holy Spirit is not present to interpret truth for them, isn't it?

Notice that Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Ghost teaches the spiritual things of God, and that the unsaved natural man can not receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishness to him. We believers have the Holy Spirit teaching us the truth, and we have the mind of Christ.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth 6 all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:13-16

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1 Corinthians 3:16

Secondly, you have misunderstood my last two posts, I think. Let me try again.

"The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church..."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia...

Note, the language refutes an EITHER/OR interpretation, which you attempt to make: "either Peter is the rock or his faith is the rock", you claim. The Catholic Encylopedia refutes the EITHER/OR, because the two (his faith and the man) cannot be separated. Thus, as I have said before (by telling you that the POPE HIMSELF, John Paul 2, has said it as well), the Church interprets this Scripture to refer to BOTH his faith and his person.

To say that Peter is the Rock and His faith is the Rock is only accomplished with smoke and mirrors. Peter's faith is not in himself, and was not originated in himself. Peter's faith was in Jesus being the Christ, the Rock; and this understanding came to him from the Father, not from his own person.

52% of the church fathers agree that Peter's faith in Jesus being the Christ is the Rock of the church; and that same faith being available to all who hear the word of God and believe; therefore, all who have this faith, have the Rock in which to build their spiritual house. Peter is not the Rock, nor did he ever claim to have superiority over anyone. His position was so much more humble than the papacy phonys.

Also, I have posted Augustine's quotes declaring that Peter was not the Rock.

Here are those early church fathers whom the Roman Catholic Church ascribes that Peter is the Rock. It clearly shows that the faith of Peter is the Rock of which the Church will be built. The believers faith in Jesus Christ is the Rock, not the single fleshly person of Peter.

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

To further prove - note, Christ gives PETER the keys; He doesn't give the keys to Peter's FAITH! Let's look at the verses in question again, trying to keep in mind WHO Christ is talking to:

"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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" Matt 16:18-19

Is Jesus talking to the person Simon, or a charecteristic of Simon totally separate from Simon???!!!!

Jesus says "I will give unto thee the keys of heaven"... Is Jesus giving the keys to the faith of Peter separate from Peter??? Certainly not!!!

And later, Jesus tells "thee" that what he (NOT IT!) bounds on earth will be bound in heaven. Does the charecteristic of "faith" alone bind anything? No, people bind and loosen things!

Thus, your either/or interpretation falls flat on its face. Your interpretation logically fails. The Church, using the writings of the Fathers, have determined that Jesus refers to the MAN Simon and his faith as one entity. They are not mutually exclusive.

You really ought to study apart from the mind control objectives of the Roman Catholic Church. Let me give you a statement by Origin concerning the keys:

• "And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
  
  But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
  
  ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock"
  
  (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

PS. When you decide that the scriptures contain more authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will be so much better off.

Scripture is not a self interpreting book. The reader interprets the book. Isn't that obvious?

The reader interprets the book if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit dwelling in him to interpret the truth of God.

 

[francisdesales]

Sure you disagree. You have read what the Roman Catholic Church says that the church fathers believed, and those teachings agree with your bias, but you have not researched in depth what the early church fathers really believed or said about these issues.

You presented your "proof" as if it was irrefutable - but yet, where is the primary evidence? You made the statement that only 20% of the Church Fathers said Peter was the Rock. I dispute that. Merely refering me to another web site that says the same thing verbatim WITHOUT primary evidence is NOT proof of anything...

And you tell me I haven't done the research? Before you make such statements, you should have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke... How do you expect to "convert" me if you have nothing but heresay and what looks to be made-up numbers?

Understanding the truth of the scriptures is a fairly easy when the Holy Spirit interprets the scripture for you. It is highly suspect that one is born again, when the Holy Spirit is not present to interpret truth for them, isn't it?

The Spirit is given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32). How exactly are you obeying the commandment of Christ through your posts? Basically, you call everyone else (not only me as a Catholic, but other Protestants, as well) who doesn't follow the "Gospel according to Solo" as a "servant of the devil". Quite frankly, this is not the way a person imbued with the Holy Spirit acts. Logically speaking, when you and another Protestant discuss an issue you disagree on, how am I, a third party, supposed to know WHO is correct? WHO has the Spirit? Both of you, no doubt, claim the Spirit guiding him to interpret the Scriptures - in opposite directions? Sorry, that is self-delusional. Your continuous accusations for others to adhere to the "solo gospel" show the fruits of what abides in you.

The reason why the Church Fathers were so highly regarded was because of their Holiness that others witnessed to. People trusted their opinions as being from God because it appeared that God abided within them. I apologize, but I don't get that from you - although I really do not know you outside of this forum. Perhaps you will say the same about me to feel good about yourself. Say what you want about me. The issue is not about me, but about your self-proclamation that your gospel is the only gospel. I have not made that claim. You claim to have a direct pipeline to the Holy Spirit. I do not make that claim. My interpretations are based on 2000 years of men (and women) who did, as witnessed by their actions.

To say that Peter is the Rock and His faith is the Rock is only accomplished with smoke and mirrors. Peter's faith is not in himself, and was not originated in himself. Peter's faith was in Jesus being the Christ, the Rock; and this understanding came to him from the Father, not from his own person.

Whatever. Apparently, you believe that Christ gave the keys to an inanimate quality internally inside a person totallly separate from the person himself. Now, what does this "faith" do with the keys? How does this faith act without the person? Tell me, Solo, how does "faith" use these keys? Does this "faith" leave the body of Simon and hover around, issuing commands to bind and loosen??? :

Common sense tells us that Jesus gave power to a person, not to a quality within Peter separate from Peter! Only your hatred of things Catholic covers this up. Even numerous Protestant interpreters of Scripture will agree that Peter received the keys. But then again, I guess they don't follow the "solo gospel", so they are all wrong and don't have the "spirit" within them to understand an obvious linguistic relationship between the words in a sentence...

Also, I have posted Augustine's quotes declaring that Peter was not the Rock.

Read what you posted. St. Augustine didn't say "either/or". He didn't say that the Rock was NOT Peter. Catholic interpretation of Scriptures OFTEN include spiritual or allegorical interpretations, besides the literal. These spiritual interpretations DO NOT exclude the literal.

Here are those early church fathers whom the Roman Catholic Church ascribes that Peter is the Rock. It clearly shows that the faith of Peter is the Rock of which the Church will be built. The believers faith in Jesus Christ is the Rock, not the single fleshly person of Peter.

Again, you are saying something that is not being said by the Fathers. They do not EXCLUDE Peter as the Rock. They offer up his faith as the Rock, WITHOUT EXCLUDING IT! Can you show me "52%" of the Fathers making such statements as follows:

"Peter is not the Rock, Peter's faith is the rock. Only Peter's faith is the rock."

This is simple utilization of language skills. Because a Father says "Peter's faith is the rock" doesn't mean that Peter's person is NOT the rock. The two items are integrated within the person of Peter. Honestly, would Jesus give power to bind and loosen, the power of authority through the keys, to "faith", excluding the man himself?

You really ought to study apart from the mind control objectives of the Roman Catholic Church. Let me give you a statement by Origin concerning the keys:

Origen was a man of the Alexandrian school, famous for its allegorical interpretation of Scriptures. Origen is simply noting that the Church is built upon his faith without excluding his person. Origen makes a lot of statements that show a verse with several different meanings, concentrating esp. on the spiritual interpretation.

Here is another thing he says about Peter:

"If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?" On Modesty, Ch 21.

As you can see, Origen is not excluding Peter as the man whom Christ gave the keys to. This is in line with what I have been saying all along. The Fathers often interpret the Scripture spiritually - meaning allegorically - in that the Church is built upon the faith of the believer. But this CERTAINLY does not exclude the literal sense! The literal sense is that Peter received the Keys, was called Rock, and was given (along with the other apostles in Mat 18) the power to bind and loosen.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Sure you disagree. You have read what the Roman Catholic Church says that the church fathers believed, and those teachings agree with your bias, but you have not researched in depth what the early church fathers really believed or said about these issues.

You presented your "proof" as if it was irrefutable - but yet, where is the primary evidence? You made the statement that only 20% of the Church Fathers said Peter was the Rock. I dispute that. Merely refering me to another web site that says the same thing verbatim WITHOUT primary evidence is NOT proof of anything...

And you tell me I haven't done the research? Before you make such statements, you should have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke... How do you expect to "convert" me if you have nothing but heresay?

Understanding the truth of the scriptures is a fairly easy when the Holy Spirit interprets the scripture for you. It is highly suspect that one is born again, when the Holy Spirit is not present to interpret truth for them, isn't it?

The Spirit is given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32). How exactly are you obeying the commandment of Christ through your posts? Basically, you call everyone else (not only me as a Catholic, but other Protestants, as well) who doesn't follow the "Gospel according to Solo" as a "servant of the devil". Quite frankly, this is not the way a person imbued with the Holy Spirit acts. Logically speaking, when you and another Protestant discuss an issue you disagree on, how am I, a third party, supposed to know WHO is correct? WHO has the Spirit? Both of you, no doubt, claim the Spirit guiding him to interpret the Scriptures - in opposite directions? Sorry, that is self-delusional. Your continuous accusations for others to adhere to the "solo gospel" show the fruits of what abides in you.

The reason why the Church Fathers were so highly regarded was because of their Holiness that others witnessed to. People trusted their opinions as being from God because it appeared that God abided within them. I apologize, but I don't get that from you - although I really do not know you outside of this forum. Perhaps you will say the same about me to feel good about yourself. Say what you want about me. The issue is not about me, but about your self-proclamation that your gospel is the only gospel. I have not made that claim. You claim to have a direct pipeline to the Holy Spirit. I do not make that claim. My interpretations are based on 2000 years of men (and women) who did, as witnessed by their actions.

To say that Peter is the Rock and His faith is the Rock is only accomplished with smoke and mirrors. Peter's faith is not in himself, and was not originated in himself. Peter's faith was in Jesus being the Christ, the Rock; and this understanding came to him from the Father, not from his own person.

Whatever. Apparently, you believe that Christ gave the keys to an inanimate quality internally inside a person totallly separate from the person himself. Now, what does this "faith" do with the keys? How does this faith act without the person? Tell me, Solo, how does "faith" use these keys? Does this "faith" leave the body of Simon and hover around, issuing commands to bind and loosen??? :

Common sense tells us that Jesus gave power to a person, not to a quality within Peter separate from Peter! Only your hatred of things Catholic covers this up. Even numerous Protestant interpreters of Scripture will agree that Peter received the keys. But then again, I guess they don't follow the "solo gospel", so they are all wrong and don't have the "spirit" within them to understand an obvious linguistic relationship between the words in a sentence...

Also, I have posted Augustine's quotes declaring that Peter was not the Rock.

Read what you posted. St. Augustine didn't say "either/or". He didn't say that the Rock was NOT Peter. Catholic interpretation of Scriptures OFTEN include spiritual or allegorical interpretations, besides the literal. These spiritual interpretations DO NOT exclude the literal.

Here are those early church fathers whom the Roman Catholic Church ascribes that Peter is the Rock. It clearly shows that the faith of Peter is the Rock of which the Church will be built. The believers faith in Jesus Christ is the Rock, not the single fleshly person of Peter.

Again, you are saying something that is not being said by the Fathers. They do not EXCLUDE Peter as the Rock. They offer up his faith as the Rock, WITHOUT EXCLUDING IT! Can you show me "52%" of the Fathers making such statements as follows:

"Peter is not the Rock, Peter's faith is the rock. Only Peter's faith is the rock."

This is simple utilization of language skills. Because a Father says "Peter's faith is the rock" doesn't mean that Peter's person is NOT the rock. The two items are integrated within the person of Peter. Honestly, would Jesus give power to bind and loosen, the power of authority through the keys, to "faith", excluding the man himself?

You really ought to study apart from the mind control objectives of the Roman Catholic Church. Let me give you a statement by Origin concerning the keys:

Origen was a man of the Alexandrian school, famous for its allegorical interpretation of Scriptures. Origen is simply noting that the Church is built upon his faith without excluding his person. Origen makes a lot of statements that show a verse with several different meanings, concentrating esp. on the spiritual interpretation.

Here is another thing he says about Peter:

"If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?" On Modesty, Ch 21.

As you can see, Origen is not excluding Peter as the man whom Christ gave the keys to.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Sure you disagree. You have read what the Roman Catholic Church says that the church fathers believed, and those teachings agree with your bias, but you have not researched in depth what the early church fathers really believed or said about these issues.

You presented your "proof" as if it was irrefutable - but yet, where is the primary evidence? You made the statement that only 20% of the Church Fathers said Peter was the Rock. I dispute that. Merely refering me to another web site that says the same thing verbatim WITHOUT primary evidence is NOT proof of anything...

And you tell me I haven't done the research? Before you make such statements, you should have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke... How do you expect to "convert" me if you have nothing but heresay?

First, I have given a link that shows the quotes from many early church fathers designating that Peter is not the "Rock" as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. It is Peter's faith that Jesus is the Christ that is the Rock upon which the church will be built upon. It is not a proclamation that the Roman Catholic Church is the arbitrator of faith and spiritual provision. That is one of the false teachings of the church of Rome.

In case you did not see the link provided concerning the church fathers interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16, here it is again:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

Second, it is not up to me to convert you to anything. That is your responsibility through obedience to God. Perhaps you will begin to hold Him in higher esteem than you do the Roman Catholic Church.

Understanding the truth of the scriptures is a fairly easy when the Holy Spirit interprets the scripture for you. It is highly suspect that one is born again, when the Holy Spirit is not present to interpret truth for them, isn't it?

The Spirit is given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32). How exactly are you obeying the commandment of Christ through your posts? Basically, you call everyone else (not only me as a Catholic, but other Protestants, as well) who doesn't follow the "Gospel according to Solo" as a "servant of the devil". Quite frankly, this is not the way a person imbued with the Holy Spirit acts. Logically speaking, when you and another Protestant discuss an issue you disagree on, how am I, a third party, supposed to know WHO is correct? WHO has the Spirit? Both of you, no doubt, claim the Spirit guiding him to interpret the Scriptures - in opposite directions? Sorry, that is self-delusional. Your continuous accusations for others to adhere to the "solo gospel" show the fruits of what abides in you.

The context of verse designated by you as showing that the Holy Spirit is given to them that obey God's commandments follows:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Acts 5:27-32

The teachings that I rebuke on this forum are those teachings that are not in accordance with obeying God. The commandment that Peter is speaking of in Acts 5 is the command to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour. The Holy Spirit indwells all who are born again by repentence and believing the Word of God.

You will notice that most of the false teachings that I will stand against are teachings that others hold as taught by another besides God. The Seventh Day Adventists hold the false prophet Ellen G. White's writings as equal to the scriptures. The Jehovah Witnesses hold the teachings of the Watchtower group as more authoritative than the scriptures. The Mormons hold the teachings of the Book of Mormon as equal authority as the scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church holds the papal claims and/or tradition to a higher authoritative level than the scriptures.

The reason why the Church Fathers were so highly regarded was because of their Holiness that others witnessed to. People trusted their opinions as being from God because it appeared that God abided within them. I apologize, but I don't get that from you - although I really do not know you outside of this forum. Perhaps you will say the same about me to feel good about yourself. Say what you want about me. The issue is not about me, but about your self-proclamation that your gospel is the only gospel. I have not made that claim. You claim to have a direct pipeline to the Holy Spirit. I do not make that claim. My interpretations are based on 2000 years of men (and women) who did, as witnessed by their actions.

I suggest that you quit looking at the things of God through natural eyes and start looking at the things of God through spiritual eyes as guided by the Holy Spirit. I have never preached the gospel according to Solo; I have preached the gospel of Jesus Christ, refuting the other gospels that are prevelant in these latter days.
Solo wrote:

To say that Peter is the Rock and His faith is the Rock is only accomplished with smoke and mirrors. Peter's faith is not in himself, and was not originated in himself. Peter's faith was in Jesus being the Christ, the Rock; and this understanding came to him from the Father, not from his own person.


Whatever. Apparently, you believe that Christ gave the keys to an inanimate quality internally inside a person totallly separate from the person himself. Now, what does this "faith" do with the keys? How does this faith act without the person? Tell me, Solo, how does "faith" use these keys? Does this "faith" leave the body of Simon and hover around, issuing commands to bind and loosen???

Common sense tells us that Jesus gave power to a person, not to a quality within Peter separate from Peter! Only your hatred of things Catholic covers this up. Even numerous Protestant interpreters of Scripture will agree that Peter received the keys. But then again, I guess they don't follow the "solo gospel", so they are all wrong and don't have the "spirit" within them to understand an obvious linguistic relationship between the words in a sentence...

Also, I have posted Augustine's quotes declaring that Peter was not the Rock.

Read what you posted. St. Augustine didn't say "either/or". He didn't say that the Rock was NOT Peter. Catholic interpretation of Scriptures OFTEN include spiritual or allegorical interpretations, besides the literal. These spiritual interpretations DO NOT exclude the literal.

You may have misunderstood Augustine's quote. Let me help you understand what he is saying. He says that he acknowledges that when he was young he taught that the rock was Peter, but when he became older he spoke in many places that it must be understood that the rock was in reference to Jesus whom Peter confessed, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus did not call Peter Petra the rock, but instead he called Peter Petros. Whatever the reader wants to determine between these two interpretations is left up to the reader which is the better interpretation.

"I acknowledge when I was young, I taught that the rock was Peter, but I know afterwards, in very many places I have said these words must be understood to refer to Him who Peter confessed, when he said: "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God," because it was not said of him, "Thou are the rock" (Petra) but "Thou are Peter" (Petros). But the reader can choose which of these two interpretations appears to him to be the most probable."

Here are those early church fathers whom the Roman Catholic Church ascribes that Peter is the Rock. It clearly shows that the faith of Peter is the Rock of which the Church will be built. The believers faith in Jesus Christ is the Rock, not the single fleshly person of Peter.

Again, you are saying something that is not being said by the Fathers. They do not EXCLUDE Peter as the Rock. They offer up his faith as the Rock, WITHOUT EXCLUDING IT! Can you show me "52%" of the Fathers making such statements as follows:

"Peter is not the Rock, Peter's faith is the rock. Only Peter's faith is the rock."

I suggest that if you are really interested in finding out the truth for your own spiritual edification, write to Paul Mizzi and ask him concerning his research by emailing knisjaevangelika@yahoo.com. Make sure that you give a full description of your request.

This is simple utilization of language skills. Because a Father says "Peter's faith is the rock" doesn't mean that Peter's person is NOT the rock. The two items are integrated within the person of Peter. Honestly, would Jesus give power to bind and loosen, the power of authority through the keys, to "faith", excluding the man himself?

I have addressed this in the previous post, and it is addressed more fully in the article provided at http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

You really ought to study apart from the mind control objectives of the Roman Catholic Church. Let me give you a statement by Origin concerning the keys:

• "And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
  
  But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
  
  ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock"
  
  (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

Origen was a man of the Alexandrian school, famous for its allegorical interpretation of Scriptures. Origen is simply noting that the Church is built upon his faith without excluding his person. Origen makes a lot of statements that show a verse with several different meanings, concentrating esp. on the spiritual interpretation.

Here is another thing he says about Peter:

"If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?" On Modesty, Ch 21.

As you can see, Origen is not excluding Peter as the man whom Christ gave the keys to.

Regards

Origen excludes Peter from being the Rock as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The Roman Catholic Church only uses the quotes that support their position on the papacy.

 

[francisdesales]

First, I have given a link that shows the quotes from many early church fathers designating that Peter is not the "Rock" as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. It is Peter's faith that Jesus is the Christ that is the Rock upon which the church will be built upon. It is not a proclamation that the Roman Catholic Church is the arbitrator of faith and spiritual provision. That is one of the false teachings of the church of Rome.

Wonderful... Direct me to a William Webster apologetic site! Why don't you answer my questions? HOW is Jesus giving the keys to "faith" alone and not Peter? How is Jesus giving the power to bind and loosen to "faith alone without Peter"? Again, you and Mr. Webster are confused. When you see that some Church Fathers believe that the Rock is Peter's faith, do they say that and simultaneously refute Peter's role? No. But that is what you try to do. You present a false dilemna. Either one or the other. Again and again, it is both - not one without the other. This is quite obvious when Jesus calls the MAN SIMON - "KEPHAS"!

WHERE in the Bible is "faith" called "Kephas"? Does Paul refer to a man named Simon, or to faith when he says "Kephas saw the risen Lord"? Tell me, how does "faith" SEE THE LORD RISEN???!!! I will let the readers judge, since you refuse to see the obvious answer... Your continued refusal to see common sense only shows how closed you are to discussion.

That is your responsibility through obedience to God. Perhaps you will begin to hold Him in higher esteem than you do the Roman Catholic Church.

You can't resist trying to belittle someone, can you? Again, you display your fruits... Which explains why I don't trust your interpretation of Sacred Scriptures. And I haven't seen you prove that the Catholic Church's interpretation on ANYTHING is wrong yet...

The Roman Catholic Church holds the papal claims and/or tradition to a higher authoritative level than the scriptures.

You are incorrect. Nothing that man possesses is of higher authority than Sacred Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is not higher, since it also comes from God. We don't believe that anything is higher than God. Since Scripture and Apostolic Tradition comes from God to the Apostles, they are both to be honored and obeyed. However, Scriptures hold the first place because of the means of transmission is more secure.

I have never preached the gospel according to Solo; I have preached the gospel of Jesus Christ, refuting the other gospels that are prevelant in these latter days.

Really? And since when did you estabish an infallible link to God that allows you to interpret Scripture without error - while every other Catholic and Protestant that disagrees is a "servant of the devil". Please, give it a rest already. I am trying to enable you to save face here. Don't bury yourself deeper...

You may have misunderstood Augustine's quote. Let me help you understand what he is saying. He says that he acknowledges that when he was young he taught that the rock was Peter, but when he became older he spoke in many places that it must be understood that the rock was in reference to Jesus whom Peter confessed, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus did not call Peter Petra the rock, but instead he called Peter Petros.

You are a hoot, Solo! You are going to help me understand what you cannot even explain... First, WHERE does the great saint say anything about Peter NO LONGER BEING THE ROCK??? And secondly, Jesus didn't call Simon "Petra" OR "Petros". He called Simon "Kephas"! Jesus spoke Aramaic, according to the vast majority of Protestant exegisis. Thus, you AGAIN establish a false dilemna by trying to force a false dichotomy between Peter and his faith.

I am still awaiting your explanation on how Peter's faith, separate from Peter, takes a hold of the keys and how it binds and loosens the Christian community WITHOUT PETER!!!

Your take on this subject is classic denial of the obvious! Even numerous Protestant Scriptural scholars see that Jesus was refering to Simon as the rock. If our conversations are going to be in this direction, perhaps we should part ways. I see you are closed to what is plainly in front of your face. I have better things to do than explain the obvious...

Regards

 

[Solo]

francis,
All of your quesions have been answered in the previous posts. If you truly want the answers, you must read with a little better comprehension. Don't make me waste time, it is far too precious.

15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Ephesians 5:15-16

I do have a question for you concerning your belief on the interpretation of scripture not being something that individuals can accomplish on their own. Since on is not able to privately interpret the Bible, how does one know which apostolic tradition is true, the Roman Catholic, the Jehovah Witness Watchtower, or the Orthodox churches; as they all teach that the church alone is able to interpret scripture correctly instead of the individual?

 

[francisdesales]

francis,
All of your quesions have been answered in the previous posts. If you truly want the answers, you must read with a little better comprehension. Don't make me waste time, it is far too precious.

Waste your time? I see this new tactic as an attempt to avoid the obvious - you are wrong and refuse to admit it, so you try to claim you have already answered the question! Where?

Please show me exactly when have you explained why the Bible calls the man Simon "Kephas"?

When have you explained that "Kephas" (which means "faith", according to you) saw the Risen Lord?

How does faith see the Risen Lord?

What does Paul call Kephas? The man Simon, OR "faith" exclusive of Simon?

How exactly does "faith" a charecteristic of a person, take hold of the keys and bind and loosen?

You have answsered none of these, but merely ignored them. Go read the posts from yesterday...

Remember, you claim that faith is separate from the person. You claim an "either/or". Thus, faith MUST = Kephas to you... I have re-read the posts, and you have not answered the above questions. IF you bothered to try to, you would see the silliness of your interpretation on "Kephas" meaning "faith" to exclude the man Simon.

Faith doesn't literally see the Risen Lord. Faith doesn't hold actual authoritative positions. Paul never refers to Kepahs as faith, but a person. Your interpretation is a fantasy that makes no sense...

Regards

 

[Solo]

Waste your time? I see this new tactic as an attempt to avoid the obvious - you are wrong and refuse to admit it, so you try to claim you have already answered the question! Where?

Please show me exactly when have you explained why the Bible calls the man Simon "Kephas"?

When have you explained that "Kephas" (which means "faith", according to you) saw the Risen Lord?

How does faith see the Risen Lord?

What does Paul call Kephas? The man Simon, OR "faith" exclusive of Simon?

How exactly does "faith" a charecteristic of a person, take hold of the keys and bind and loosen?

You have answsered none of these, but merely ignored them. Go read the posts from yesterday...

Remember, you claim that faith is separate from the person. You claim an "either/or". Thus, faith MUST = Kephas to you... I have re-read the posts, and you have not answered the above questions. IF you bothered to try to, you would see the silliness of your interpretation on "Kephas" meaning "faith" to exclude the man Simon.

Faith doesn't literally see the Risen Lord. Faith doesn't hold actual authoritative positions. Paul never refers to Kepahs as faith, but a person. Your interpretation is a fantasy that makes no sense...

Regards

The word Kephas is not in the original Greek text of Matthew. Most theologians hold the Matthew was written in Greek between 60 and 65 AD before the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

In the 16th century, Erasmus expressed his doubts on the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, and made the following statement, "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." There is no original Aramaic book of Matthew.

Concerning the possible Aramaic gospel of Matthew we find the following in Wikapedia:

• Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Book of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.[2] If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy. These scholars normally consider the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of the New Testament closest to the original autographs.

The Greek language is a great language with detail which God chose to use to write the original New Testament writings. In the Greek language there are four words to the one English word "love". In the Greek language we find that Jesus spoke to Peter and said that upon this "Rock" (Petra) he would build his church, after calling Peter, "Stone" (Petros, meaning rock or stone). Jesus recognized Peter being named Peter the stone, and was making an analogy to Peter's faith in Jesus Christ as the Rock that Jesus would buile his church on. Evidently the Aramaic language could not differentiate between "stone" and "rock".

The faith of Peter is not what saves unbelievers; however, an individual's faith in Jesus Christ is that which saves one time, forever.

 

[Imagican]

fran,


IF what Solo has offered COULD be proven WITHOUT A DOUBT, would you accept it then? I doubt it. For your premise 'seems' to be to DEFEND regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

The word Kephas is not in the original Greek text of Matthew. Most theologians hold the Matthew was written in Greek between 60 and 65 AD before the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

I didn't say anything about the Greek Matthew, Solo, I said "the words of Christ were Aramaic". The Greek Matthew "Petros" is a transliteration. Thus, the retention of Kephas in John 1 and 1 Cor 15.

In the 16th century, Erasmus expressed his doubts on the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, and made the following statement, "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." There is no original Aramaic book of Matthew.

Apparently, Erasmus was not aware of St. Jerome, who said there was a version of Matthew written to the Hebrews that predated the fall of the Temple. I personally believe this version also predated Mark and is the "Q" that some scholars claim exists. However, we are getting off topic, since I never mentioned anything about the Greek Matthew.

Concerning the possible Aramaic gospel of Matthew we find the following in Wikapedia;

First, don't use Wikapedia to back up anything here. I can go and change the contents of an entry myself in an hour. Your entry is incorrect, there is a Hebrew word that differs between huge rock and small stone. I'd have to research that, but I read it just a couple days ago, if you want to know what it is.

The faith of Peter is not what saves unbelievers; however, an individual's faith in Jesus Christ is that which saves one time, forever.

Without discussing your inaccurate view of salvation, I agree in a sense with what you write before the semi-colon, but not completely. Something might interest you that Jesus said:

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Luke 22:31-32

Properly understood in the context of Apostolic succession, "Peter's faith" IS important in the life of the Church. For it is the Pope who has been given the keys within the Church. He is the faithful servant who awaits the Master's return. (note, this does not discount ME being a faithful servant awaiting the Master's return. However, the Pope best fits the description, since HE was left in charge of the other servants while the Master is away). This is another example of multiple meanings within Scriptures that are not mutually exclusive.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Without discussing your inaccurate view of salvation, I agree in a sense with what you write before the semi-colon, but not completely. Something might interest you that Jesus said:

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Luke 22:31-32

Properly understood in the context of Apostolic succession, "Peter's faith" IS important in the life of the Church. For it is the Pope who has been given the keys within the Church. He is the faithful servant who awaits the Master's return. (note, this does not discount ME being a faithful servant awaiting the Master's return. However, the Pope best fits the description, since HE was left in charge of the other servants while the Master is away). This is another example of multiple meanings within Scriptures that are not mutually exclusive.

Regards

francis,

Your understanding of salvation reveals your position very well. It is the same position that all believers have had prior to being born again. When you get to the point where you can humble yourself before God almighty, repent of your sins and pride concerning your stand on beliefs, and trust in Jesus Christ with the faith of a child, then you will be born again, and all of your angst will disappear, and the joy of your salvation can then be realized. Until then you and I will disagree concerning the truths of God, and our debating will just divide us further; therefore, I will continue to post the truths of the scripture over all false teachings, knowing that the seed is planted for the Holy Spirit to water.

God bless, and you will remain in my prayers,
Michael

 

[francisdesales]

fran,


IF what Solo has offered COULD be proven WITHOUT A DOUBT, would you accept it then? I doubt it. For your premise 'seems' to be to DEFEND regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

MEC

Imagican,

Let me be perfectly frank and honest with you... I believe that God is truth. I praise truth wherever I believe I have found it, to include some Protestants that I know - even here at Christianforums. Please do not put me in that "stereotyped Catholic" mold who condemns everyone who is not Catholic to hell. While I believe you have some incorrect beliefs, I do not believe that will put you in hell. That is for God to decide.

I came to the Catholic Church with a completely open mind. Six years ago, I felt the need for God. I recognized that my ability, confidence and security was not enough. I began to recognize that the things that mattered most were beyond my control - and thus, I began to become more open to God in my life (although He was there the whole time). Thus, I began to explore how I could know more about God. I explored religions - and one by one, I cut them out. I eventually narrowed it down to Christianity, since it was historically proven - at least enough for me. Then, after reading many debates and apologetic sites, I found that Protestants were the ones attacking and Catholics were the ones defending. I saw this as interesting. I began to read the first Christians and how THEY interpreted the Bible. Certainly, they would know best what was meant. And I came to realize that their beliefs were indeed the same as the Catholic Church today, such as a sapling is to a full grown tree. Thus, after a preponderance of evidence, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic faith was the faith established by Christ.

Now, some may say this is not the way to come to faith. One must have faith! Not analyze and so forth. However, that is not me. That is how I work. My job calls for such thinking, and I often have the motto "show me". I believe God has provided sufficient evidence for me to make the "leap of faith", since one is still required to believe that a wafer is the Body of Christ - whether you intellectually know that or not...

Thus, to answer you question, it would take a preponderance of evidence to get me "out" of the Catholic Church. I didn't come in on one piece of evidence, and my faith is not so weak now that one piece of "evidence" will bring me back out. I believe I have experienced God through the sacramental actions of the Church and through liturgical worship. I have come to see this as the thing that has replaced the Old Covenant, the shadow of the good things to come. My reading of the Bible and my understanding of Catholicism goes hand-in-hand. I do NOT find anything that is contradictory in the practice of Catholicism when compared with the Bible. You may find that amazing, but that is because your paradigm is different then mine. We all have a "big picture" view of the faith. And we analyze and judge the Scriptures based on that picture.

For example, most Protestants believe that man is "dead in sin" and is incapable of doing good, even with God's aid. Catholics believe that man cannot come to God alone - but CAN with God's aid. Thus, the different way we look at infused vs. imputed justice. I can certainly prove, from Scriptures, that God's grace is infused, making ME (in Christ) righteous. It is not my OWN righteousness, but mine in Christ's. There is no need for "either/or" - either me or Christ. It is BOTH. Thus, we view the same Scriptures entirely differently.

With this in mind, I am prepared to accept that you view Scriptures differently because of this paradigm that you have. My goal, however, is to DENY your concept that one can ONLY view Scriptures through YOUR particular paradigm. Thus, when you attack Catholics, I feel the need to defend our view. They ARE Scriptural, when explained. My purpose is to provide readers with our on Scriptures. I will then allow THEM to judge whether they think it makes sense or not. I am not here to convert, but to educate. I respect someone who has a conviction, even if it is not mine. And I expect that a Christian on the other side of the internet can feel the same way - since I presume that ALL Christians are to love each other especially. Thus, I am frustrated when people call me names, or when I give a valid interpretation of Scriptures and told I am a servant of the devil - by people who claim to be Christian themselves. The irony is not lost on me, nor is the hypocrisy.

My purpose here is to educate. I believe I am to educate others on the REAL Catholic point of view. If people know what the REAL reasons are that we do "x", perhaps some of the hatred will go away. Perhaps we can then have a better understanding of each other. Perhaps we can have more respect for each other. It is not necessary for one to "convert" to respect another's opinion - we can still disagree with it. I know a number of Protestants over the years that I have met that I am positive the Spirit of God dwells within them - and they continue to disagree on certain points. But that's OK, because we respect and love each other. That is why I defend my position. I do not attack you, I defend my own faith, as the Bible tells me - and to do it meekly. But it is up to God to move the other's heart. All I can do is explain as well as I can, leaving the rest to God.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Oops, my computer double-posted...

 

[francisdesales]

francis,

Your understanding of salvation reveals your position very well. It is the same position that all believers have had prior to being born again.

Solo,

This is what I am talking about. "My understanding"? You don't know "my" understanding because I have not mentioned it nor have I discussed it. I purposely avoided that so as to not change the subject. This leads me to believe that you have already stereotyped my belief into a little box and then proceed to judge me - naturally, I am not "born again" yet...?

According to the majority Protestant definition, being born again means making the proclamation in faith that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I have done so. My life has changed and I believe I have the good works to prove that I have salvific faith and that the Spirit is within me. Thus, according to the majority Protestant viewpoint, I am ALREADY born again, "despite" being Catholic... Did Jesus say one is not born again IF they belong to the Catholic Church?

I know that must depress you, but I personally see many such Catholics who have undergone a "second conversion", and they do it WITHIN the Catholic Church - they don't "leave to find Jesus"! He is right there on our altars, offering Himself to the Father eternally. What a gift God has given us and continues to give us!

Considering our discussions so far, I doubt that you have a realistic view on the Catholic idea of justification and salvation. You probably think we believe in "works salvation"... Thus, I will again educate you when necessary on our beliefs. Continue to ignore them if you desire. But at least know what they are. Your current judgment is likely based in error. Perhaps if you hear the truth, you will be set free of this hatred for things Catholic.

When you get to the point where you can humble yourself before God almighty, repent of your sins and pride concerning your stand on beliefs, and trust in Jesus Christ with the faith of a child, then you will be born again

What makes you say that I haven't already done so? I have totally given myself to God's beliefs expressed through the Church. I don't rely on myself. I trust that God continues to guide the Church.

I appreciate your prayers, and will ask the Virgin Mary to intercede for you to her Son in my rosary prayers tommorrow.

Joe

 

[Solo]

Considering our discussions so far, I doubt that you have a realistic view on the Catholic idea of justification and salvation. You probably think we believe in "works salvation"... Thus, I will again educate you when necessary on our beliefs. Continue to ignore them if you desire. But at least know what they are. Your current judgment is likely based in error. Perhaps if you hear the truth, you will be set free of this hatred for things Catholic.

What makes you say that I haven't already done so? I have totally given myself to God's beliefs expressed through the Church. I don't rely on myself. I trust that God continues to guide the Church.

I appreciate your prayers, and will ask the Virgin Mary to intercede for you to her Son in my rosary prayers tommorrow.

Joe

The Roman Catholic Church adds to Jesus Christ's work on the cross, and teaches:

• If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. - The Council of Trent - Seventh Session - Canon IV

Peter says the following:

• 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:22-23

Peter agrees with Jesus that being born again of the word of God, which lives and abides forever, is the path to eternal life, not the by partaking in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.

Salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Word of God, and if any add to or subtract from the Word:

• 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

There is plenty more that the Roman Catholic Church requires for salvation, but this taste will put to rest that the faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church includes a lifelong habitual reconciliation of sacramental sacrifice added to the work of Jesus Christ. In other words, the work of Jesus Christ is not enough to save a Roman Catholic from sin. They must commit to the Roman Catholic Church's rituals in order to be saved. The sad part is, that the majority of the Roman Catholic laity are doomed to hell because of the false doctrines perpetrated upon the laity.

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth 15 to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:24-28

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:16