Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Big Boy Johnson]

If they repent they will.

and stay repented not having returned to living in sin.

Anyone can believe. Doing the will of the father in heaven is more than believing.

Exactly!

 

[JLB]

and stay repented not having returned to living in sin.




Exactly!

View attachment 73302

Amen

 

[Christian Soldier]

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10


The phrase "those God has chosen for salvation" is not in this verse.

Here is the reality of what the verse actually says... that they also may obtain the salvation


God desire that the elect ALSO obtain salvation.

No, God never said any such thing. God doesn't desire that the "elect ALSO obtain salvation. Paul said this, so lets get our facts right. God doesn't need to desire anything, He just speaks it and it is done.

 

[JLB]

Paul said this, so lets get our facts right.

Who inspired Paul to write those words?

 

[Marymog]

Peter is not the Rock upon which the church is built. Jesus is the rock and the proclamation of Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the most high!

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.

Why do you preach opposite of what Scripture says?

Curious Mary

 

[CTK]

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.

Why do you preach opposite of what Scripture says?

Curious Mary

Jesus turns to His friends and asks the question that still decides everything: “Who do you say that I am?” Peter blurts what grace has just placed on his tongue: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus smiles because He knows where Peter’s answer came from: “Flesh and blood didn’t reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven.” Peter didn’t climb to this truth; it was given. He didn’t discover Jesus—Jesus was unveiled to him.

Then comes the line people argue about: “You are Peter (a small stone), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Jesus is playing with the words to make a point. Peter is a stone God can use, but the Rock—the immovable foundation—is the revealed truth of who Jesus is, and ultimately Jesus Himself. This is how Scripture speaks everywhere: “The LORD is my rock” (Psalm 18:2); “Behold, I lay in Zion a cornerstone” (Isaiah 28:16); “The Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Peter later echoes the same thing, calling Jesus the “chief cornerstone,” while we are “living stones” built upon Him (1 Peter 2:4–8). Even Peter won’t claim the foundation for himself—he points to Jesus.

So what’s happening in that moment? The Father reveals the Son; the Son names the foundation; and the church’s future is secured, not by a man’s strength, but by the unshakeable Christ and the confession birthed by God’s revelation. The “keys of the kingdom” that follow aren’t a crown placed on Peter’s head—they’re the stewardship of the gospel Peter will preach. On Pentecost (Acts 2) and at Cornelius’s house (Acts 10), Peter “uses the keys,” opening the door of the Kingdom by proclaiming Jesus. Whoever believes this revealed Christ is in; whoever rejects Him remains outside. Binding and loosing, then, is the church declaring on earth what heaven has already judged—in Christ there is forgiveness and a new life; apart from Him, there is none.

Storms will come, Jesus says, and hell will push, but a church set on the Rock does not move. It was God the Father who showed Peter the true Stone. And from that revelation—not from anything Peter had done, or would do, but from Christ’s work ONLY —Jesus builds a people who stand.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Who inspired Paul to write those words?

The Lord Jesus did, thru the Holy Spirit.

Paul was not making stuff up as he went along as the false brethren following reformed theology claim.

The Lord explains this thru the Apostle Peter

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Marymog]

Jesus turns to His friends and asks the question that still decides everything: “Who do you say that I am?” Peter blurts what grace has just placed on his tongue: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus smiles because He knows where Peter’s answer came from: “Flesh and blood didn’t reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven.” Peter didn’t climb to this truth; it was given. He didn’t discover Jesus—Jesus was unveiled to him.

Then comes the line people argue about: “You are Peter (a small stone), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Jesus is playing with the words to make a point. Peter is a stone God can use, but the Rock—the immovable foundation—is the revealed truth of who Jesus is, and ultimately Jesus Himself. This is how Scripture speaks everywhere: “The LORD is my rock” (Psalm 18:2); “Behold, I lay in Zion a cornerstone” (Isaiah 28:16); “The Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Peter later echoes the same thing, calling Jesus the “chief cornerstone,” while we are “living stones” built upon Him (1 Peter 2:4–8). Even Peter won’t claim the foundation for himself—he points to Jesus.

So what’s happening in that moment? The Father reveals the Son; the Son names the foundation; and the church’s future is secured, not by a man’s strength, but by the unshakeable Christ and the confession birthed by God’s revelation. The “keys of the kingdom” that follow aren’t a crown placed on Peter’s head—they’re the stewardship of the gospel Peter will preach. On Pentecost (Acts 2) and at Cornelius’s house (Acts 10), Peter “uses the keys,” opening the door of the Kingdom by proclaiming Jesus. Whoever believes this revealed Christ is in; whoever rejects Him remains outside. Binding and loosing, then, is the church declaring on earth what heaven has already judged—in Christ there is forgiveness and a new life; apart from Him, there is none.

Storms will come, Jesus says, and hell will push, but a church set on the Rock does not move. It was God the Father who showed Peter the true Stone. And from that revelation—not from anything Peter had done, or would do, but from Christ’s work ONLY —Jesus builds a people who stand.

Hey CTK!

It's time for a study in linguistics, context, clear evidence of Peter's leadership among the Apostles and Christian History! You ready?

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition: rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.

In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus uses the second-person personal pronoun seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter. Furthermore, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He says, “I will build my church.” Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.

Throughout the NT Peter is listed first among the Apostles, Peter is mentioned 190 times vs 130 times for the rest of the Apostles COMBINED, Jesus told Peter, and only Peter, he would build his church upon him and to strengthen his brothers, he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom individually and then to others, Jesus changed Peters name (if you knew scripture you would know how important that is), he made a proclamation at the first church council that all agreed with and it became binding upon all Christians, speaking for The Church Peter condemned Ananias and Sapphirashe, he walked on water, he was the primary spokesperson for the church, etc etc I could go on and on but you get the point!

In historical Christian writings, from 1,800+ years ago, Peter is recognized as the rock that Jesus built his church upon. The Christian writings that deny Peter as the rock started 500 years ago.

The linguistics of that passage prove your opinion wrong.
The context of the conversation in that passage proves your opinion wrong.
The full context of the entire NT show that Peter was the clear leader of the early church which, by extension, proves your opinion wrong.
Historical Christian writings from the men who lived closest to the times of the Apostles prove, by extension, your opinion is wrong. Instead, you rely on the writings of men from 500 years ago. Why?

Mary

 

[CTK]

Hey CTK!

It's time for a study in linguistics, context, clear evidence of Peter's leadership among the Apostles and Christian History! You ready?

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition: rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.

In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus uses the second-person personal pronoun seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter. Furthermore, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He says, “I will build my church.” Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.

Throughout the NT Peter is listed first among the Apostles, Peter is mentioned 190 times vs 130 times for the rest of the Apostles COMBINED, Jesus told Peter, and only Peter, he would build his church upon him and to strengthen his brothers, he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom individually and then to others, Jesus changed Peters name (if you knew scripture you would know how important that is), he made a proclamation at the first church council that all agreed with and it became binding upon all Christians, speaking for The Church Peter condemned Ananias and Sapphirashe, he walked on water, he was the primary spokesperson for the church, etc etc I could go on and on but you get the point!

In historical Christian writings, from 1,800+ years ago, Peter is recognized as the rock that Jesus built his church upon. The Christian writings that deny Peter as the rock started 500 years ago.

The linguistics of that passage prove your opinion wrong.
The context of the conversation in that passage proves your opinion wrong.
The full context of the entire NT show that Peter was the clear leader of the early church which, by extension, proves your opinion wrong.
Historical Christian writings from the men who lived closest to the times of the Apostles prove, by extension, your opinion is wrong. Instead, you rely on the writings of men from 500 years ago. Why?

Mary

Hi Mary, I agree Peter plays a crucial role. Where we differ is in what exactly Jesus means by “this rock.” Here’s why I don’t think Jesus makes Peter the foundation of the Church, but rather honors Peter for the revelation he voiced and then entrusts him (and the others) with gospel stewardship.

1) The immediate context points to the confession

Jesus asks, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). Jesus then says, “on this rock I will build my church” (v.18). Grammatically and contextually, the nearest, driving truth in the passage is the confession about Jesus’ identity. The emphasis is on who He is, not who Peter is.​

2) Scripture consistently names God/Christ as the Rock

“The LORD is my rock” (Ps 18:2; 62:2).​

​

“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Ps 118:22; applied to Jesus in Matt 21:42).​

​

“No one can lay a foundation other than Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11).​

​

The Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20).​

These lines make best sense if the “rock” is Christ Himself (and, by extension, the confession of Him), not one fallible apostle as the foundation.


3) Peter receives commendation—not sole supremacy

Jesus blesses Peter for receiving the Father’s revelation (Matt 16:17) and gives him “the keys” (v.19). But later Jesus gives the same binding and loosing authority to the other disciples as well (Matt 18:18; cf. John 20:23). In Acts, Peter indeed uses those keys—opening the kingdom to Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10). That fits keys-as-stewardship for gospel entry, not perpetual supremacy over the Church.​

4) Peter’s fallibility is highlighted right in the same chapte

Just a few verses after the commendation, Jesus rebukes Peter: “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matt 16:23). That sharp correction doesn’t disqualify Peter from ministry, but it does caution against reading 16:18 as conferring an unerring, foundational status on him.​

​

5) The New Testament shows shared leadership

At the Jerusalem Council, James appears to moderate and issue the final judgment formula (Acts 15:13–21).​

​

Paul publicly corrects Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14).​

​

The “pillars” are named as James, Cephas (Peter), and John—plural (Gal 2:9).​

The picture is collegial leadership under Christ the Head, not one human foundation.


6) Peter’s own testimony points to Christ as the cornerstone

In 1 Peter 2:4–8, Peter directs believers to Jesus as the “living Stone,” the cornerstone chosen by God. He doesn’t point to himself as the Church’s rock; he points to Christ.​

​

7) Isaiah 22 and the “keys” imagery

Yes, Matthew 16 echoes Isaiah 22 (keys/household/steward). In Isaiah, the key signifies delegated authority from the king to a steward—authority that exists for the sake of the house and is not the kingship itself. Applied to the apostles, that fits the idea that Jesus (the true Davidic King) entrusts stewardship for opening the kingdom through the gospel—again highlighting His kingship and their service.​

Peter is honored, commissioned, and mightily used. But the New Testament keeps the foundation where it belongs—on Christ (1 Cor 3:11), with the apostles and prophets as a collective foundation beneath Him (Eph 2:20), and the whole Church confessing the same truth Peter announced: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” That’s the rock Jesus builds on—Himself, as confessed by His people.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary, I agree Peter plays a crucial role. Where we differ is in what exactly Jesus means by “this rock.” Here’s why I don’t think Jesus makes Peter the foundation of the Church, but rather honors Peter for the revelation he voiced and then entrusts him (and the others) with gospel stewardship.

1) The immediate context points to the confession

Jesus asks, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). Jesus then says, “on this rock I will build my church” (v.18). Grammatically and contextually, the nearest, driving truth in the passage is the confession about Jesus’ identity. The emphasis is on who He is, not who Peter is.​

2) Scripture consistently names God/Christ as the Rock

“The LORD is my rock” (Ps 18:2; 62:2).​

​

“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Ps 118:22; applied to Jesus in Matt 21:42).​

​

“No one can lay a foundation other than Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11).​

​

The Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20).​

These lines make best sense if the “rock” is Christ Himself (and, by extension, the confession of Him), not one fallible apostle as the foundation.


3) Peter receives commendation—not sole supremacy

Jesus blesses Peter for receiving the Father’s revelation (Matt 16:17) and gives him “the keys” (v.19). But later Jesus gives the same binding and loosing authority to the other disciples as well (Matt 18:18; cf. John 20:23). In Acts, Peter indeed uses those keys—opening the kingdom to Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10). That fits keys-as-stewardship for gospel entry, not perpetual supremacy over the Church.​

4) Peter’s fallibility is highlighted right in the same chapte

Just a few verses after the commendation, Jesus rebukes Peter: “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matt 16:23). That sharp correction doesn’t disqualify Peter from ministry, but it does caution against reading 16:18 as conferring an unerring, foundational status on him.​

​

5) The New Testament shows shared leadership

At the Jerusalem Council, James appears to moderate and issue the final judgment formula (Acts 15:13–21).​

​

Paul publicly corrects Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14).​

​

The “pillars” are named as James, Cephas (Peter), and John—plural (Gal 2:9).​

The picture is collegial leadership under Christ the Head, not one human foundation.


6) Peter’s own testimony points to Christ as the cornerstone

In 1 Peter 2:4–8, Peter directs believers to Jesus as the “living Stone,” the cornerstone chosen by God. He doesn’t point to himself as the Church’s rock; he points to Christ.​

​

7) Isaiah 22 and the “keys” imagery

Yes, Matthew 16 echoes Isaiah 22 (keys/household/steward). In Isaiah, the key signifies delegated authority from the king to a steward—authority that exists for the sake of the house and is not the kingship itself. Applied to the apostles, that fits the idea that Jesus (the true Davidic King) entrusts stewardship for opening the kingdom through the gospel—again highlighting His kingship and their service.​

Peter is honored, commissioned, and mightily used. But the New Testament keeps the foundation where it belongs—on Christ (1 Cor 3:11), with the apostles and prophets as a collective foundation beneath Him (Eph 2:20), and the whole Church confessing the same truth Peter announced: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” That’s the rock Jesus builds on—Himself, as confessed by His people.

Yup, Jesus is one of the corner stones of the foundation. But there are several corners to a foundation. Jesus clearly makes Peter another part of that foundation. Did He specifically name anyone else as a part of the foundation? No, He didn't. So clearly, He is naming Peter, and Peter alone, as an important part of the foundation of The Church. At no time anywhere does He do that with anyone else. As Scripture, and Historical Christian writings articulate, that plays out after Jesus has risen when Peter becomes the leader of the church........of which I already proved to you.

The Church was not leaderless after Jesus' death. Scripture makes it clear that Peter was the leader of The Church. Deny it all you want but Scripture and historical Christian writings prove you (or what your Protestant men have taught you) wrong.

Yup, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. He later bestowed that same honor on the other Apostles. Multiple people cannot use a key at the same time. Only one is in control of the key(s). Jesus made it clear that Peter was in control of the keys and the other Apostles secondary. The king holds the keys of the kingdom. But he delegates his power to the steward (singular), not stewards. Jesus did that when he gave the keys to Peter FIRST (WHAT, Peter was first in the eyes of Jesus) and then to the others.

Yup, Peter, a man, was fallible. But The Church is not fallible. When a fallible leader, the Pope for example, makes a bad decision or gets something wrong The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, corrects him and reveals the Truth because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Kind of like when Paul corrected Peter to his face. Also, if Peter would have been wrong in his decision at the Council of Jerusalem The Church (the other leaders of The Church) would have corrected him. But Peter wasn't wrong, so they didn't correct him.

Peter is the one who speaks first and settles the substance of the debate at the Council of Jerusalem. James agreed with and repeated what Peter had already said for his final judgment at the Council of Jerusalem. If James had just as much authority over the group as Peter, he would have been the one to take the initiative and settle the substance of the debate, not Peter. But James didn't, Peter did. The content of Peter’s speech was a matter of divine revelation. How do we know that? Because they said it (Peters decision) and subsequently everyone agreeing with Peter "seemed good to the Holy Spirit".

Yup, The Church had/has shared leadership and James Cephas and John were recognized as the pillars of the church. But you seem to contradict your own opinion when you say that James issued the final judgement at the Council of Jerusalem. If James issued the final judgment, wouldn't he be the leader? Here is another way to look at it. You are right when you say that James was the moderator of the debate at the Council. He was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, so he was the host of the meeting. However, Peter was ultimately the decision maker of a new doctrine the was binding upon all Christians after that meeting. Peter's decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit. In that meeting AND throughout ALL of the NT Peter is clearly the leader of The Church. Deny it all you want.......it's still true. And Protestant biblical scholars agree that it's true. They just don't think he was the first pope.

Do you intend to address how you are parroting a 500-year teaching of Protestant men and rejecting the men who lived 1,800 years ago?

Scripture says to take our differences to The Church so that The Church can decide who is right and who is wrong. Which church (denomination) do you want to take this to so that we can settle this?

Curious Mary

 

[CTK]

Yup, Jesus is one of the corner stones of the foundation. But there are several corners to a foundation. Jesus clearly makes Peter another part of that foundation. Did He specifically name anyone else as a part of the foundation? No, He didn't. So clearly, He is naming Peter, and Peter alone, as an important part of the foundation of The Church. At no time anywhere does He do that with anyone else. As Scripture, and Historical Christian writings articulate, that plays out after Jesus has risen when Peter becomes the leader of the church........of which I already proved to you.

The Church was not leaderless after Jesus' death. Scripture makes it clear that Peter was the leader of The Church. Deny it all you want but Scripture and historical Christian writings prove you (or what your Protestant men have taught you) wrong.

Yup, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. He later bestowed that same honor on the other Apostles. Multiple people cannot use a key at the same time. Only one is in control of the key(s). Jesus made it clear that Peter was in control of the keys and the other Apostles secondary. The king holds the keys of the kingdom. But he delegates his power to the steward (singular), not stewards. Jesus did that when he gave the keys to Peter FIRST (WHAT, Peter was first in the eyes of Jesus) and then to the others.

Yup, Peter, a man, was fallible. But The Church is not fallible. When a fallible leader, the Pope for example, makes a bad decision or gets something wrong The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, corrects him and reveals the Truth because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Kind of like when Paul corrected Peter to his face. Also, if Peter would have been wrong in his decision at the Council of Jerusalem The Church (the other leaders of The Church) would have corrected him. But Peter wasn't wrong, so they didn't correct him.

Peter is the one who speaks first and settles the substance of the debate at the Council of Jerusalem. James agreed with and repeated what Peter had already said for his final judgment at the Council of Jerusalem. If James had just as much authority over the group as Peter, he would have been the one to take the initiative and settle the substance of the debate, not Peter. But James didn't, Peter did. The content of Peter’s speech was a matter of divine revelation. How do we know that? Because they said it (Peters decision) and subsequently everyone agreeing with Peter "seemed good to the Holy Spirit".

Yup, The Church had/has shared leadership and James Cephas and John were recognized as the pillars of the church. But you seem to contradict your own opinion when you say that James issued the final judgement at the Council of Jerusalem. If James issued the final judgment, wouldn't he be the leader? Here is another way to look at it. You are right when you say that James was the moderator of the debate at the Council. He was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, so he was the host of the meeting. However, Peter was ultimately the decision maker of a new doctrine the was binding upon all Christians after that meeting. Peter's decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit. In that meeting AND throughout ALL of the NT Peter is clearly the leader of The Church. Deny it all you want.......it's still true. And Protestant biblical scholars agree that it's true. They just don't think he was the first pope.

Do you intend to address how you are parroting a 500-year teaching of Protestant men and rejecting the men who lived 1,800 years ago?

Scripture says to take our differences to The Church so that The Church can decide who is right and who is wrong. Which church (denomination) do you want to take this to so that we can settle this?

Curious Mary

When Jesus speaks of the foundation of His people, the Bible keeps the spotlight on Him as the unique cornerstone. That isn’t one of several cornerstones; it’s the One Stone that sets and supports the whole building (Psalm 118; Matthew 21; Ephesians 2; 1 Peter 2). Under Him, the apostles and prophets together are the foundation. Revelation even pictures twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles, not one apostle’s name alone. I’m happy to say Peter is prominent and honored—he confesses Jesus, receives the keys, and is mightily used. But the texts never turn that prominence into a perpetual, singular supremacy.

In Matthew 16, Jesus blesses Peter’s confession and entrusts him with the keys. We then watch Peter “use” those keys in history—opening the door to Israel at Pentecost (Acts 2) and to the Gentiles at Cornelius’s house (Acts 10–11). That’s stewardship. The same passage also shows authority shared with the others: binding and loosing is later addressed to the group (Matthew 18:18), and the risen Lord breathes on the gathered disciples with the commission (John 20:21–23). The Isaiah 22 key-imagery is about delegated stewardship from the King, not a new kingship vested in the steward. Jesus remains the Son of David; the apostles serve His household together.

About leadership and decision-making, Acts 15 reads to me as Spirit-guided, corporate discernment. Peter bears witness to what God did among the Gentiles; Paul and Barnabas add what they’ve seen; James roots the conclusion in the prophets and says, “Therefore my judgment is…,” and the letter goes out in the name of “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,” saying, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” If unilateral jurisdiction were intended, this is a surprising way to show it. The process looks like shared authority under Scripture and the Spirit, not one chair deciding for all.

You also raised the important question of fallibility. The New Testament doesn’t present “the Church” as an institution that cannot err; rather, it shows churches corrected by the Lord (Revelation 2–3), leaders corrected by other leaders (Paul confronting Peter in Galatians 2), and all claims tested by the apostolic gospel (Galatians 1). When Paul corrects Peter, he appeals to “the truth of the gospel,” not to an office above Peter’s. That isn’t anti-Peter; it’s the Bible showing that every honored servant stands under the same Word.

Since you asked whether I’m simply repeating five centuries of Protestant teaching while you stand with voices from eighteen centuries ago, here’s my response: there is not one voice from Rome or on Rome’s later claims—but I let Scripture be the measure of all later voices, ancient or recent. Receive claims – all claims but test by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). This might keep the clearest and earliest testimony—the apostolic writings—at the center.

You invited me to take our disagreement “to the Church” as arbiter. In Matthew 18, Jesus directs us to the local assembly for reconciliation and discipline under His authority and His Word. The New Testament never designates one later denomination as the court of last resort. What it does give us is Christ the Head, the apostolic Scriptures as the standard, and a lived pattern of shared leadership, mutual correction, and councils that reason from the Word with the Spirit’s help.

Since Peter’s role is in view, it may help to notice how the New Testament also treats Paul. If anyone had a résumé to claim rank, it would be Paul—halted on the Damascus road by the risen Jesus, commissioned directly, and taught by revelation (Acts 9; 22; 26; Galatians 1). He embraced a distinct calling as “apostle to the Gentiles,” planted churches across the Mediterranean, and wrote a major share of the New Testament letters. And yet Paul never claims to outrank the others. He calls himself “least of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:9), recognizes James, Cephas, and John as “pillars” (Galatians 2:9), seeks fellowship with them, and when he corrects Peter at Antioch he does so on the basis of the gospel, not because he holds a higher chair. In other words, even the apostle with the most singular calling models co-labor, not hierarchy. That lines up with the wider picture: Christ the unique cornerstone, the apostles together as the foundation under Him.

Christ is pre-eminent as the cornerstone. The apostles—Peter included—stand together as foundation stones. Authority is real but shared; stewardship is weighty but delegated; and Scripture remains the final norm for testing all claims, including our own.

So, I believe it is more appropriate to take this not to a or any church but to the Scriptures itself… but not to be rude or disrespectful to you in any way, however, your church has moved away from the Scriptures and has built its foundation on traditions, the Magisterium and perhaps they might even consider the Scriptures and the Word of God in there somewhere…. but it sent Sola Scriptura packing a very long time ago - their practices, teachings and doctrines are a million miles away from the first century teachings of Christ and the Word of God - Yup.

 

[Marymog]

You also raised the important question of fallibility. The New Testament doesn’t present “the Church” as an institution that cannot err; rather, it shows churches corrected by the Lord (Revelation 2–3), leaders corrected by other leaders (Paul confronting Peter in Galatians 2), and all claims tested by the apostolic gospel (Galatians 1). When Paul corrects Peter, he appeals to “the truth of the gospel,” not to an office above Peter’s. That isn’t anti-Peter; it’s the Bible showing that every honored servant stands under the same Word.

Wrong. The NT presents the church as the pillar and foundation of truth. If The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, it cannot err. Also, Scripture says if we refuse to listen to The Church on their decision we are to be excommunicated. If we repent and accept the decision of The Church, we are allowed back in. Soooooo The Church CANNOT err.

 

[Marymog]

Since you asked whether I’m simply repeating five centuries of Protestant teaching while you stand with voices from eighteen centuries ago, here’s my response: there is not one voice from Rome or on Rome’s later claims—but I let Scripture be the measure of all later voices, ancient or recent. Receive claims – all claims but test by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). This might keep the clearest and earliest testimony—the apostolic writings—at the center.

Soooo you have made yourself "Rome". YOU are the final arbiter of truth. You reject everyone else's authority. Got it.

 

[Marymog]

You invited me to take our disagreement “to the Church” as arbiter. In Matthew 18, Jesus directs us to the local assembly for reconciliation and discipline under His authority and His Word. The New Testament never designates one later denomination as the court of last resort. What it does give us is Christ the Head, the apostolic Scriptures as the standard, and a lived pattern of shared leadership, mutual correction, and councils that reason from the Word with the Spirit’s help.

You write a lot of words but never really say anything nor answer a question. I will try again: How can you and I fulfill Matthew 18:17 to settle this disagreement?

 

[Marymog]

So, I believe it is more appropriate to take this not to a or any church but to the Scriptures itself… but not to be rude or disrespectful to you in any way, however, your church has moved away from the Scriptures and has built its foundation on traditions, the Magisterium and perhaps they might even consider the Scriptures and the Word of God in there somewhere…. but it sent Sola Scriptura packing a very long time ago - their practices, teachings and doctrines are a million miles away from the first century teachings of Christ and the Word of God - Yup.

YOU believe it is more appropriate to ignore Scripture and NOT go to the church to settle our difference? Hmmmmmmmm......Fascinating.

Here is how our debate is going. Everything I have written I have used Scripture (and history and linguistics and context) to refute what you have written. You believe everything you have written has refuted what I have written and you have used your opinion on Scripture to refute me. What now? I have an idea: how about if we fulfil Scripture and take our differences to the church? Oh wait. We can't. Because you believe we should use Scripture to refute the other. Can you not see how your reasoning is circular? That is why Jesus established a church with AUTHORITY to settle these differences.

Got it. You don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but you then tell me that my church teachings are false and anti-Scripture. Which makes the leaders of my church false teachers. But you're not being rude or disrespectful If you are not being rude or disrespectful then what are you being? Judgmental?

YOUR teachings (teachers) and doctrines are NOT a million miles away from 1st century teachings and the word of God???? Who determined that? YOU?

Yes, The Church sent the false teaching of Sola Scriptura, which came into existence about 500 years ago, packing a long time ago. HINT: You can't practice something that isn't in Scripture and say Scripture supports it. Scripture literally preaches against Sola Scriptura.

Time to be honest CTK: What denomination do you belong to?

Patient and Curious Mary

PS: I must say you are the most articulate person I have debated on this forum. Even when you are putting me and The Church down, you do it gently and I appreciate that.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Show me where they taught OSAS and Sola Scriptura.

Show me where oral tradition rather than written tradition is to be revered.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Who inspired Paul to write those words?

Everybody knows the answer to your rhetorical question, but it doesn't mean that Paul was setting any conditions or requirements for salvation. He was speaking about his own struggle to defend the gospel, so it was nothing more than an exhortation.

There's nothing in the bible to support the idea that "we must" do something to be saved. The truth is believers don't contribute anything towards their salvation. The bible makes it clear that the best we can contribute towards our salvation is filthy rags.

 

[JLB]

Everybody knows the answer to your rhetorical question, but it doesn't mean that Paul was setting any conditions or requirements for salvation. He was speaking about his own struggle to defend the gospel, so it was nothing more than an exhortation.

There's nothing in the bible to support the idea that "we must" do something to be saved. The truth is believers don't contribute anything towards their salvation. The bible makes it clear that the best we can contribute towards our salvation is filthy rags.

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10


We all see clearly that in this statement by Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the elect refers to the Jews.


Paul stated many times about his zeal to reach his own countrymen, the Jews, from whom the Messiah came.


This is the context of the meaning of being chosen or predestined; chose for God's purpose not chosen for salvation.


For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:3-5

• of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

The Jews were "chosen" (elected) to be the bloodline lineage from whom Christ came.

This speaks of purpose, elected for purpose, not elected for salvation.

for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls. Romans 9:11

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

Why do you preach opposite of what Scripture says?

Curious Mary

I DO NOT PREACH AGAINST SCRIPTURE.

Matthew 16:15-19

King James Version

​

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 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.

Peter is petros- a stone
rock is petra is ledge or masive rock!

Jesus wasn't saying He would build the church on peter but on the statement of Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living god!

We are built upon teh truth that Jesus is the Messiah- not that Simon was renamed Peter.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

With all of the Biblical and linguistic evidence I have presented in our debate – YOU have presented NOTHING but denial. I think it’s glaringly apparent that you have LOST the “Adelphos” argument . . .

To this I only say you are a liar!

I only lost to one who refuses to accept the definitions as given and not implied.