The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[RogerDC]

When they met, Jesus prophesied that Simon will be called Peter. When "Peter" had announced that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus addressed him by his former name of Simon for why He was to be called Peter for what "Simon" had said which was revealed to him by the Father.

BTW That reference you provided puts Cephas as stone per Strong's Concordance and not the rock "petra" that Jesus was going to build His church on.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So you can't say Peter means rock when the Bible says specifically that it means stone.

Rock is always a reference to deity in the O.T. and Christ is that Rock. See the list of Bible verses testifying to that effect at that link.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: rock God

You’re trying to claim that the Aramaic word, “Cephas” (John 1:42), means a little stone and not a large rock, but fact of the matter is, no such distinction exists - “Cephas” can be translated as “stone” or “rock”, but they are the same thing. The distinction between “stone” and “rock” is a Protestant invention and is not supported by the facts of objective linguistics (note: Bible translations are not always objective).

I have a French (Protestant) Bible - the French word for Peter and rock/stone is the same word - Pierre/pierre, so in John 1:42, Jesus changes Simon’s name to “Pierre”. A French Bible therefore offers the clearest contemporary translation of Matt 16:18 :

“… tu est Pierre, et que sur cette pierre je batirai mon Eglise”,

which in effect says,

“You are Pierre, and on this pierre I will build my Church”.

 

[RogerDC]

Seeing that this debate has gone far enough ...

You can’t answer my question and tell me why Jesus changed Simon’s name to Cephas in John 1:42, so you decided to take your ball and go home. Your admission of defeat doesn’t surprise me - I’ve been asking non-Catholics this question for years and none of them have yet provided an answer (not one worth considering, at any rate).

 

[RogerDC]

Matt. 16:18 – in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 – in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
You are the one that brought it up.

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matthew 16:18-19 according to man made anti-Peter traditions:
And I tell you, your confession of faith is the rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give your revelation from God the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever your confession of faith binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever your confession of faith will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Perfectly logical.

Excellent post.

According to some, in Matt 16:18, Jesus directly addresses Peter - “you are Peter” - but then starts talking about himself - “and on this rock I will build my Church”. That is just absurd, as it destroys the structure of the sentence.

Personally, I think it wiser to accept the truth of Scripture rather than deny and twist it with village-idiot distortions.

 

[Paul Christensen]

You can’t answer my question and tell me why Jesus changed Simon’s name to Cephas in John 1:42, so you decided to take your ball and go home. Your admission of defeat doesn’t surprise me - I’ve been asking non-Catholics this question for years and none of them have yet provided an answer (not one worth considering, at any rate).

From 42: Why Did Jesus Change Peter’s Name?
Ever wonder what God thinks of you? Or what type of potential He sees in you? The answer is simple: God sees greatness in you, and it’s because He put it there.

In this short episode, Kenny explains what we learn about ourselves from the simple name changing of an inconsistent fisherman named Simon, whom Jesus renamed “Peter” which can be translated “rock” or “big boulder.”

Many times in the Bible, God changed someone’s name because He was calling them to live out a new mission or identify with a new identity that God was giving them. This is exactly what Jesus was doing with Simon, seeing in him some great potential that no one else saw. Everyone else saw Simon, Jesus saw Peter.

 

[RogerDC]

Jesus said you are peter using one Greek word

and on this rock using a different word).

They’re not different works - in the context of Matt 16:18, “Petros” and “petra” mean the same thing - rock. Only the gender of the words has been changed - “petra” is feminine but has to be changed to “Petros”, which is the masculine equivalent, because Peter is a male. This is a peculiarity of the Greek.

In certain other languages, your argument fails, because the words “Peter” and “rock” (as in “this rock”) are exactly the same - in French and Aramaic, for example.

 

[RogerDC]

Were they calling each other "father", thus disobeying Jesus, like the RCC?

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

According to you, Jesus forbade anyone from calling any man on earth “Father”, yet Steven and Paul do just that - they address the Jewish religious leaders as “Fathers”. And Paul goes even further - he calls himself a spiritual “father” to those under his guidance. This means that either Steven and Paul disobeyed Jesus’ commandment, or your interpretation of what Jesus said in Matt 23:9 is wrong. I strongly suspect the latter is true.

Reading Christ’s words in an absurdly literal sense - as you do - means Jesus forbade anyone from calling their biological father, “Father”!

 

[Paul Christensen]

They’re not different works - in the context of Matt 16:18, “Petros” and “petra” mean the same thing - rock. Only the gender of the words has been changed - “petra” is feminine but has to be changed to “Petros”, which is the masculine equivalent, because Peter is a male. This is a peculiarity of the Greek.

In certain other languages, your argument fails, because the words “Peter” and “rock” (as in “this rock”) are exactly the same - in French and Aramaic, for example.

There is a problem. If the church was built on Peter, then everything came to a crashing end when Peter died! And when he did, there was no pre-eminent Bishop of Rome to take over from him. So, what happened in the intervening years until the Bishop of Rome assumed the overall leadership of the Church? At one stage Constantine had the overall leadership of the church, and he wasn't an Apostle, but a pagan emperor. That would have seriously interrupted the Apostolic Succession! And what about the rat-bag popes who were adulterers and fornicators who had illegitimate children? Also, the two popes appointed at the same time in competition with one another. Which one was Peter's successor? And what about the pope who was deposed by a jealous person who wasn't even a bishop?

Oh, you might be referring to "the Chair of Peter". But such a "chair" didn't even exist for the first few hundred years of the church. Peter never owned such a chair to be transported to Rome hundreds of years later, who where did the "chair" come from? (I'm jesting of course!)

 

[RogerDC]

Here we have the damaged fruit of a RC education . You suggest "knowledge" is not a component of biblical salvation?? … John has declared that these things are written that we can KNOW....

In the early centuries of Christianity, most converts were probably illiterate and never read a word of the Bible. They were taught everything they needed for salvation by the Church, but their knowledge of what is contained in the Scriptures would have been minimal. Most Catholics today (as in the past) don’t study the Bible - they don’t have to, the Church teaches them what they need to know to be saved.

Eph4 is clear to those who are not bound by the false teaching Roman Church;

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

How ironic that you should quote this passage to support your argument - it doesn’t contain a single word about studying Scripture!

You, my friend, have been deceived by that false teaching works-based gospel church that leads multitudes astray.

Catholicism doesn’t teach “a works based gospel” - she teaches what James 2 says … “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” and “faith without works is dead”.

The Scriptures repeated command believers to “repent” - repentance is “works”, so if you exclude works, you are in effect saying believers don’t have to repent. Your faith-alone gospel is not only unscriptural, it is a sure-fire recipe for dead faith.

God can and does save many simple and naive persons, but He does not leave them ignorant as you would suggest they remain.

I can’t recall suggesting believers remain ignorant.

The bible teaches us to study and grow in grace.

2Peter 3:18 does not teach that believers must study the Scriptures. Indeed, verse 17 says warns that some of Paul’s writing are difficult to understand and are misinterpreted by the “ignorant and unstable” - suggesting that interpreting the Scriptures should be left to those who are properly trained to do so.

The Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15).

This is true of every faithful local assembly.

Really? So your Calvinist church teaches the same truth as a Baptist church or an Episcopal/Anglican church? If so, the Holy Spirit is teaching different and conflicting versions of the “truth”, depending on which church one attends!

This God-dishonoring view of His word is why Catholics are ignorant of true salvation and the word of God

I fail to see how quoting Scripture is “God-dishonoring”. Eph 1:22-23 says the Church is the “fullness” of Christ; 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”. Which verses say the Bible is the “fullness” of Christ and the “pillar and foundation of the truth”?

Is “true salvation” different to your garden-variety salvation?

 

[RogerDC]

Jesus has given believers His word as the basis of biblical sanctification

Which verse says the totality of God’s “word” is the Bible?

Is “biblical sanctification” different to your garden-variety sanctification?

This is what keeps Catholics ignorant and multitudes of them are perishing without Christ.

Catholics are taught the essential Scriptures and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, so how or why are they “perishing without Christ”?

To try and suggest believers do not need the scripture is one of the most foolish posts I have seen anywhere. What a disgrace.

Did the “good thief” on the cross next to Jesus get saved as a result of studying the New Testament? Did the hundreds saved during the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) receive the Holy Spirit as a result of studying the New Testament?

 

[RogerDC]

I didn't know that Ephesians 2:8-9 said: "By grace are you saved through an ongoing process through faith plus works, being of yourself and something earned of God, and including good works."
This would have to be the only way you can read this Scripture reference to be consistent with your comment in your post.

It’s probably not a good idea to base doctrine on one passage of Scripture, such as Eph 2:8-9.

By considering the whole body of the NT, one can safely conclude that abiding in Christ (aka “salvation”) is a life-long process, that not only requires faith in Christ, but also requires obeying his commandments (aka “works”, cf James 2:24). Faith is only the first step of the process of salvation. Paul describes salvation as a race that must be run until the end - ie, until death.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I can't resist this one!
Some time during the 1960s-70s, the Roman Catholic church decided it was no longer a sin to eat meat on Fridays. Up until then, the faithful were permitted to eat only fish on Fridays. On the day that the decree was made by the Pope that the faithful can now eat meat on Fridays, a demon came up to the devil in hell and pointed to a very large group, and asked, "What do we do with all these ones who ate meat on Fridays?"

 

[RogerDC]

I have Christ and the Spirit of God, no need to rely on "self'.
And the spirit of truth will teach you all things.

So your interpretation of the Scriptures is infallible? If not, why not? If the "spirit of truth will teach you all things", then the spirit should teach you an infallible interpretation the Scripture infallibly, should he not? If he doesn't, then the spirit of truth is not teaching "all things".

 

[mjrhealth]

So your interpretation of the Scriptures is infallible? If not, why not? If the "spirit of truth will teach you all things", then the spirit should teach you an infallible interpretation the Scripture infallibly, should he not? If he doesn't, then the spirit of truth is not teaching "all things".

Arebyou so ignorant or is it you lack any understanding, how is it the Holy spirit teaching us amount to our intrepretation. You read the bible and than you try understand it, that is your ignorance and pride, " I read the bible so I can figure out God". So much pride arrogance and ignorance in men ..

God Jesus and the Holy Spirit being denied by men, but the time has come, who will stand.

As it was in the days of Noah..

Who will be left out when that door is shut for the last time.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You're confusing the promise and hope of salvation with salvation now.
Any verse that appears to say that we are saved NOW has been superficially misinterpreted and has not been interpreted in light of the whole body of Scripture - there are several verses that imply a believer can fall away, either from a loss of faith or by committing “deadly” sins. There are masses of formerly devout Christians who are now atheists - are they still “saved”? If you lose your faith, will you still be saved?

Furthermore, to claim that you are already “saved” is to judge yourself, thereby putting yourself in the place of the one who sits on the Judgement Throne - Christ.
And Paul says, "I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not therefore acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgement before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God." (1Cor 4:3-5)It is not a “completed” action - salvation is a life-long process (Paul likens it to running a race) and coming to faith is only the first step. Jesus himself said believers can lose their faith (Luke 8:13), and Heb 6:4-6 describes believers who “tasted the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit” but fell away and into “apostasy” (which means total rejection of their Christian beliefs). Your salvation is not “completed” until after you die and are judged and granted eternal life by Christ.

No one is saved by good works alone, but by faith and works. ​

You can lose your justification.No, you have been offered the chance of being perfected by one sacrifice. You are not perfected in this life.

Furthermore, the sanctifying effects of the Cross can be rendered useless:
“How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved for the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant BY WHICH HE WAS SANCTIFIED, and outraged the Spirit of grace? … It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:29-31)Not yet. So far all you have is the promise and hope of eternal life … IF you are judged “worthy” of salvation (Rev 3:4).That seal is conditional - it can be broken if you lose your faith or you commit “deadly” sins.
I'm sure you could, but I can do without more amateurish interpretations of Scripture.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by HIS MERCY HE SAVED US by the washing and regeneration of the HS

Romans 11: 6 if it is by grace it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace, if it is of works, it is no longer of grace, otherwise work is no longer work.


end of any discussion concerning works,

if you think you can work your way in, good luck

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Which part of the OT preaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ?

So paul lied?

you might as well throw your scripture out dude, it’s worthless, full of liars, half truths and non truths.

just burn it,

So what? Are you saying good works are all that is required for salvation? Actually, it can be argued that being “thoroughly equipped for every good work” is what 2Tim 3:16 is all about - hardly a complete recipe for salvation.

Now you have a comprehension problem

what can be argued is that scripture can make the MAN OF GOD (a person already saved) thoroughly equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK

stop fighting it man, open up. God is trying to teach you something

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

So your interpretation of the Scriptures is infallible? If not, why not? If the "spirit of truth will teach you all things", then the spirit should teach you an infallible interpretation the Scripture infallibly, should he not? If he doesn't, then the spirit of truth is not teaching "all things".

Another verse you do not quite grasp

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Which verse says the totality of God’s “word” is the Bible?

Is “biblical sanctification” different to your garden-variety sanctification?Catholics are taught the essential Scriptures and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, so how or why are they “perishing without Christ”?Did the “good thief” on the cross next to Jesus get saved as a result of studying the New Testament? Did the hundreds saved during the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) receive the Holy Spirit as a result of studying the New Testament?

More ignorant fruit of RC. Teachineng.
You now are not even quoting Catholic teaching accurately?
Catholics are taught defective church ideas wresting the scriptures.
The NT. Was not written as of yet, they had the OT. Scriptures

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

RogerDC,
Do not put your trust in a false priesthood who plan on on doing perversion to young altar boys.
I am sure their studies were going to be blessed.

 

[Truther]

According to you, Jesus forbade anyone from calling any man on earth “Father”, yet Steven and Paul do just that - they address the Jewish religious leaders as “Fathers”. And Paul goes even further - he calls himself a spiritual “father” to those under his guidance. This means that either Steven and Paul disobeyed Jesus’ commandment, or your interpretation of what Jesus said in Matt 23:9 is wrong. I strongly suspect the latter is true.

Reading Christ’s words in an absurdly literal sense - as you do - means Jesus forbade anyone from calling their biological father, “Father”!

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


Nobody in the NT insisted on being called Father, though they were "fathers' in preaching the gospel.

Only the RCC would directly disobey Jesus' specific command.

No other Christian group disobeyed, but the RCC does whatever it wants.

This is why they can easily bypass Jesus their supposed mediator and go to his mother instead.

 

[RogerDC]

But he nor the Apostles had to wear fancy hats and robes and be addressed as "your grace" or "your eminence". As soon as I see a religious leader wearing a fancy hat and robes and addressed as Your Very Reverend, my crap detector goes "Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!", because I see a person using a fancy getup and title to appear to have a spiritual authority that God never gave him.

In other words, like the Pharisees, you judge others according to laws that you invented and are not found in Scripture. Which verse says a Christian can’t wear a fancy hat and robes, or address a religious leader as “your Grace” or “your Eminence”?