Peter the Rock?

[JohnDB]

As I pointed out earlier (post #26), both St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom thought the rock was not the man Peter, but rather his confession. So your "plainly and clearly" declaration must mean that in your view not only were these Catholic saints just wrong, but they had their heads up their asses.

Isn't it safer to say that your conclusion is neither "plain" nor "clear," but just correct? Or better attested? Or more logical? Overreaching impinges your credibility a bit, and smacks of confirmation bias.

Of course a lot of things you say are true such as the confirmation bias....the way you say them might need to be toned down a tad. But whatever....

However, @Marymog & @RedFan

I'm a firm believer in "doing WHATEVER it takes to enter into Heaven" even if it doesn't seem correct to the rest of us. For some people that's going to church on Saturdays regardless of what the rest of us understand to be true. For others it's apostolic succession and priests instead of the priesthood of EVERY believer. Both groups doing their best with what mental faculties they have been given even though it flies in the face of scriptures (or at least it seems that way to us)

Not a one of us has a perfect theology or even perfectly aligned theologies....until we get to heaven. That's the reality of the situation. Granted we are trying our best and trying to get rid of certain confirmation biases of scripture that we ALL hold.

How do we really know?
Everyone knows what the letter "A" is...how did we learn that letter of the alphabet? Did the Bible teach it to us or was it Sesame Street or our kindergarten teacher or some other authority figure? And that's the start of confirmation bias....where we might agree with what that letter is and means...the parts after that are suspect because we all are different individuals and God reveals himself to us on an individual fashion as we are capable of understanding and feel drawn to him. I do not ever wish to inhibit that "drawing". That's fighting God...and something verboten as well as fruitless.

Just saying.

 

[Cassandra]

Hey Cassandra,

I may be the odd duck here on what the 'like' button means. I have questioned others in the past why the liked a post when the information in the post was clearly not true. One person that I questioned said, 'just because I liked a post doesn't mean that I agree with it.'

To me when one 'likes' a post that means they agree with it OR they are promoting it. Is that how you see it....or am I the odd duck?

Respectfully, Mary

I think with agreement of the gist of it that some folks will like a post. Sometimes I like a post because most is correct or good, IMO, but sometimes if I'm liking what i read and then I see something that I'm doctrinally opposed to, I will not like it. It might be fun to put up a thread, probably in the basement for folk to say why they like or dislike a post. I know sometimes if someone writes something clever, but may be true to the reader, and someone puts a laughing emoticon down there, I don't know if they are laughing at the cleverness, or if it is because they disagree so much it's funny to them,
And I am sorry if I came across as a snotz in my "I'll like what ever I want to like" post and am removing it.

 

[Illuminator]

For others it's apostolic succession and priests instead of the priesthood of EVERY believer.

"instead of"???

Our Protestant brethren are sometimes critical of the Catholic priesthood, pointing to passages in the New Testament that describe Christians in general as a “royal priesthood” or “a kingdom of priests.”

This leads to the concept frequently referred to in Protestant circles as “the priesthood of all believers.”

What is often unrecognized is that the relevant New Testament passages are quotations from Old Testament passages that refer to the Israelites in just the same way.

So if in the Old Testament there was a “priesthood of all Israelites” alongside a ministerial priesthood possessed by only some Israelites then in the New Testament there can be a “common priesthood” (to use a Catholic term for it) that exists alongside the ministerial priesthood exercised by Christ’s ordained ministers.

For it’s part, the Catholic Church acknowledges the universal priesthood of all Christians.

Are All Believers Priests? – Jimmy Akin

jimmyakin.com

 

[marks]

WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT PETER'S SUCCESSORS ARE AFFORDED THE SAME AUTHORITY AS HIM?

Exactly!

And considering the catholic's contradictions to so many Scriptures, no, there was no such succession.

Much love!

 

[BlessedPeace]

Exactly!

And considering the catholic's contradictions to so many Scriptures, no, there was no such succession.

Much love!

What do we think the Apostles Peter would think or say to learn an institution like the RCC claims he founded their doctrine?

 

[Illuminator]

Exactly!

And considering the catholic's contradictions to so many Scriptures, no, there was no such succession.

Much love!

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

1. In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation,
2. Timothy’s generation,
3. and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).​

​

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . .

[A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).​

Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of apostolic succession:

Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).​

Hegesippus (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).​

Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).​

Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).​

Cyprian of Carthage (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).​

Augustine (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).​

What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession

How did the early Christians determine which was the true Church? The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

www.catholic.com

 

[JohnDB]

"instead of"???

Our Protestant brethren are sometimes critical of the Catholic priesthood, pointing to passages in the New Testament that describe Christians in general as a “royal priesthood” or “a kingdom of priests.”

This leads to the concept frequently referred to in Protestant circles as “the priesthood of all believers.”

What is often unrecognized is that the relevant New Testament passages are quotations from Old Testament passages that refer to the Israelites in just the same way.

So if in the Old Testament there was a “priesthood of all Israelites” alongside a ministerial priesthood possessed by only some Israelites then in the New Testament there can be a “common priesthood” (to use a Catholic term for it) that exists alongside the ministerial priesthood exercised by Christ’s ordained ministers.

For it’s part, the Catholic Church acknowledges the universal priesthood of all Christians.

Are All Believers Priests? – Jimmy Akin

jimmyakin.com

No...that's not accurate.

We believe in John the Baptist "Believer's Baptism" as being washed in a Mikveh that allows us the ability to handle scriptures and to ask God directly for forgiveness of our sins. Jesus later expounded that we could ask for anything in his name and receive it.

So where the Old Testament does refer to a "nation of Priests" that's not exactly what is the driving scriptures for our beliefs today.

"Among those born of women there is none greater than John" is what Jesus said. And it's not like he was using hyperbole. Other prophets had done more and had more profound effects from their ministries. John the Baptist's ministry was much smaller by far comparison.
And where Baptising Jesus is no small feat in itself...that's not what Jesus was referring to.

 

[Illuminator]

 

[Illuminator]

No...that's not accurate.

What is inaccurate is the false dichotomy in the statement "For others it's apostolic succession and priests instead of the priesthood of EVERY believer." The Bible doesn't pit one against the other.

We believe in John the Baptist "Believer's Baptism" as being washed in a Mikveh that allows us the ability to handle scriptures and to ask God directly for forgiveness of our sins. Jesus later expounded that we could ask for anything in his name and receive it.

So where the Old Testament does refer to a "nation of Priests" that's not exactly what is the driving scriptures for our beliefs today.

Obviously.

"Among those born of women there is none greater than John" is what Jesus said. And it's not like he was using hyperbole. Other prophets had done more and had more profound effects from their ministries. John the Baptist's ministry was much smaller by far comparison.
And where Baptising Jesus is no small feat in itself...that's not what Jesus was referring to.

John the Baptist is off topic. What you need to do is justify the abolishment of the New Testament Priesthood using the "Bible alone" approach. I say it can't be done.

The Office of New Testament Priest – Jimmy Akin

jimmyakin.com

 

[JohnDB]

What is inaccurate is the false dichotomy in the statement "For others it's apostolic succession and priests instead of the priesthood of EVERY believer." The Bible doesn't pit one against the other.

Obviously.


John the Baptist is off topic. What you need to do is justify the abolishment of the New Testament Priesthood using the "Bible alone" approach. I say it can't be done.

The Office of New Testament Priest – Jimmy Akin

jimmyakin.com

Do you mean to tell me that you think that people could ask God to forgive their sins without a priest during the Old Testament....Uzziah would be first in line to tell you that this couldn't happen after getting leprosy and starting an earthquake by trying.

But all of John the Baptists's followers were and without so much as a sacrifice. Huge massively big difference.

 

[Illuminator]

Do you mean to tell me that you think that people could ask God to forgive their sins without a priest during the Old Testament....

I said nothing about forgiving sins in the OT. I said there was a three fold order of priests carried over to the NT. Evidently, you don't read my links. "For others it's apostolic succession and priests instead of the priesthood of EVERY believer." is WRONG because there is no "instead of". It's not a cast system. The common priesthood we all share does not exclude ministerial priests. The Bible doesn't do that.

Uzziah would be first in line to tell you that this couldn't happen after getting leprosy and starting an earthquake by trying.

But all of John the Baptists's followers were and without so much as a sacrifice. Huge massively big difference.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

 

[Philip James]

What do we think the Apostles Peter would think or say to learn an institution like the RCC claims he founded their doctrine?

That is inaccurate. The Catholic Church claims Jesus Christ founded our Church. on Rock and the apostles..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Philip James]

Do you mean to tell me that you think that people could ask God to forgive their sins without a priest during the Old Testament...

But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is right and just, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

None of the crimes he committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of the virtue he has practiced.

...

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity - greedy, dishonest, adulterous - or even like this tax collector

I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'

But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'

I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."


Pax et Bonum

 

[BlessedPeace]

That is inaccurate. The Catholic Church claims Jesus Christ founded our Church. on Rock and the apostles..

Pax et Bonum

The church claim is inaccurate.

 

[JohnDB]

I said nothing about forgiving sins in the OT. I said there was a three fold order of priests carried over to the NT. Evidently, you don't read my links. "For others it's apostolic succession and priests instead of the priesthood of EVERY believer." is WRONG because there is no "instead of". It's not a cast system. The common priesthood we all share does not exclude ministerial priests. The Bible doesn't do that.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

There is no apostolic succession mentioned in scriptures....

AND

More importantly,
If I can go to God directly through Jesus with my sins for forgiveness and my requests what do I need a priest for?
I also know how to read and write...I can study the scriptures using hermeneutics....been doing that since I was 7. Over 50 years of studying scriptures now....surely I've learned something. Maybe not a lot but something....

 

[Illuminator]

There is no apostolic succession mentioned in scriptures....

Yes, there are many indicators supporting it, your problem is you can't find the words "apostolic succession" in the bible, so you automatically conclude it's not there. I gave a proof text:
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

1. In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation,
2. Timothy’s generation,
3. and the generation Timothy will teach.

Is 2 Tim. 2:2 missing in your Bible???

AND

More importantly,
If I can go to God directly through Jesus with my sins for forgiveness and my requests

Catholics do that all the time. It's serious sins that must be confessed.

what do I need a priest for?

You don't because you are not Catholic. We don't impose beliefs on anybody.

I also know how to read and write...I can study the scriptures using hermeneutics....been doing that since I was 7. Over 50 years of studying scriptures now....surely I've learned something. Maybe not a lot but something....

Then stop 50 years of rejecting 2 Tim. 2:2.

 

[Tulipbee]

There was a previous discussion by @Taken and @Mr E about Peter being a rock or THE rock. Searching for threads concerning this I could not find any, so I am starting one.

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”​

In post #666 of that discussion Taken didn't look at the full context of the discussion between Peter and Jesus. Taken said, "The Whole HIGHLIGHT of THAT conversation WAS expressly….WHO IS JESUS!". That is such an odd thing to say when Taken did NOT give the whole highlight of that conversation. Taken left out the entire conversation. What about the rest of the conversation and the mentioning of the key? Taken seems to have eluded to the keys when he said, “IS” the KEY that opens the DOOR FOR “the ROCK”. Ie. The SPIRIT of God, The TRUTH of God, TO physically ENTER INTO A MANS HEART." None of that makes any sense to me, but to others it may.

No, Taken, the key that opens the door is not FOR the rock i.e. the spirit of God the truth of God to physically enter into a man's heart. What man taught you that?

The key refers back to Isaiah 22:15-22! The first century Jews knew what Jesus was referring to when he said keys.

Also, Jesus said that YOU are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and I will give YOU the keys and whatever YOU bind on earth and whatever YOU loosen on earth......IMO Taken changes YOU YOU YOU YOU into, Jesus didn't really mean YOU, he meant Peter figured out who Jesus is.

One more tidbit to think about; 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.

Thoughts?

Mary

[edited]

John Calvin in the Comedy Club​

Well, Mary, you've certainly given us a rock to chew on! But let's not get stuck between a rock and a hard place. I reckon if John Calvin were here, he'd likely have a thing or two to say about this, and he might not be as...rock solid on Peter's papal authority as you might think.
Calvin on Peter and the Rock: First things first, let's talk about our buddy Peter. Yes, Jesus called him "the rock," but Calvin himself said, "There is no reason, therefore, why any person should explain the word rock as meaning Christ." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1).
Calvin believed this passage did not refer to Peter as the singular rock upon which the Church was built, but rather, Peter's confession of faith is the "rock" - the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Calvin and the Papal System: Calvin was known for his criticisms of the papal system. He once wrote, "I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Four, Chapter 7, Section 25)
Now, Mary, this isn't to say Calvin didn't respect Peter. He just didn't see him as the rock-star Pope some might. He saw the keys to the kingdom not as a papal exclusive, but as something given to all believers. As he said, "The loosing and binding means nothing other than to declare and to pronounce, as far as his duty permits, who are worthy of the Kingdom of God, and who are rather to be thrown into eternal death." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles)
Calvin and the Church Fathers: As for the early Church Fathers, Calvin didn't dismiss them out of hand. But he did believe they could be fallible and disagreed with them when he believed they contradicted the teachings of the Bible.
Calvin on Mariology: And Mary, while we're on the topic of namesakes, let's talk Mariology. Calvin had respect for Mary and acknowledged her unique role in God's plan. But he didn't support the idea of praying to her or viewing her as a mediator. He once said, "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." (John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2). But honor doesn't equate to worship or mediation.
Calvin and the Gospel: Finally, let's end with the Gospel, the real star of the show. For Calvin, everything boiled down to the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. He wrote, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans).
So, Mary, while your rock-solid stance is admirable, perhaps it's worth considering that the church is built not on Peter the man, but on the faith he confessed. And this comedy club? It's open to all, because the Gospel is for everyone. Now, that's a punchline worth remembering! #CalvinistComedyClub #GospelClarityLinguistics
Let's keep this theological comedy club going! Any more light-hearted theological conundrums to solve?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus' statement has escaped many.

Consider what was also going on (other than what you have believed): Jesus confirmed who He was and how Peter arrived at the answer to His question. Then he in turn confirmed who Peter was, saying "You are Peter." But what was Peter's name before? Not Peter...and where did he get the name Peter? Jesus gave him the name Peter. This is the overlooked framework of the conversation.

Jesus had just confirmed who He was...and then confirmed it again by showing that just as Peter's name was given to him by God (Jesus), God had likewise named Jesus as the Christ...now by Peter's confirmation. Meaning, that the conversation was not about Peter per se, but about the means by which Jesus would also build his church. Which He did by showing Peter just how he too had gotten his own name by God.

He then goes on to include Peter--not in giving him the power of God, but simply by stating of Peter what was thereafter to be true of everyone to be included in His church: "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." It was not that Jesus was giving Peter a special office, but rather that all people would decide their own eternal fate by their own actions on earth. Thus, it is indeed a personal matter, but not just regarding Peter, but regarding everyone...as it is Jesus alone who holds the "keys of heaven", and He alone who has opened heaven to all who would enter in.

Jesus holds the keys to heaven--not Peter.

Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven – just as God gave Eliakim the keys to the House of David (Isa. 22:20-22).

It is similar to when Pharoah gave Joseph the keys to his kingdom by giving him (Joseph) full authority over it. This is NOT an unfamiliar theme in Scripture.

By the way - Jesus didn’t give Simon the name “Peter”. He called him “Kepha”, which is the only word in Aramaic for “Rock”. This is why Paul uses the Greek transliteration, “Cephas” ion his letters.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I haven't read this whole thread, so I'll just answer the question of what is the ROCK. Peter's statement is the Rock or Foundation of the Church.

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.​

WRONG.

Jesus said:
Marr. 16:18
And I tell YOU that YOU are Peter (Kepha), and on this rock (Kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

“Kepha” is the ONLY Aramaic term for “Rock”.
This is why Paul refers to him as “Cephas” ion his let

 

[Illuminator]

John Calvin in the Comedy Club​

Well, Mary, you've certainly given us a rock to chew on! But let's not get stuck between a rock and a hard place. I reckon if John Calvin were here, he'd likely have a thing or two to say about this, and he might not be as...rock solid on Peter's papal authority as you might think.
Calvin on Peter and the Rock: First things first, let's talk about our buddy Peter. Yes, Jesus called him "the rock," but Calvin himself said, "There is no reason, therefore, why any person should explain the word rock as meaning Christ." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1).
Calvin believed this passage did not refer to Peter as the singular rock upon which the Church was built, but rather, Peter's confession of faith is the "rock" - the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Calvin and the Papal System: Calvin was known for his criticisms of the papal system. He once wrote, "I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Four, Chapter 7, Section 25)
Now, Mary, this isn't to say Calvin didn't respect Peter. He just didn't see him as the rock-star Pope some might. He saw the keys to the kingdom not as a papal exclusive, but as something given to all believers. As he said, "The loosing and binding means nothing other than to declare and to pronounce, as far as his duty permits, who are worthy of the Kingdom of God, and who are rather to be thrown into eternal death." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles)
Calvin and the Church Fathers: As for the early Church Fathers, Calvin didn't dismiss them out of hand. But he did believe they could be fallible and disagreed with them when he believed they contradicted the teachings of the Bible.
Calvin on Mariology: And Mary, while we're on the topic of namesakes, let's talk Mariology. Calvin had respect for Mary and acknowledged her unique role in God's plan. But he didn't support the idea of praying to her or viewing her as a mediator. He once said, "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." (John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2). But honor doesn't equate to worship or mediation.
Calvin and the Gospel: Finally, let's end with the Gospel, the real star of the show. For Calvin, everything boiled down to the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. He wrote, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans).
So, Mary, while your rock-solid stance is admirable, perhaps it's worth considering that the church is built not on Peter the man, but on the faith he confessed. And this comedy club? It's open to all, because the Gospel is for everyone. Now, that's a punchline worth remembering! #CalvinistComedyClub #GospelClarityLinguistics
Let's keep this theological comedy club going! Any more light-hearted theological conundrums to solve?

64 Critiques Of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

I literally responded line-by-line to almost all of Book IV of the seminal theological work, "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. It runs about 500 pages. Plus more...

www.patheos.com