Peter Was Never The Rock

[epostle1]

The Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour AND Good Shepherd. Trust Him for the wisdom in understanding His words as kept by those who loved Him & His words in the KJV Bible.

Do you mean YOU are the final authority in understanding His words?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Authentic scriptures were proven by Apostolic Tradition to weed out false scriptures. The standard Protestant argument is to change the meaning of Apostolic Tradition, more straw man fallacies.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Of course we should ask God for wisdom, but this has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Nowhere in scripture is "word of God" confined to the written word alone. You reject the very Tradition that made the Bible possible, which is contradictory and illogical.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

This is all very pious preaching but I have a Bible. This has nothing to do with the current discussion.

 

[ScottA]

Hi Scott,

It seems to me you are saying that Jesus was the earthly head (leader) of The Church when he was alive and after his death there was no leader of The Church and there never will be?

Mary!!

Yes.

 

[ScottA]

Do you mean YOU are the final authority in understanding His words?

You twist my words. I clearly said Christ has all authority. In which case, if I am in Christ...and since you have twisted my quote of Christ's word - then, Yes, I speak for Christ - not because I have any authority of my own, but because I have authority in him.

 

[FHII]

Yes.

Marymog wrote:

It seems to me you are saying that Jesus was the earthly head (leader) of The Church when he was alive and after his death there was no leader of The Church and there never will be?

This is what Scott replied, "yes" to. I disagree seeing as how Eph 1 says that Jesus was given to be head over all things to the church (which is his body). This is well after he rose and left again. Jesus STILL is head over His Church, though there may be another mortal man (sent by him) in his stead.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Do you mean YOU are the final authority in understanding His words?

And yet you say that the RCC is the final authority in understanding His words. That is hypocrisey whereas I told you to go to Jesus for wisdom in understanding His words; not me.

Authentic scriptures were proven by Apostolic Tradition to weed out false scriptures. The standard Protestant argument is to change the meaning of Apostolic Tradition, more straw man fallacies.

There is no such thing as false scripture for there can be no lie of the truth in His words which is why the KJV stands alone as keeping the meaning of His words for us to have and follow by His help & by His grace.

Of course we should ask God for wisdom, but this has nothing to do with the current discussion.

It has everything to do with our current discussion. I say go to God to understand the scripture BUT you say the opposite by saying the RCC is the final authority on His words.

Nowhere in scripture is "word of God" confined to the written word alone. You reject the very Tradition that made the Bible possible, which is contradictory and illogical.

Your post have already been exposed as being contradictory. Dare you able to see that scripture DOES confined His words to the written word by which you are to discern good & evil by?

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Does it say when in doubt, go to Peter and he shall clarify all things? No. Did it say go to the one true church and the successor of Peter shall clarify all things? No. So either you see the RCC for what it is; a false head over believers when Christ Himself is to be your head, or you do not see at all.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 4:15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Ephesians 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

This is why the RCC is not the final authority because they are not the head of you for they are not God.

This is all very pious preaching but I have a Bible. This has nothing to do with the current discussion.

I point you to go to Jesus Christ for the final authority on the meaning of His words whereas you point to the RCC.

So I point out to you that for all the years the RCC has in giving understanding of all the scriptures, they do not have an answer to any of those scripture that reproves the works of catholicism. All they can do is be silent, and hope none of their followers will ever believe the notion that scripture cannot go against scripture to disregard the plain truth in His words that reproves the works of darkness that is in catholicism.

Truly, only God can deliver you from the blindness within that church's system of works and so I bid you an end to this discussion with you and leave you to God.

 

[mjrhealth]

There is no such thing as false scripture for there can be no lie of the truth in His words which is why the KJV stands alone as keeping the meaning of His words for us to have and follow by His help & by His grace.

Not even the KJ will stand up to scutiny thats why we trust Jesus alone. Otherwise enjoying what you write

 

[ScottA]

Marymog wrote:

It seems to me you are saying that Jesus was the earthly head (leader) of The Church when he was alive and after his death there was no leader of The Church and there never will be?

This is what Scott replied, "yes" to. I disagree seeing as how Eph 1 says that Jesus was given to be head over all things to the church (which is his body). This is well after he rose and left again. Jesus STILL is head over His Church, though there may be another mortal man (sent by him) in his stead.

Indeed, all who are guided by the Head (by Christ) and are of One spirit with Christ, have direct access to the head - we are one body. But no one part of the body is ever the head, certainly no mortal...since He has ascended. So, then, he whom is the Head, is the head, because he is ascended - absent from the body. Thus, we server, and even some are appointed to lead. But flesh does not lead flesh if we are in Christ, for the flesh is dead, but Christ is alive.

 

[mjrhealth]

Indeed, all who are guided by the Head (by Christ) and are of One spirit with Christ, have direct access to the head - we are one body. But no one part of the body is ever the head, certainly no mortal...since He has ascended. So, then, he whom is the Head, is the head, because he is ascended - absent from the body. Thus, we server, and even some are appointed to lead. But flesh does not lead flesh if we are in Christ, for the flesh is dead, but Christ is alive.

But He has to be alive to you if He is not than you will always chase some one to follow.

 

[epostle1]

No wonder the Catholic catechism hardly lines up with scripture with that perspective, but yet they will insist on key singular scripture out of context for their doctrines of enslaving the members to the Church.

Your timeline is given out of quote box so the reader can read this.

"Here is the timeline:
Peter starts in Jerusalem. He goes to Antioch and is bishop of Antioch for several years.

At Pentecost we know that there were Jews from Rome and it is likely that some of them took the gospel to Rome. But the Church there needed an apostle to found it properly. And that apostle was Peter. In AD 42 James was killed by Herod Agrippa, who also arrested Peter. But Peter was miraculously released and then it concludes: Then he departed and went to another place.

Catholic tradition says “another place” was a code for Rome."

That is an assumption from which ancient tradition may have based it on and thus without merit. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.

"There is an ancient tradition that Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. Also the Liber Pontificalis records that Peter’s pontificate in Rome lasted for 25 years. As he was executed in 67 AD that ties in with the date of 42 AD.

In Acts Peter is absent from Jerusalem from about 42 AD until 49 AD when he re-appears in Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem.

Why? The answer is that in Rome in 49 AD there was much trouble in Rome and the Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem. The Roman historian Suetonius records that the Roman Jews were rioting abort “Chrestus”. Peter would have left as well. In Acts 18:2 we read that Aquila and Prisca were in Corinth “because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome”.

In 54AD Claudius died, after which his edict was repealed, and the Jews returned to Rome. It is possible that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was written at this time to reconcile the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It seems that without the Jewish quarrelling about “Christus” the Gentile Christian number had grown. Thus when the Jewish Christians returned the church there was faced with new controversies that Paul’s letter sought to address.

Peter is thus the “other man” when he says to the Romans “thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation”. "

Again, you are assuming and reading that verse wrong too. Amazing how scripture can be done away with when it does not suit you in order to favor Catholic tradition. You are definitely reading that verse with Catholic tradition's bifocles on. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.

"There are many references in the early writing of Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome."

You mean early writing ABOUT Peter and Paul founding the Church at Rome. Those references found at this Catholic site below just had them citing Matthew 16 mostly rather than give any historical account.

Early Christian history as seen by the Roman Catholic Church

So basically, the early writings based on reference to Matthew 16 in applying it, established ancient tradition by matter of opinions. Continuing on...

"Finally another interesting point. The Liber Pontificalis says that Peter consecrated two bishops in Rome to assist him in governing the Church in Rome – Linus and Anacletus (Cletus). He also consecrated a third bishop, Clement, to see to oversee to needs of the universal Church.

These are the first three that succeeded Peter – Linus, then Anaclectus and then Clement.

Most of this I have taken from the book “The Eternal City – Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity” by Taylor Marshall, and Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism."

Clement did not avoid the appearance of covetousness in his epistle to the Corinth. The dispute was the church at Corinth was not giving anything to the Church at Rome which Clement seems to place authority on them that they have to give; and thus accusing them of jealousy because Cleme nt was making all the churches do this in giving to the church at Rome.

First Clement: Clement of Rome

"1Clem 14:2
For we shall bring upon us no common harm, but rather great peril, if
we surrender ourselves recklessly to the purposes of men who launch
out into strife and seditions, so as to estrange us from that which
is right."

Paul had written that only a portion from the bounty was given to the support of the saints ministering abroad; jealousy has arisen when the church at Corinth found out that the Church at Rome was not collecting out of need, but from every church to the selfish gains of the church at Rome. Clement was trying to justify the giving to them by using verses about the ones that minister to them, and yet he was not there in person to apply that to himself as one that ministers to them, but sending collectors out for the treasury at the church at Rome. That was why they were jealous.

Also the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is about having a heirarchy over a chain of churches.

Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth

Nicolaitanes as defined meaning "conquer of the laity" where in the doctrine is having a higher authority outside of the Word of God over each local church. So I understand why the church at Corinth was disagreeing with the Church at Rome.

So.. from Clement onward, we can see how the Church at Rome went astray when all roads leads to Rome, and vying for the head bishop over all churches became a covetous position of governership that Jesus spoke against.

Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Yes, I find it interesting on how Clement began the corruption at the Church at Rome where the gates of hades supposedly would not prevail against it.

The first link is a load of anti-Catholic crap. The second link doesn't mention POPE Clement having jurisdiction over the Corinthians which is not near Rome, a clear indication of universal jurisdiction. Your cherry picked quote doesn't say what you want it to say.
1Clem 7:3
and let us see what is good and what is pleasant and what is
acceptable in the sight of Him that made us.

1Clem 7:4
Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how
precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation
it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.
You're way off.

Nicolaitanes as defined meaning "conquer of the laity" where in the doctrine is having a higher authority outside of the Word of God over each local church. So I understand why the church at Corinth was disagreeing with the Church at Rome.

Really? Where?

There are two verses in the second chapter of the book of Revelation that fundamentalist Protestants like to twist into a condemnation of Catholicism. These verses are the only two references in Scripture to a group called the Nicolaitans:
Revelation 2:6
Rev 2:14-15
From a study of the etymology of the name of the group ("Nicolaitan" probably means "victory over the people") and influenced by their own antipathy towards a hierarchical structure in the Church, these fundamentalists are somehow, through an amazing exercise in twisted logic, able to conclude that Jesus, in revealing to John what he did in these two passages, is condemning Catholicism. It's pretty much one of the most baseless and laughable arguments against Catholicism that I have ever heard.

 

[epostle1]

There is no indication in Scripture that they believed that. Your only proof is the etymology of the name "Nicolaitan," but even this does not prove your case. The name could just as easily mean "victory of the people" or "victorious people." Also, Dr. John Lightfoot (author of your second link) says that the name comes from the word (hlykn) , "Nicolah", "let us eat", which they often used to encourage each other to eat things offered to idols (below we shall see how prevalent is this understanding of their practices).

Secondly, even if we do take it to mean "victory over the people" it does not follow from this that Jesus hated them b/c they believed in a hierarchical church. A group could be victorious over the people in a variety of ways. One way would be to successfully propagate a doctrine amongst them. This seems to be the meaning that is more in line with the actual Scripture passages regarding the Nicolaitans.

Granting that Scripture never tells us explicitly what are the "works" (Rev 2:6) and the "teaching" (Rev 2:15) of the Nicolaitans, from their proximity to the Balaamites (cf. Rev 2:14) we could rightly infer that these works and teachings were similar to theirs. We know of the Balaamites that they "eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality." An overwhelming number of Protestant Bible reference works (which would have no interest in affirming a hierarchical church structure) see this as the reason the Nicolaitans were condemned:

• John Gill, Exposition of the Bible (Rev 2:6): Though these Christians had left their first love, yet they bore an hatred to the filthy and impure practices of some men, who were called "Nicolaitans"; who committed fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness, and had their wives in common, and also ate things offered to idols;
• Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Rev 2:6): Michaelis' view is probable: Nicolaos (conqueror of the people) is the Greek version of Balaam, from Hebrew "Belang Am," "Destroyer of the people." Revelation abounds in such duplicate Hebrew and Greek names: as Apollyon, Abaddon: Devil, Satan: Yea (Greek, "Nai"), Amen. The name, like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. Compare Revelation 2:14,15, which shows the true sense of Nicolaitanes; they are not a sect, but professing Christians who, like Balaam of old. tried to introduce into the Church a false freedom, that is, licentiousness; this was a reaction in the opposite direction from Judaism, the first danger to the Church combated in the council of Jerusalem, and by Paul in the Epistle to Galatians. These symbolical Nicolaitanes, or followers of Balaam, abused Paul's doctrine of the grace of God into a plea for lasciviousness (2 Peter 2:15,16,19, Jude 1:4,11 who both describe the same sort of seducers as followers of Balaam).
• People's New Testament (Rev 2:6): Opinions are not agreed concerning this sect, but it is probable that the followers of a Nicolaus are meant who taught that Christian liberty meant license to commit sensual sins.
• Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament (Rev 2:6): It is even possible that the Balaamites of verse Acts 14 were a variety of this same sect (verse Acts 15).
• John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Rev 2:6): They allowed the most abominable lewdness and adulteries, as well as sacrificing to idols; all which they placed among things indifferent, and pleaded for as branches of Christian liberty.
• Easton's Bible Dictionary ("Nicolaitanes"): They were seemingly a class of professing Christians, who sought to introduce into the church a false freedom or licentiousness, thus abusing Paul's doctrine of grace (Compare 2 Peter 2:15,16,19), and were probably identical with those who held the doctrine of Baalam (q.v.), Revelation 2:14.
• Smith's Bible Dictionary ("Nicolaitans"): They may have been identical with those who held the doctrine of Balaam. They seem to have held that it was lawful to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication, in opposition to the decree of the Church rendered in (Acts 15:20,29) The teachers of the Church branded them with a name which expressed their true character. The men who did and taught such things were followers of Balaam. (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11) They, like the false prophet of Pethor, united brave words with evil deeds. In a time of persecution, when the eating or not eating of things sacrificed to idols was more than ever a crucial test of faithfulness, they persuaded men more than ever that was a thing indifferent. (Revelation 2:13,14) This was bad enough, but there was a yet worse evil. Mingling themselves in the orgies of idolatrous feasts, they brought the impurities of those feasts into the meetings of the Christian Church. And all this was done, it must be remembered not simply as an indulgence of appetite: but as a part of a system, supported by a "doctrine," accompanied by the boast of a prophetic illumination, (2 Peter 2:1) It confirms the view which has been taken of their character to find that stress is laid in the first instance on the "deeds" of the Nicolaitans. To hate those deeds is a sign of life in a Church that otherwise is weak and faithless. (Revelation 2:6) To tolerate them is well nigh to forfeit the glory of having been faithful under persecution. (Revelation 2:14,15)
• Barne's New Testament Notes (Rev 2:6): It is generally agreed, among the writers of antiquity who have mentioned them, that they were distinguished for holding opinions which countenanced gross social indulgences. This is all that is really necessary to be known in regard to the passage before us, for this will explain the strong language of aversion and condemnation used by the Saviour respecting the sect in the epistles to the churches of Ephesus and Pergamos.
• Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible (Rev 2:6): The Nicolaitanes taught the community of wives, that adultery and fornication were things indifferent, that eating meats offered to idols was quite lawful; and mixed several pagan rites with the Christian ceremonies.
• Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Rev 2:6): The teaching of the Nicolaitans was an exaggeration of the doctrine of Christian liberty which attempted an ethical compromise with heathenism.

Richard Chenevix Trench gives the most exhaustive treatment of the Nicolaitans (go here and scroll down to vs. 6), and his conclusion is one of agreement with what I have presented here.
Derek Thomas, Revelation Archive Index (Rev 2:15):
John Piper, Revelation Sermon Manuscripts (Rev 2:15):
John MacArthur, Falling Out of Love with Jesus (Rev 2:6):
Herman Hoeksema, Behold He Commeth (Rev 2:12-17):
Kim Riddlebarger, Sermons on the Book of Revelation (Rev 2:1-7,12-17):
(all these references are Protestant, so I can't be accused of doctrinal bias)
That the works and the teaching of the Nicolaitans were like that of the Balaamites is a conclusion too numerous in Protestant biblical scholarship to simply dismiss b/c you happen to have a beef with hierarchical church structures. Many of these scholars probably share your beef, yet they did not read that into the text, as it appears that you have done.
This is one of the main reasons they were hated by Christ.
Matthew 23:8-11 "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren .... Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant,"Jesus is not condemning the positions themselves but instead those who are in love with them, who pride themselves in holding these positions, and who forget that it is b/c God is Father, Teacher, Master, etc. that anyone is able to hold such positions on earth. We know this b/c Jesus tells us in just a few verses prior to the passage you have cited (cf. Mt 23:1-3) to respect the authority of the scribes and Pharisees who sit on Moses' seat. He would not have said this if he rejected positions of authority among the people.

If that weren't enough, we also see examples of a herarchical structure in the New Testament, where ever it mentions apostles (here), bishops (here), elders (here), priests (here), and deacons (here). It is true that the understanding of these positions was somewhat fluid in the NT church, but by the 2nd century, they started to take on a more definite form, as evidenced by early Christian witness (see here).

phat catholic apologetics: Were the Nicolaitans Quasi-Catholic?

The Nicolaitans were recognized as heretics first by Jesus, and by the Church, plain and simple.

 

[epostle1]

Indeed, all who are guided by the Head (by Christ) and are of One spirit with Christ, have direct access to the head - we are one body. But no one part of the body is ever the head, certainly no mortal...since He has ascended. So, then, he whom is the Head, is the head, because he is ascended - absent from the body. Thus, we server, and even some are appointed to lead. But flesh does not lead flesh if we are in Christ, for the flesh is dead, but Christ is alive.

Do you mean the Council of Jerusalem was fallible?

 

[mjrhealth]

Do you mean the Council of Jerusalem was fallible?

They are men , guess what

Rom_3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Men are not infallible simple.

 

[ScottA]

Do you mean the Council of Jerusalem was fallible?

I am not exactly sure how you mean.

If you mean whether they had authority or not...then, Yes, they had authority. But not as the Head, but as leaders. And while we are justified to do as they (the leaders of the church) say, we are not always to do what they do. Because, Yes, leaders in the church were and are fallible, mere men.

 

[mjrhealth]

Yes, they had authority.

From there church not from God, wish men would stop blaming God for mens mistakes.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

It's pretty much one of the most baseless and laughable arguments against Catholicism that I have ever heard.

What is more laughable? We say that Jesus Christ is the Good News to man but the teachings of catholicism says... no.. not really; you still have to go through us to save yourself in our church.

Is the simplicity of the gospel found in catholicism? No. Then where is the joy of your salvation? How can you tell others the Good News in Jesus Christ if there isn't really any Good News? How can you tell any one that Jesus is the Saviour when the Catholic Catechism says you are not saved yet?

Be a disciple of the RCC all you want but that is not being a disciple of Jesus Christ. You can only be a disciple of one thing in testifying of in seeking the glory of... and brother, and I do call you brother, you are laboring in unbelief by doing the works of catholicism to obtain your salvation by. It is a mystery how you can bear witness of Jesus Christ being the Saviour if your works says He did not really do it all as if what He has done was not enough.

 

[epostle1]

I am not exactly sure how you mean.

If you mean whether they had authority or not...then, Yes, they had authority. But not as the Head, but as leaders. And while we are justified to do as they (the leaders of the church) say, we are not always to do what they do. Because, Yes, leaders in the church were and are fallible, mere men.

Their decisions were infallible because the Holy Spirit was there (Acts 15:8). Mere men cannot be infallible apart from that. I am talking about doctrinal infallibility, not sinful leaders. The Pope is not infallible, councils are not infallible, only Jesus is infallible and He gives this gift to the Church to prevent her from teaching error, just like the Council at Jerusalem. You know the Bible is timeless. The Council at Jerusalem was the model for future councils, or you wouldn't have a Bible, or the full doctrine of the Trinity. There is nothing in scripture that says the Council at Jerusalem was a one time historical event, or the rest of the Bible isn't timeless either.

 

[epostle1]

What is more laughable? We say that Jesus Christ is the Good News to man but the teachings of catholicism says... no.. not really; you still have to go through us to save yourself in our church.

Because you are anti-Church that thinks Jesus founded a direct line to God system and His founding a Church is meaningless.

Is the simplicity of the gospel found in catholicism? No. Then where is the joy of your salvation? How can you tell others the Good News in Jesus Christ if there isn't really any Good News? How can you tell any one that Jesus is the Saviour when the Catholic Catechism says you are not saved yet?

Nonsense. We know we are saved, we just can't be 100% certain because Paul repeatedly says we must persevere to the end. You have your salvation ticket, you don't need to persevere.(which is not in the Bible)

Be a disciple of the RCC all you want but that is not being a disciple of Jesus Christ. You can only be a disciple of one thing in testifying of in seeking the glory of... and brother, and I do call you brother, you are laboring in unbelief by doing the works of catholicism to obtain your salvation by. It is a mystery how you can bear witness of Jesus Christ being the Saviour if your works says He did not really do it all as if what He has done was not enough.

If I believed half the lies you do about Catholicism, I would hate her twice as much.

 

[ScottA]

Their decisions were infallible because the Holy Spirit was there (Acts 15:8). Mere men cannot be infallible apart from that. I am talking about doctrinal infallibility, not sinful leaders. The Pope is not infallible, councils are not infallible, only Jesus is infallible and He gives this gift to the Church to prevent her from teaching error, just like the Council at Jerusalem. You know the Bible is timeless. The Council at Jerusalem was the model for future councils, or you wouldn't have a Bible, or the full doctrine of the Trinity. There is nothing in scripture that says the Council at Jerusalem was a one time historical event, or the rest of the Bible isn't timeless either.

Sorry, but that is a misunderstanding, an extrapolation based on not understanding what Jesus actually said regarding the building of His church. If you build on that original error, the foundation is not Christ, nor is what has been built upon that wrong foundation, his church.

When Jesus declared just how his church would be built, he was speaking "to" Peter, but not "about" Peter. He was speaking about how Peter had received the truth of who Jesus was, as: "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Peter was not he object or the subject, nor even the recipient of any office, but was simply blessed to be a part of Jesus' explanation. In fact, in that context, Peter was merely "flesh and blood", the very thing Christ said would "not" be the means for the building of His church. We know this is true, and that Jesus was referring to the Holy Spirit rather than to Peter, because Jesus then went on to announce the true builder of His church as being "another Helper" "the Spirit of Truth", whom Christ established. But, for this purpose He did NOT establish Peter. Peter, rather, was merely commanded to "feed" His lambs and sheep...as a servant, not the head.

 

[epostle1]

Sorry, but that is a misunderstanding, an extrapolation based on not understanding what Jesus actually said regarding the building of His church. If you build on that original error, the foundation is not Christ, nor is what has been built upon that wrong foundation, his church.

This has nothing to do with the Jerusalem Council, other than the fact that Peter was the boss. But if you want to go there...

When Jesus declared just how his church would be built, he was speaking "to" Peter, but not "about" Peter. He was speaking about how Peter had received the truth of who Jesus was, as: "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Peter was not he object or the subject, nor even the recipient of any office, but was simply blessed to be a part of Jesus' explanation. In fact, in that context, Peter was merely "flesh and blood", the very thing Christ said would "not" be the means for the building of His church. We know this is true, and that Jesus was referring to the Holy Spirit rather than to Peter, because Jesus then went on to announce the true builder of His church as being "another Helper" "the Spirit of Truth", whom Christ established. But, for this purpose He did NOT establish Peter. Peter, rather, was merely commanded to "feed" His lambs and sheep...as a servant, not the head.

His lambs and sheep included the Apostles, otherwise Jesus would have said this to all of them. He didn't. Just Peter. Jesus also prayed that Peters' faith would not fail.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter. (Aramaic has no gender, Greek does, because “petra” would mean “Rockette”, a feminine noun, so “petros” is used.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek.

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time. GREEK WAS A TRANSLATION.

Matt. 16:18 - also, 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).

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.

Protestant scholars:

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.”
(The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion"
[Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession"
[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
continued...

 

[epostle1]

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .”
(Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself"
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
[Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy"
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter"
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.