Secure Eternal Salvation

[post]

God told Moses on Mt. Sinai:
Exod. 19:4-6
‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

and did they obey Him fully and keep that covenant?

 

[BreadOfLife]

paul also rebuked peter. Which proved peter had no real authority over the church as a whole
You also ignore the fact the Jesus called peter a small stone, and said on this boulder he will build his church
The boulder is Jesus, more literally the fact that you are christ the son of the living God.
Jesu sis the chief cornerstone. A cornerstone was the largest stone in the building. it is also the stone in which the whole foundation is laid on.
Peter, the smaller stone, was just one of the smaller stone.

WOW.
I'ts really difficult fot me to believe that a person can come yo a debate forum and be so woefully-unprepared.
Time for another Lesson . . .

First of all, it might interest you to know that Jesus spoke Aramaic to His disciples - NOT Koine Greek. This is acknowledged by most reputable scholars evidenced in part by the many examples of Aramaic words and transliterations in the Gospels:
Ephphatha (Εφφαθά) Mark 7:34
Abba (Αββά[ς]) Mark 14:36
Raca (Ρακά) Matthew 5:22
Mammon (Μαμωνάς) Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:9–13 2 Clement 6
Rabbuni (Ραββουνί) John 20:16

Understanding this - Jesus did NOT say:
"You are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church."
In Aramaic, there is onlt ONE word for "Rock" - and that is "KEPHA".

So, what Jesus actually said was:
"You are KEPHA and upon this KEPHA I will build my church."

In the Greek - "Petra" is a feminine noun and would HARFLY be used to describe a man - so the nasculine noun "Petros" is used. Using "Petra" would have been tantamount to calling him "Patricia".

Here are many eminent Protestant scholars who agree - who, unlike YOU, understand the linguistic umplications of Scripture . . .
W.F. Albright (Protestant) 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].

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].

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].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.”
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

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].

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)

 

[BreadOfLife]

and did they obey Him fully and keep that covenant?

YOU know as well as I do that this is irrelebant.
How many Christians do you know that never sin or stumble - yet we are also a "holy priesthoodd"?

 

[post]

YOU know as well as I do that this is irrelebant.
How many Christians do you know that never sin or stumble - yet we are also a "holy priesthoodd"?

you read Exodus 19.

God said to those under Sinai, "if you obey me fully and keep my covenant... you will be a kingdom of priests"

so if God puts this condition in that promise to those people, who are you to declare His word irrelevant?
and the law came through Moses, but grace and peace through Jesus Christ - was our present salvation and standing in Him accomplished through works of the law?

therefore my question remains:
did they obey Him fully and keep that covenant?
no?
now you know well that they did not. therefore your previous assertion that Israel was universally priests is falsified.

 

[post]

a "holy priesthoodd"?

we find this 4 times in scripture:

• Exodus 19, as a conditional premise, "if" and that condition was not met
• Isaiah 61, a yet future promise at that time, long after Moses, without a condition, raither announced by the mercy and favour of God
  • the very place Christ quotes in Luke 4:21 saying today this is fulfilled in your hearing
• 1 Peter 2, spoken "to you who believe" as a present possession, apart from condition other than belief
• Revelation 1, again a present possession by virtue of God Himself washing us with His own blood, not through works, not through sacraments, but by grace through faith; by God's own hand, not by human hands - spoken to all of the 7 churches, and spoken of in past tense: He, and He alone has done this

so you see that Israel, because of unbelief, did not enter the land -- and by their stumbling we Gentiles were grafted in. how much more glorious will be their inclusion?

not even your own patricial writings ever recognize the priesthood of all believers as being the antitype of Exodus 19:6. go read them - they by and large liken it to the anointing of Aaron, his being with corporeal oil but ours with the Holy Spirit. they do err tho in their subjugating God's word to the authority of men, calling their self-appointed and so-called 'holy order' greater than God's own order which He promised through prophets and accomplished through His own blood.

if then my body is the temple of the Lord, and He dwells in me, shall another man perform the services in my own body?
am i disallowed by some human hierarchy to offer sacrifices? will you forbid me to pray? can you call unclean what God has cleansed? can man take away what God has given?
not at all! the veil is rent and i go boldly into the holy place, sprinkled with His blood!
what common Israelite under Moses ever did this?

 

[post]

Understanding this - Jesus did NOT say:

"You are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church."
In Aramaic, there is onlt ONE word for "Rock" - and that is "KEPHA".

So, what Jesus actually said was:
"You are KEPHA and upon this KEPHA I will build my church."

interesting,

so are you in possession of an Aramaic copy of Matthew, that predates the existing Greek manuscripts?

or are you just making things up, changing scripture by personal fiat, in order to mold it to your pre-determined views?

L
O
L

 

[post]

Jesus did NOT say:
"You are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church."

maybe write your bro Jerome and let him know his mistake...

et Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam Meam
et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam

​

 

[BreadOfLife]

you read Exodus 19.
God said to those under Sinai, "if you obey me fully and keep my covenant... you will be a kingdom of priests"
so if God puts this condition in that promise to those people, who are you to declare His word irrelevant?
and the law came through Moses, but grace and peace through Jesus Christ - was our present salvation and standing in Him accomplished through works of the law?

therefore my question remains:
did they obey Him fully and keep that covenant?
no?
now you know well that they did not. therefore your previous assertion that Israel was universally priests is falsified.

I didn't say God's WORD was irrelevant.

I said YOUR claim was irrelevant because the Jews weren’t obedient as a NATION. However, there were MANY examples of faithful and obedient Jews in Scripture.
The SAME is true of Christians.

God puts conditions on salvation - yet most Protestants here believe in OSAS.
Why don't I see you rebuking that false doctrine?

 

[BreadOfLife]

maybe write your bro Jerome and let him know his mistake...

et Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam Meam
et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
​

​

How is the Greek a "mistake"?
Apparently, you didn't nderstand what I taught you back in post #180 - so pay close attention . . .

In the Greek - "Petra" is a feminine noun and would HARFLY be used to describe a man - so the nasculine noun "Petros" is used. Using "Petra" would have been tantamount to calling him "Patricia".

Can you understand that - or is there a simpler way that I can explain this to you?

 

[BreadOfLife]

interesting,

so are you in possession of an Aramaic copy of Matthew, that predates the existing Greek manuscripts?

or are you just making things up, changing scripture by personal fiat, in order to mold it to your pre-determined views?

L
O
L

WOW - what ignorance . . .

Let's see . . . Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Papias ALL wrote about how Mathhew's Gospel was originally wrotten in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.

However - this is completely irrelevant as to the fact that Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic to each other, which was the lingus franca amonhg 1st century Jews. Koine Greek was the common WRITTEN form. Wvwn if Matthew had been written in Sqahili - the Jews still SPOKE Aramaic to each other.

Do
Your
Homework

 

[BreadOfLife]

we find this 4 times in scripture:

• Exodus 19, as a conditional premise, "if" and that condition was not met
• Isaiah 61, a yet future promise at that time, long after Moses, without a condition, raither announced by the mercy and favour of God
  • the very place Christ quotes in Luke 4:21 saying today this is fulfilled in your hearing
• 1 Peter 2, spoken "to you who believe" as a present possession, apart from condition other than belief
• Revelation 1, again a present possession by virtue of God Himself washing us with His own blood, not through works, not through sacraments, but by grace through faith; by God's own hand, not by human hands - spoken to all of the 7 churches, and spoken of in past tense: He, and He alone has done this

so you see that Israel, because of unbelief, did not enter the land -- and by their stumbling we Gentiles were grafted in. how much more glorious will be their inclusion?

not even your own patricial writings ever recognize the priesthood of all believers as being the antitype of Exodus 19:6. go read them - they by and large liken it to the anointing of Aaron, his being with corporeal oil but ours with the Holy Spirit. they do err tho in their subjugating God's word to the authority of men, calling their self-appointed and so-called 'holy order' greater than God's own order which He promised through prophets and accomplished through His own blood.

if then my body is the temple of the Lord, and He dwells in me, shall another man perform the services in my own body?
am i disallowed by some human hierarchy to offer sacrifices? will you forbid me to pray? can you call unclean what God has cleansed? can man take away what God has given?
not at all! the veil is rent and i go boldly into the holy place, sprinkled with His blood!
what common Israelite under Moses ever did this?

I can't take ANYTHING away from you that God has given.
But YOU can walk away from it (Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19).

And once more - Israel as a NATION and INDIVIDUAL Israelites are NOT the same thing.
Do your homework.

 

[BreadOfLife]

maybe write your bro Jerome and let him know his mistake...

et Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam Meam
et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
​

Haven't you ever wondered why Paul refers to Peter as "Cephas in his letters??
Cephas is a Greek transliteration (sorry for the big word) of the Aramaic "Kepha".

Read through all of the Protestant scholarship I gave you back in post #180 and try to respond intelligently . . .

 

[post]

Why don't I see you rebuking that false doctrine?

because He will not lose even one of those given to Him - and if they are given, they are a possession, purchased and precious.

​

How is the Greek a "mistake"?
Apparently, you didn't nderstand what I taught you back in post #180 - so pay close attention . . .

In the Greek - "Petra" is a feminine noun and would HARFLY be used to describe a man - so the nasculine noun "Petros" is used. Using "Petra" would have been tantamount to calling him "Patricia".

Can you understand that - or is there a simpler way that I can explain this to you?

this is all previously discussed, but it's a plain fact that Petros & Petram are different nouns - you are telling me now that Jerome is in error, so in your gang doesn't that make you an excommunicado heretic?

and you didn't answer my question btw. if you have an Aramaic version of Matthew predating all the extant Greek manuscripts, please post it; i would like to see it. in the absence of that, you are doing nothing more than eisegeting, and worse, thinking to change the word of God.

 

[post]

But YOU can walk away from it

you confessed yourself what God has done, no man overturns:
who is it that puts sinew on dry bones?
who snatches His posession out of His hand?

take one look at my avatar -- do you think i am capable of walking a single step without Someone adding strength to me?

please go read Proverbs 16:9 and do not talk to me again for 3 days and 3 nights.
you need to stop and think.

 

[post]

btw in Syriac:

Ke'pha -- a pebble; a small, moveable stone

Shu'a -- a boulder or bedrock

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Ke'pha -- a pebble; a small, moveable stone

Shu'a -- a boulder or bedrock

So Gods church is built on a pebble?

Lol

 

[post]

So Gods church is built on a pebble?

Lol

lol!

that or the peshitta, which is at least 4 or 500 years later than Matthew, is wrong, and "That Rock was Christ"

 

[Illuminator]

WOW.
I'ts really difficult fot me to believe that a person can come yo a debate forum and be so woefully-unprepared.
Time for another Lesson . . .

First of all, it might interest you to know that Jesus spoke Aramaic to His disciples - NOT Koine Greek. This is acknowledged by most reputable scholars evidenced in part by the many examples of Aramaic words and transliterations in the Gospels:
Ephphatha (Εφφαθά) Mark 7:34
Abba (Αββά[ς]) Mark 14:36
Raca (Ρακά) Matthew 5:22
Mammon (Μαμωνάς) Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:9–13 2 Clement 6
Rabbuni (Ραββουνί) John 20:16

Understanding this - Jesus did NOT say:
"You are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church."
In Aramaic, there is onlt ONE word for "Rock" - and that is "KEPHA".

So, what Jesus actually said was:
"You are KEPHA and upon this KEPHA I will build my church."

In the Greek - "Petra" is a feminine noun and would HARFLY be used to describe a man - so the nasculine noun "Petros" is used. Using "Petra" would have been tantamount to calling him "Patricia".

Here are many eminent Protestant scholars who agree - who, unlike YOU, understand the linguistic umplications of Scripture . . .
W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
(The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
[Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
(The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
(Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

The Protestant Principle of Private Judgement means that individuals can disagree with Protestant manuals and commentaries, and invent their own doctrines. The result is further division and theological chaos.

not even your own patricial writings ever recognize the priesthood of all believers as being the antitype of Exodus 19:6. go read them - they by and large liken it to the anointing of Aaron, his being with corporeal oil but ours with the Holy Spirit. they do err tho in their subjugating God's word to the authority of men, calling their self-appointed and so-called 'holy order' greater than God's own order which He promised through prophets and accomplished through His own blood.

You should try quoting the ECF instead of making things up.

 

[BreadOfLife]

because He will not lose even one of those given to Him - and if they are given, they are a possession, purchased and precious.

Once again -
Nobodu can snatch is out of His hand.

Howevevr, WE can shoose to walk away from Him by our OWN doing - and we are warned about this repeatedly in Scripture:
(Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19).

this is all previously discussed, but it's a plain fact that Petros & Petram are different nouns - you are telling me now that Jerome is in error, so in your gang doesn't that make you an excommunicado heretic?

and you didn't answer my question btw. if you have an Aramaic version of Matthew predating all the extant Greek manuscripts, please post it; i would like to see it. in the absence of that, you are doing nothing more than eisegeting, and worse, thinking to change the word of God.

You don't read very well - DO you?

FOUR Church Fathers from different eras attest to an Aramaic version of Mathhew's Gospel. In ANY court, this would be sufficient corroborating testimony.

HOWEVER - even if Matther was NEVER written in Aramaic - the fact that Pater was called "Kepha" still stands. It is irrelevant as to whether por not Matthew's Gospel was written in Aramaic if Jesus, the Apostles and every other Jew in the 1st century SPOKE in Aramaic.

As I showed you before - this is why Paul refers to Peter in his letters as "Cephas" and NOT as "Peter". But, because you are so ignorant as to jow languages work - you insist that everybody spoke in Greek just because they wrote in Greek.

I suggest you READ post #180 and see what all of youtr scholarly Protestant brotherds who are experts in linguistics have to say on the matter . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

you confessed yourself what God has done, no man overturns:
who is it that puts sinew on dry bones?
who snatches His posession out of His hand?
take one look at my avatar -- do you think i am capable of walking a single step without Someone adding strength to me?
please go read Proverbs 16:9 and do not talk to me again for 3 days and 3 nights.
you need to stop and think.

Better yet - why don't YOU read the followoing warnings abouyt LOSING your secure position with the Lord - and explain to me why you think these verses are lying . . .
(Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19).