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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
In other words, you have no idea why Jesus gave Simon he the name "rock" the very first time they met. Well here's a clue: Read Matt 16:18. It ain't rocket science.
Seeing that this debate has gone far enough it only remains for me to say that the religious connotations which undermine the various possibilities of conviviality through process or non-process are dependent upon the isolation of concepts that underpin the basics of incorruptible theories that arise out of thought processes that occur, or not occur over processes of time and space. Speaking about time and space, it is very nebulous to seriously consider the planetude of expressive communication that seem to arise when considering the possibility or non-possibility of the natural development of issues affecting the natural mental faculties that exist in all rational beings, attracting various platitudes that individuals are tempted to engage in. So this is my clear and plain position on the matter that even someone with half a brain can clearly understand.
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,730
8,306
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you understood the use of gender in Greek words, you would understand why the two different words are used in Matt 16:18 - and it has nothing to with your imagined difference between a small stone and a large rock.


Furthermore, you didn't answer my question: Why did Jesus give Simon the name Cephas - meaning "rock" - the very first time they met (John 1:42)?
1 I did answer your question,you do not agree with me, yet you lie and said I have not

2. The two words have two meanings, you can deny it all you want, it will never make it fact,

good day sir
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,195
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You won't get an answer because the truth shatters the man made anti-Peter traditions.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 – for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

Paul uses the Aramaic title "Cephas" about 5 times in the NT. Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5)It makes no sense for Paul to use an Aramaic term to Greek speaking communities, unless everyone understood what "Rock" meant. Jesus uses the same Aramaic name in John 1:42.

Strong's Concordance concurs. (2786) "Cephas" is Aramaic in origin.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RogerDC

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,195
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If you would stop listening to people, and actually go study for yourself, you would find the Greek writer, who inspired the written words, used two different greek words when he put this conversation in writting

he said, I call you Petros (a stone or small rock, a person who seems to be unbreakable) and on this rock (Petra- which means a large stone, bedrock) I will build my church

he is not building his church on some man who would later be called out by Paul because of sin,

he is building it on the gospel. The knowledge that Christ is the son of God, and in him there is eternal life

The thought God built a church an a flawed sinful human who had to be saved by the very stone Christ built his church on, is prety out there
So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites (Matt 23:2).
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?
Peter's "sin" was his behavior, not his teaching. This standard man made anti-Peter tradition FAILS.​
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,730
8,306
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites (Matt 23:2).
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?
Peter's "sin" was his behavior, not his teaching. This standard man made anti-Peter tradition FAILS.​
So what

god still used two words

he did not say I now call you Cepheus and on you I will build this church

he did not say you are now Cepheus and on Cepheus I will build this church

why Paul chastened peter has no bearing in the conversation
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,195
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
So what
god still used two words
he did not say I now call you Cepheus and on you I will build this church
he did not say you are now Cepheus and on Cepheus I will build this church
Matt. 16:18 – in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 – in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
why Paul chastened peter has no bearing in the conversation
You are the one that brought it up.

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

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

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,730
8,306
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matt. 16:18 – in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

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

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

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

Jesus said you are peter using one Greek word

and on this rock using a different word). I will build my church

the church is built in Christ. He is the chief cornerstone not peter. Peter is one of the foundation stones equal
With the other apostles

but he not the foundation stone
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,195
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Nice way to twist

Jesus said you are peter using one Greek word

and on this rock using a different word). I will build my church

the church is built in Christ. He is the chief cornerstone not peter. Peter is one of the foundation stones equal
With the other apostles

but he not the foundation stone
Jesus does the building, and nobody has said otherwise. Jesus doesn't build junk.
But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

William Hendriksen
member of the 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 647

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean stone and rock respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha and on this kepha), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78​

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
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. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 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.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252​

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. 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”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places, is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this 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 Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470


 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerDC

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,730
8,306
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus does the building, and nobody has said otherwise. Jesus doesn't build junk.
But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

William Hendriksen
member of the 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 647

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean stone and rock respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha and on this kepha), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78​

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
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. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 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.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252​

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. 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”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places, is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this 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 Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470


The church was built on Jesus

or on peter

you can’t have it both ways

your sounding confused

the Greek stands, you have not countered the Greek yet, I don’t want to know what some men think, I want to know what the Bible says

I am not a follower of men,
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Apostle John said that the anointing (the Holy Spirit) within us, whom Christ sent to represent Him will teach us everything we need to know.
If your interpretation of 1John 2:27 is correct - that the Holy Spirit teaches you everything and you don’t need anyone to teach you - how come you look to the Bible for teaching and knowledge? As for me, I don’t need a Bible, the Holy Spirit teaches me everything I need to know through Christ’s Church.
When did the Roman Catholic Church take over from the Holy Spirit?
Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn’t have a Bible at all. By placing your trust in the Bible, you are in effect placing your trust in the Catholic Church.
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
saying one has never been saved is hugely different than saying a person was saved , was made alive, was sealed with the spirit, and lost their way and lost their salvation, are not dead, and have lost the seal.
All things the Catholic Church teaches
The Catholic Church doesn't teach that a person was saved and then lost their salvation.
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
As I pointed out in another thread - James speaks about the actions we take to show that we have faith, not religious works or compliance with Mosaic or moral Law in order to be accepted by God. Being religious and moral does not save me. Faith along in Christ saves me. It is the unmerited, unearned gift of God. But I start doing things that show that I have faith in Christ and that I am genuinely converted. If I didn't start praying, reading the Bible, fellowshipping with other believers and turning away from the works of the flesh, how can I prove that I am genuinely converted to Christ and have had my heart transformed?
Which commandment says "Read the Bible"?
Saying that we have to do certain religious or moral actions along with faith in order to be saved is like putting the cart before the horse. Appropriate actions follow saving faith, not combined with it.
What on earth are you talking about? If works follow faith, how can they not be combined?
Therefore Paul says that faith combined with works does not justify or save an unbeliever
Nonsense. Paul warns believers that their sins can lead them to hell (Gal 5).
So Paul and James are referring to works in totally different ways.
Nonsense.
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
thats impossible for anyman no matter how smart he thinks he might be.
The Catholic Church is not "any man" - it is guided by the Holy Spirit into "all truth", which includes the correct interpretation of crucial Scriptures.
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
thats impossible for anyman no matter how smart he thinks he might be.
Are you saying you have no access to infallible interpretation of Scripture? If so, that means you only have access to FALLIBLE interpretations - in which case, I feel sorry for you.
 

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Anyhow, the Catholic church depended on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which had many errors in it, so it might be a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.
Sounds like nonsense to me. The Catholic Church doesn’t rely on any one translation of the Bible. Furthermore, the Catholic Church doesn’t rely on bumbling amateurs to translate the Scriptures - that task it left to professional experts of the very highest standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Amen! In James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3).
You seem to be claiming the word “justified” in James 2:24 (“a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”) has two different meanings - one meaning for “works” and a different meaning for “faith”? If so, that’s grammatical nonsense.
The word “justified” in James 2:24 carries exactly the same meaning as it does in Romans 3:38 - “a man is justified by faith”.

James asks, “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Will his faith save him?” (James 2:14). The answer is NO, as James concludes with “faith without works is dead” (v.26). In other words, James is saying, faith alone is dead faith, and that works are necessary for salvation and are not just window-dressing or an optional extra.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
When you are discussing the topic of the CC being that specific Church, then let us discuss Who is actually giving wisdom and revelation.

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

God through the Holy Spirit does that, not the CC nor the Church since Christ is the Head of the Church and Head of every believer.
Sorry, but Scripture contradicts you. Compare your quoted passage from Ephesians to another passage from Ephesians, that relates to the same things:

“There is one body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ … And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and teachers, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:4-14).

Notice what it says about the source of all these things - the “apostles … prophets … evangelists … pastors and teachers” provided by Christ - the CHURCH, in other words. Christ works through his CHURCH, guided by the Holy Spirit.


Since you are speaking of that reference by itself, rather than the topic that the CC is the Church, yeah, but I know I did not say that in regards to Ephesians 1:22-23, but something else you had said and I am not going back to prove it, because I see no reason why I would apply it to that reference, and you did conveniently left it out of the quote too since you only selected a portion of that quote from what post #?.

And yet even Ephesians 1:22-23 when read in context from verse 17 proves you are applying His words wrong to support that teaching that only the CC can interpret scripture for you.
Whatever. What does Eph 1:22-23 mean when it says the Church is the “fullness” of Christ?
Where is the “Church of St. Peter” located?
I don’t know - I’ve never heard of the “Church of St. Peter”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator

RogerDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2020
1,107
168
63
64
Forster
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Disproven when you read Ephesians 1:17-23 in context as to Who gives us wisdom and revelations in the knowledge of Him.
That passage doesn't disprove what I said:
Since the Church is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22-23), if Christ is the Word of God, then so is his Church - that’s just simple logic, which you seem to have trouble grasping.
The body is not the Head, that is the point.
The Catholic Church is the body of Christ, which is her Head. Therefore the Church is controlled by and obeys Christ.
Scripture were written by men as inspired by the Holy Ghost.
That’s right, and just as the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit inspires men to lead the Church - as described in Eph 4:4-14, which says Christ has provided “apostles … prophets … evangelists … pastors and teachers” for the “perfecting of the saints … unto … the fullness of Christ”.

Why do you ignore what your Bible says?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator