Trusting Holy Scriptures Over The Church

[thessalonian]

Usually what trusting the scriptures over the church means is trusting your own understanding over the wisdom of the Church. see prov 3:5. That's not such a good thing to do. ("trust not in your own understanding") People assert contrary opinions as being the gospel truth. Rarely does anyone say "my understanding could be wrong but this is what I think it means". OSAS is TRUE! Of course the logical fallacy that they will not admit to infallibility and so there is a chance they could be wrong, i.e. they are only 95% sure that their interpretation that says they have 100% assurance is correct, therefore they don't have %100 assurance by simple math. I don't have protestants telling me "well I am write on this 90% of the gospel and wrong on this 10%". They speak as if they are right on it all.

Edited September 19, 2007 by thessalonian

["Kyrie eleison"]

Isaiah
Chapter 51
1
1 Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the[b] rock [/b]from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried;
2
[b]Look to Abraham, your father[/b], and to Sarah, who gave you birth; When he was but one I called him, I blessed him and made him many.

In Isaiah Abraham is called the ROCK, just as Abraham is called a father, we call our head shepherd, Papa.

GOD renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations' in Gen 17:5.

Just as Jesus renamed Simon to Kepha.

[ckozlowski]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1388661' date='Sep 19 2007, 12:55 PM']Isaiah
Chapter 51
1
1 Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the[b] rock [/b]from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried;
2
[b]Look to Abraham, your father[/b], and to Sarah, who gave you birth; When he was but one I called him, I blessed him and made him many.

In Isaiah Abraham is called the ROCK, just as Abraham is called a father, we call our head shepherd, Papa.

GOD renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations' in Gen 17:5.

Just as Jesus renamed Simon to Kepha.[/quote]

fair enough. now here's the hard task:

tell my why james was the head of the church in jerusalem then??

tell me why peter was off in the background and not even very much involved in the church itself?

why did paul have to rebuke peter when he was being a hypocrite?

he may have been a rock, but that doesn't make anyone infallible. i think this is a common mistake many have made and many will make. If paul didn't rebuke peter to his face, the gentiles would have thought that they had to be circumcised according to the mosaic law if they wanted fellowship with early jewish Christians. he was supporting old covenant ideology, he was creating division..therefore he would have led christians astray.. does this sound fimiliar?

clearly not even peter was infallible. if someone tries to argue this... we'll lets say it won't be an effective argument.

when peter turned his back on the gentiles, they were hurt. so if paul had to rebuke peter in front of everyone around them, how could he be the first trustworthy/infallible/first pope?

i am not buying the infallibility argument. i've been thinking about this a lot and i honestly think that this whole infallibility ideology has allowed false doctrine to creep its way into the church, once true followers of Christ realized that this went against the truth of the gospel, the true church continued to build and left behind what no longer served a purpose, having left behind the truth of the gospel. i now think that Christ did give peter the keys. if he didn't give him the keys maybe true christians would have been like the gentiles if paul never rebuked peter according to God's [font="Palatino Linotype"]Word.[/font] In other words true christians would have been led astray with the rest of the catholic church. But we weren't. We rebuked in the name of Christ Jesus according to the truth of the gospel. Just as paul rebuked peter according to the truth of the gospel.

wadda ya think?

you say the pope can be as corrupt as he wants but he can't teach anything morally wrong and that he's trustworthy... does that really make sense if peter himself was not trustworthy?

i'm not trying to impose myself guys, i'm just expressing my opinion now that i've had some time to think things over. obviously my views are offensive. but Jesus said that the truth of the gospel is offensive.

just some food for thought.

Edited September 20, 2007 by ckozlowski

[ckozlowski]

Jesus said "The gates of hell will not be strong enough to destroy it." The gates will never prevail.

Edited September 20, 2007 by ckozlowski

[thessalonian]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1388967' date='Sep 20 2007, 05:49 AM']fair enough. now here's the hard task:

tell my why james was the head of the church in jerusalem then??[/quote]

Is the Church only in Jersualem. I have an archbishop here in Minneapolis who is the head of the Church in Minneapolis so how does your point refute Catholicism. Peter presided over the council and decided the issue the council was convened over, circumcision of the gentiles. James made a judgement regarding his own diocese regarding meat sacrificed to idols. He got a consensus on this matter from everyone else if you read the text closely.

[quote]tell me why peter was off in the background and not even very much involved in the church itself?[/quote]

Do you find the Bible to be a play by play of all the apostles did after pentecost. Very few of them are even mentioned after Acts 2. Most of it is about Paul and there is more about Peter than pretty much everyone else. So how do you draw these conclusions that Peter was not involved in the every day workings of the Church?

[quote]why did paul have to rebuke peter when he was being a hypocrite?[/quote]
Peter was a sinner. So was Paul. " the good that I would do I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do". You quite apparently have been reading alot of anti-catholic literature. Again, infallibility does not mean impecability.

[quote]he may have been a rock, but that doesn't make anyone infallible. i think this is a common mistake many have made and many will make. If paul didn't rebuke peter to his face, the gentiles would have thought that they had to be circumcised according to the mosaic law if they wanted fellowship with early jewish Christians. he was supporting old covenant ideology, he was creating division..therefore he would have led christians astray.. does this sound fimiliar?

clearly not even peter was infallible. if someone tries to argue this... we'll lets say it won't be an effective argument.[/quote]

Again you distort infallibility. You can make it so that he is perfect all the time but your going to have to find some other people to debate because we don't believe that. I can PROVE that Peter was infallible in a limited sense. You still have his two books in your bible don't you? How could he be infallible in a limited sense if he sinned. You should rip those two books out. They must have errors in them. By the way, per the quote from Paul about his sinfulness above, he wasn't always infallible either so you better rip his books out as well.

I think the arguement is quite effective unless you have ripped those books out. If you have not then you have a limited infallibility doctrine as well.


[quote]when peter turned his back on the gentiles, they were hurt. so if paul had to rebuke peter in front of everyone around them, how could he be the first trustworthy/infallible/first pope?[/quote]

I don't know that God ever claimed he didn't use people who were sinners. If he didn't then he wouldn't use anyone. Not even Paul. Your comments show a lack of understanding of God's forgiveness and mercy and patience with us. Our strength is in Christ, not in ourselves. When Peter sinned he was not looking to Christ. That does not mean that he was never looking toward Christ. Non-catholcics are so quick to condemn Peter's leadership, which is clear from the NT, where he is mentioned far more than any of the other apostles (190 to 30 times for John the next closest), he is always mentioned first in lists of the apostles, he always speaks when the group is asked a question, Jesus prays for peter singularly and then says he will stengthen the others. Jesus pays peters tax and preaches from peter's boat. Peter alone walks on water as Christ did. Tell me these are just mere coincidences and that Peter had no leadership chosen by Christ? Next to Christ Peter is the most talked about person in the Gospels.

[quote]i am not buying the infallibility argument. i've been thinking about this a lot and i honestly think that this whole infallibility ideology has allowed false doctrine to creep its way into the church, once true followers of Christ realized that this went against the truth of the gospel, the true church continued to build and left behind what no longer served a purpose, having left behind the truth of the gospel.[/quote]


As I have proven above, if you have Peter's two books and I will add some of his words that are clearly scripture in your bible then you have a doctrine of limited infallibility of Peter. It's just not the same one we have. Jesus said "WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". Now WHATEVER Peter was to bind therefore must be correct by a charism of the Holy Spirit, for if it is bound in heaven, God cannot bind a lie and so you have to agree that WHATEVER Peter bound in his life as a minister of Christ was in fact infallible.




Blessings

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote]you say the pope can be as corrupt as he wants but he can't teach anything morally wrong and that he's trustworthy... does that really make sense if peter himself was not trustworthy?[/quote]

Well let's see. There was a high preist named Caiphas. He was responsible for Jesus crusifixion. The greatest sin in all of history. He was rather corrupt. Yet quite apparently his words were infallible as they are recorded in scripture and even called prophetic. Further his words are because of his office, not because of his character and there is an underling understanding that the office of high preist, though we do not have many of the words of other high preists written, were infallible at times. So here we see a limited infallibility due to the holding of an office rather than the character of the person.

John 11
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] [b]He did not say this of his own accord[/b], but being high priest that year he [b]prophesied[/b] that Jesus should die for the nation,
[52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

How many times did Jesus rebuke the scribes and pharasees and yet he says about them:

Matt 23
[2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
[4] They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

See that. Jesus quite clearly says they are corrupt and do not practice what they preach but he does not let the people off the hook regarding their God-given authority. There's that word "WHATEVER" again. Quite clearly the Holy Spirit can speak through sinners who God has given an office, though they are not faithful in their daily lives to his truths.

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[N/A Gone]

'ckozlowski'

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387500"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387500[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387557"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387557[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387585"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387585[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387749"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387749[/url]


Dunno why you wont address my posts.

East and west. Regardless of what new theory you can develop from your own bias and modern literary criticism you need to reconcile the over-abundant and universal testimony of the early church. Which does not ever mention your theory, but declares that peter is the rock. (Yes, there is more than this)

we are glad we do not need to look back on a 2000 piece of paper and try to understand it and pull whatever theory out we want. This is not a book club where whatever theory works. This is something that has implications on our salvation. The patristic commentary about this passage and the concept of Peter as the rock of the church is universal and abundant.

Where do you have your bible degree? I wonder if I know your profs.

If you are debating exegesis it will come down to my view vs your view. it is a stand still because neither of us has authority to interpret scripture on its own. The smarter one of us will win. But when we look at the teaching of the Church in this matter she has always declared that peter is that rock. So either you are wrong, or the entire church and all her fathers have been wrong and you are finally providing light.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]clearly not even peter was infallible. if someone tries to argue this... we'll lets say it won't be an effective argument.[/quote]

i find it commical that after being shown he's wrong about the rock, or at least most likely so, he again says "clearly" peter isn't infallible. i'm sure the others here will educate him as ot how that's "clearly" not "clearly" the case.

[N/A Gone]

explaining infallible wouldnt hurt either.


**new pet peeve**


people coming on phatmass to debate and having the strength of the argument in a mis-understood word. Not just you Big C...others as well.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote]i am not buying the infallibility argument. i've been thinking about this a lot and i honestly think that this whole infallibility ideology has allowed false doctrine to creep its way into the church,[/quote] Please offer proof? Some of these supposed "false doctrines" Based upon Papal infallibility are: The canon of scripture,the trinity,the hypostatic union/nature of Christ,and the virgin birth. Are these false because they were defined under the pretense of papal infallibility?
[quote]once true followers of Christ realized that this went against the truth of the gospel,[/quote] How does it go against the truth of the gospel? Jesus knew that there would always be false teachers and heretics,Paul says it many times,but Paul still says that the church is the pillar and ground of Truth.Christ says that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it,we see papal infallibility as that which preserves the church from heresy.
[b]Papal infallibility is the dogma,that by the holy spirit, the Pope is preserved from error when defining a matter of faith or morals as dogma[/b].if doesn't mean that the pope can't be wrong,it does'nt mean that he can't sin,it simply means that he can't define something which is heresy as truth.
[quote]the true church continued to build and left behind what no longer served a purpose, having left behind the truth of the gospel.[/quote] Meaning..?
[quote]i now think that Christ did give peter the keys. if he didn't give him the keys maybe true christians would have been like the gentiles if paul never rebuked peter according to God's Word.[/quote] Meaning..?
[quote]In other words true christians would have been led astray with the rest of the catholic church.[/quote] What do you mean by that?You do know that the only Christian church before the reformation WAS the catholic church? Who are these "True Christians" That you keep talking about?Are they the fringe heretical groups often claimed by baptists in the 'Trail of blood" theory?
[quote]But we weren't. We rebuked in the name of Christ Jesus according to the truth of the gospel. Just as paul rebuked peter according to the truth of the gospel.[/quote] Again,you've lost me.How does the fact that paul rebuked peter disallow papal infallibility? St.Catherine of sienna,St.bernard,Ss.dominic and francis of assisi and many others rebuked popes.Papal infallibility is necessary,and makes sense.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Deo Iuvente

[N/A Gone]

maybe if he had a def of Infallibility?

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1389046' date='Sep 20 2007, 10:56 AM']maybe if he had a def of Infallibility?[/quote]
Papal infallibility according to the Catechism:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office,[b] when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . [/b]The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 "
exactly what what I said in the bolded part above...

Edited September 20, 2007 by Deo Iuvente

[thessalonian]

Cz,

Suggest you read the post above concerning the definition of infallibility. Then go read my 2 posts above for scriptural defenses of some of the issues you raise regarding God working through sinful Peter.

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote]For other foundation NO ONE can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (I Corinthians 3:11)[/quote]

You are correct, Christ founded the Church. Glad we got that out of the way…whew!!!

[quote]And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST). (I Corinthians 10:4).[/quote]

So Jesus calls Peter Satan. So this means that Peter was the same Satan that tempted Jesus in the dessert? ROCK=ROCK, SATAN=SATAN…right? Wrong.

[quote]Jesus said to them, "Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?" (Matthew 21:42) (Compare with Psalm 117:21, 23)

For they stumbled or the stumbling-stone, as it is written, "Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of offence: and whosoever believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:33)[/quote]

I actually don’t consider this proof you given us good scholarship. We have to make sure what “stone” or “rock” meant for the people of that time (Letter to Romans) and why it was used the way it was used to portray a message to the people. It would be hard-pressed to be linked to the rock that Jesus spoke about in Matthew. Then if it was, I would have to see the proof or historical elements that point to this use of language connecting to that of Jesus in Matthew. I can also use the argument above of Peter and Satan.

[quote]To whom coming (Christ), as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God, and precious,

Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is preciou: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and, a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: (I Peter 2:4. 6-8) This is The stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12)[/quote]

Again, this is poor scholarship. We have to have a detailed exegesis here to find out why Peter would make this statement and why he would link it to the Old Testament. What type of message was he trying to get across? What I would like to see from you is an example, using historical relevance of this period in our history where Peter’s statement is explicitly talking about Jesus being the “Rock” that he talked about in Matthew.

[quote]The Lord is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer. My God, is the ROCK of refuge. Psalm 18:2, 94:22.

God was their ROCK, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35.

Unto Thee will I cry, O LORD, MY ROCK; Psalm 28:1.

Bow down Thy thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be Thou my strong ROCK, FOR A HOUSE of defense to SAVE me. for Thou art my ROCK and my FORTRESS; therefore for Thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:2,3).

I will say unto God my ROCK, why hast Thou forgotten me? Psalm 41:l0.

Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I Psalms 61:2

He Only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In GOD is my salvation and my glory: THE ROCK of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times, ye people, Pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah Psalm 62:6-8

To shew that the Lord is upright: He is my ROCK, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Psalm92:15.

but the Lord is my defense; and MY GOD IS THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 94:22.

O Come, let us sing unto THE LORD; let us make a joyful noise to THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 95:1.

The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. Psalm 118:22, 23.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16.

Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto OUR GOD! He is THE ROCK, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: Deuteronomy 32:3,4.

Then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed THE ROCK of his salvation. Deuteronomy 32:15, 18).

And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer II Samuel 22:2.[/quote]

Thank you for all of this! This is awesome. That way I didn’t have to look it up myself. Because, obviously, “Rock” was such an important metaphor in the OT, it would seem fitting to say that Jesus wanted to make an “exclamation” when he declared Peter, the “Rock” of the Church, so that the Jews could understand the importance of his decision.

The first definition of “foundation” is founding. And yes, Jesus is the foundation of the Church BECAUSE he founded the Church. Because he is the rock or stone is stretching it a little bit…like to the fourth or fifth definition

BTW..."stone" and "rock" are not the same thing.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]What do you mean by that?You do know that the only Christian church before the reformation WAS the catholic church? Who are these "True Christians" That you keep talking about?Are they the fringe heretical groups often claimed by baptists in the 'Trail of blood" theory?[/quote]

actually that's not the case at all. the orthodox church existed. amoung other orthodox churches. maybe prot types didn't in the west i don't know. or christians that weren't orthodox or catho i don'tknow.
and at least in the earliest church were the gnostics. the cc seem to make people htink they should be brussed off as early new agers or whacky. but they did exist. and many heretical guprs existed i think. i'm pretty sure the cc didn't just squash heresies from its own members. and if you remember i the earliest case of papal questioning was the dude who contested st. vitor the pope's power. i dn't think he was gnostic and he clearly didn't buy it. or firmilian either. these are in the earliest church. and i don't think gnostic.
the rest i jst don't know cause of my ignorance.

Edited September 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c