1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

5 historical realities against an early papacy

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Ps104_33, Aug 22, 2002.

  1. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,

    You speak of a consensus that does not exist. Many protestant scholars deny that Peter is the Rock. Granted that there are many who do think that Peter is the Rock, the scholars you mention do not form a consensus, nor even a majority.

    What you might want to mention though is that the consensus includes RC scholars which says that there is no papacy in Matthew 16:18.

    [ August 23, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Latreia ]
     
  2. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,

    Just re-read your post, and I think I may have mis-understood your "across the board" remark. At first i took you to be meaning a scholarly cosensus. Now I think you just mean that scholars from a broad cross-section of the various confessions within protestant Christianity see Peter as the Rock.

    If you mean the second, that scholars froma wide variety of confessional backgrounds affirm that Peter is the Rock, I agree.
     
  3. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,
    What do you think of the quote below by Ambrose. What is he saying here. I,ve read many other quotes similar. How do they square with Catholic doctrine and quotes from other "fathers" which seem to contradict?

    "Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, (his person) but of his faith that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it......Make an effort therefore to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself. Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith and faith is the foundation of the church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the church is on a rock. If you are in the church the gates of hell will not prevail against you.
    ( Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL32.4 )
     
  4. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    The notion that the Church thnks like a Jew is ludicrous. Unless Jews are selective.

    What RCs commonly fail to do in a discussion of Matt 16"18, particularly in relatiuon to the Hebraic background, is forget to consider the hebraic background for the "church". RCs see that and get al kinds of eclesial notions dancing intheri heads. But a Jew would see ekklesia and think "community". The ecclesial/hierarchical notions would be absent.

    This is a basic inconsistency.
     
  5. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Latreia,
    Also, another common error RC apologists make is the fine art of importing the theological understanding of a later age and then impose these concepts on the same terms of the writings of an earlier age, assuming that because they use the same word you do, that they mean the same thing by it. Foe example, Pelagius, the heretic, used the term grace. He did not deny its necessity. But the issue is not whether he used the word but what he meant by the use of it. When we examine his use of the word we find that his understanding was heretical. So, when we examine the way the Church "fathers" employed the terms they used with respect to Peter and the meaning of primacy we discover that their understanding of those terms is very different from VaticanI and present day RC beliefs.
     
  6. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Latreia,

    Where are you a pastor in Canada? I walked from the Golden Gate Bridge to Toronto from May 20 through July 22nd (9 weeks) with a group for the Pro-Life movement. We finished at the cathedral in downtown Toronto and celebrated our Christian faith with the Successor of St. Peter at World Youth Day for the next week there in Toronto.

    I enjoyed Canada and its hospitality.

    You wrote, "If you mean the second, that scholars froma wide variety of confessional backgrounds affirm that Peter is the Rock, I agree."

    Of course I mean the latter. If I affirmed your former interpretation of what I meant by "across the board", then I would be asserting not only an impossible - but a ridiculous lie.

    To restate, Protestant scholars from across the smorgasbord of competing Protestant sects - and who have little sympathy for the Catholic organism - affirm that Peter is the "Petras" in Matthew 16.

    It is good that we can agree on this much.

    Hi Psalm,

    You asked, "What do you think of the quote below by Ambrose. What is he saying here. I,ve read many other quotes similar. How do they square with Catholic doctrine and quotes from other "fathers" which seem to contradict?"

    I would begin by pointing out that this quote is presented to a reader who is unfamiliar with Ambrose. You, the reader, are not familiar with the life, theology, and writings of this wholly Catholic bishop of Milano, Italy, and the author takes this to his advantage.

    When you read this quote from Ambrose, your eyes pass over the passage in a frenzy to discover your Protestant preconception in even the most Catholic of the Fathers. So, what I would do, first of all, is point this out for your future study, which, if you have it, hopefully will be accomplished in the sincerity of a good will and not in a ploy to frustrate your Catholic siblings.

    A study accomplished in a will tending towards the good of truth should always encompass a thorough survey of the other side's evidence. In other words, when you hop from Protestant website to another, be sure to include a good Catholic one if you're open to what it has to say.

    Ambrose wrote numerous works during his work as a Catholic bishop in Italy in the latter half of the fourth century.

    In 378, Gratian, the Emperor of the West, asked Ambrose to compose a treatise for him in dispute with the Arians. This treatise is known as the Exposition of the Christian Faith, and the object of the Exposition is to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and His co-eternity, co-equality, and consubstantiality, as God the Son, with God the Father. Ambrose accomplishes this by constant appeal to the Scriptures, both of the Old and of the New Testament, which the Arians had in many cases forced into the mould of false interpretation to make them fit their doctrine.

    In the 5th chapter of Book 4, you may read in paragraph 57, "Christ made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church?"

    If you look up this passage in Ambrose's Exposition of the Christian Faith and read it in the context of the preceding and ensuing argument, you'll discover that this affirmation of Peter as the Petras, the recipient of the kingdom, and the foundation of the Church is merely an aside in a greater exposition of Christ's divinity.

    Ambrose also wrote two books against the Novatian heresy, which are today known as the Two Books Concerning Repentance, written circa A.D. 384.

    In the 1st Book, Chapter 7, Paragraph 33, we read in Ambrose concerning the Novatian heretics, "They have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’"

    Ambrose, in no doctrinal controversy concerning the papacy, makes an aside to the evident reality of the papacy in his own day.

    Ambrose understands the literal meaning of the passage (Mt 16:16-19), but he also uses many applications of the passage. Most of the Fathers do this in their Scriptural exegesis, and the standard Anti-Catholic ploy entails presenting exclusively one application apart from the others. This ploy ends in the presentation of a half-truth, and a half-truth is as good as a lie.

    To buttress your Catholic sources as you further grow in the virtue of prudence, which demands that you remain open to all evidence in discerning and receiving pristine truth, may I provide you with a beautiful set of rebuttals to the Protestant accusation that the papacy is an invention - authored by a former Baptist? Stephen Ray has responded to the well-known Anti-Catholic, Bill Webster, on his own website:

    http://www.catholic-convert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=webster/index.html

    May God bless you and continue to reveal His truth to you,

    Carson

    [ August 24, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
     
  7. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    You point out the fact that Stephen Ray is a former Baptist but forget to point out that Webster is a former Catholic.

    Another thing. I am a working man who raised seven children of which one is a Pastor. I,ve read through the Bible about 7 times. I,m music director and songleader in a Baptist church of about 500. Youre right , I do depend on the work of others who have the time that I dont to study and have much greater insight than I. It doesnt make what I have to say any less true just because I get my info from someone else. I am not a college student studying all day like yourself. As far as reading Catholic material, I've read almost all of Thomas Merton (Seven Story Mountain, Seeds of Contemplation etc) and am presently reading "THe Jesuits" by Martin. I am not as one sided as you think I come from an atheistic background before I came to Christ. Your attitude is a little pompous and are no doubt an expert in romanita if you know what I mean.
     
  8. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Psalm,

    You wrote, "I am not as one sided as you think I come from an atheistic background before I came to Christ."

    Good. Then I should not have to remind you of the address to Stephen K. Ray's rebuttals of Bill Webster. In your honest evaluation of the truth, I trust that you will consult both sources in the future.

    I also can see that we've come to an agreement on this point of Ambrose's ecclesiology?

    God bless,

    Carson
     
  9. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,

    I pastor not too far from T.O. WYD was a very big deal. Also a very big mess unfortunaely, both physcially and financially. But that is not the fault of anyone in particular.

    And of course you enjoued Canada and its hospitality. God's country after all! :D

    "Of course I mean the latter."

    That's what I thought. But please don't say "of course", as if it were somehow beneath an RC apologist to make a ridiculous statement. I've seen a lot of impossible statements made by RCs in defense of the RCC. Of course the same applies from protestants.
     
  10. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually those interested in the truth should not consult apologists but rather acknowledged scholars in the field of patristics, and check the primary sources. Apologists have too much of an axe to grind.
     
  11. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Latreia,

    You wrote, "But please don't say "of course", as if it were somehow beneath an RC apologist to make a ridiculous statement."

    I should not fit the description of what you've painted an RC apologist to consist of: blind; ignorant; ridiculous; feebleminded. And so, you should not assume, as you did initially, that I would actually assert something so blind, ignorant, and ridiculous as that "all Protestant scholars affirm that Peter is the Petra in Matthew 16".

    You should give us little blind Catholic clones the benefit of the doubt. [​IMG]

    God bless,

    Carson
     
  12. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    By no means. I think the early "fathers" had the proper interpretation of Matt16:18. It was distorted as the "new Roman empire" seeked other means to get the masses under their control and gain temporal power.
     
  13. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fear Carson that you are going to have to get accustomed, as I have, to being thought of according to the worst of your breed until it can be shown you are otherwise.

    You'd be amazed how many of your co-religionists assume I think like Jack Chick for no other reason than I am protestant.

    You are somewhat better than many of your cor-religionists. But that is because you are getting an education. Most that I have dealt with have none, and so lack the capacity to evaluate arguments. For many it seems enough that an answer CAn be given regardless of the quality of the repsonse.

    BTW, you would do well to eschew the "anti-Catholic" tag. It is not accurate of folks like Bill Webster, nor is it edifying or conducive to dicussion. Unless you'd like to be known as anti-protestant, or anti-biblical christian...
     
  14. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Jack, I mean, Latreia,

    *grin*

    I would have to disagree with you concerning the Anti-Catholicism of Bill Webster. In his writings, I've found the presentation of a certain marked hostility towards Catholicism, and it is this hostility that brings the prefix "Anti-" into any equation: whether it be Anti-Semitism, Anti-Protestantism, or Anti-Catholicism. I would most certainly term the Counter Reformation as Anti-Protestant, and I would have no problem with anyone terming me an "Anti-Protestant" if it is properly understood.

    I do present a certain degree of hostility towards Protestantism - at least, towards those areas that I see as contrary to the Gospel of Christ. And, those areas that are in line with the Gospel, I have only a welcoming hand to offer.

    And the question then arises as to what areas of Protestantism are contrary to the Gospel of Christ? Namely, the unstoppable and widespread continuous disunity in its ranks. Secondly, the action of taking sheep from the one sheepfold. I would also include double-predestination, iconoclasm, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and the various forms of disrespect towards Mary and the Eucharist.

    Those in line with the Gospel? Devotion to Scripture, emphasis on the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the strong emphasis on faith over and against works-righteousness, and I have much to contribute to this list.

    God bless,

    Carson
     
  15. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    This laughable. Carson has posted over 730 times over the last nine months, and you say that you hold the right to thinking of him as "the worst of his breed" until he "shows you otherwise"?

    Any special thoughts on Blacks, Jews or Hispanics that you care to share?
     
  16. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,

    You are free to have your opinion about Webster. It is wrong though. Anti-Catholics are like chick. Webster is no Chick.

    As for your hostility to the Gospel of Christ (the stuff you fail to recongnise in protestantism), well, maybe that is why God has brought you here, so that you can see the light. Don't worry, God can work through that RC nonsnese.

    Trying,

    "This laughable. Carson has posted over 730 times over the last nine months, and you say that you hold the right to thinking of him as "the worst of his breed" until he "shows you otherwise"?"

    What does the quantity of posts have to do with the quality of argumentation? Nothing. And yes, he will have to show that the quality of hs argumentation is a cut above the typical RC nonsense. I am not goign to assume that he is somehow better than Hahn, or Windsor, or Sungneis or Ray. Why should I? I give Carson the benefit of the doubt in asuming he is intelligent. That doesn't mean that I assume he is well informed or able to grasp the issues well. There are too many parrots out there for me to assume that. He has to show me he is informed and can grasp the issues.

    As for your hinting at bigotry and racism, I suggest you withdraw that comment. It will be reported to the approproiate authorties in VERY short order is something is not done.
     
  17. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your previous remark (below) speaks for itself:

    "I fear Carson that you are going to have to get accustomed, as I have, to being thought of according to the worst of your breed until it can be shown you are otherwise."

    I was merely probing the limits of your disposition to judge others based soley upon membership in some particular group.

    So, you're not a "racial" bigot. There are then limits? Good for you. :rolleyes:
     
  18. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dear Carson,

    You wrote...

    First, I suspect that the very fact that we reject the dogma of the Adoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and The Real Presence is in and of itself "disrespectful" to you.

    You seem still not to realize how horrendously offensive these practices are to many (perhaps most) Baptists.

    Secondly many here at the BB are the spiritual descendents of those whom the Catholic Church has persecuted in the most horrific and cruel ways.
    Rather than anti-Catholic, many of us are Catholic-wise in terms of history and what she is capable of doing to those who resist her.

    Having said that, is there room for "dialogue"?

    Yes, as long as it is not a "monologue".

    HankD
     
  19. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your previous remark (below) speaks for itself:

    "I fear Carson that you are going to have to get accustomed, as I have, to being thought of according to the worst of your breed until it can be shown you are otherwise."

    I was merely probing the limits of your disposition to judge others based soley upon membership in some particular group.

    So, you're not a "racial" bigot. There are then limits? Good for you. :rolleyes: [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Trying,

    Yes the comment speaks for itself. It means that RC apologists have a reputation that is not positive. As I mentioned, Protestant apologists have one as well. It is something that has to be lived down, and overcome by the quality of argumentation. That is an unfortunate reality. Dialogue would go much better is there were not such extremes on both sides. I stand by that.

    As for you comments, I see you are unrepentant. Too bad. I will have nothing to do with you. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to offer here.
     
  20. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but the fact remains that, by your own admission, you are prejudging an individual based on membership or association with a particular class, rather than judging the individual's fruits.

    That is an unfortunate reality. Dialogue would go much better if that were not the case.

    To help things out, however, I apologize for hurting your feelings and will try to be more sensitive in the future. [​IMG]
     
Loading...