A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

I don't see how. Its clearly a logical premise and a reasonable approach. A person once said that revelation wasn't meant to be work free but God gave us a brain. Jesus never said to do away with the man made institution of slavery. However, after years of following Jesus Christ and applying principles of Christ teachings to our lives that it became clear slavery is not consistent with Christianity and thus all Christianity at some point has banned it. Because it is an affront to God. Yet what do scriptures say? Be a good slave. Be a good master. consider each other brothers. But of the institution? Nothing.

Amen to that. Yet despite the number of spirit filled christians we still have our disagreements on the meaning of the texts of scripture.

Again amen to that. Yet despite the mind of Christ though I can judge two men to love the Lord with all their heart one is a pacifist according to scripture and the other is not. Yet both revile violence, feed the poor, visit the prisoner, heal the sick, etc... There is something not quite complete.

Possibly. I personally like study and digging. However, according to your previous sentences the role of the Holy Spirit is to be that "infallible interpretor" role for us yet in applicability it seems there is some failure.

Unfortunately, he is not going to test me on his word. I may enter eternal life for my belief yet He will judge me for the things I have done and those things I have not done.

 

Let the love begin to flow...

Right back 'atcha!

How do you know - were you there?

And all of this means...

Well, I am sure that you will recover.

The Church I attend has no authority over me, you or anyone else for that matter. Thus they can neither "throw me out on my ear..." nor "... send me to the papists."

Now that you've vented, why not respond with something other than ranting personal opinions to my questions?

Peace!

 

Huss was handed over to the king for sentencing and its implementation. John Wycliffe died of old age. - he did NOT sacrifice his life.

Peace!

 

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

Yes whether or not I've done them.

 

As Christ said to the Jews, I think He would also say to you and others who say things such as you wrote:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets."

Like the Jews did to the Christians by handing them over to the secular powers for execution, even as they did to the Son of God, so did the papal authority to the Christians when it was their time to do so.

I made a mistake in lumping Wycliffe in as a martyr for Christ by the papacy. They burnt him after he was dead already.

So, this is church you think to be Christian?

 

What will be the ground of your judgment. Will you be judged by the Word of God and of Christ or by popes and church councils?

 

Your lack of submission to the elders of your church tells me alot.

 

First, Kepha is in Aramaic not in Greek. The Word of God is inspired in Greek not in Aramaic. There is no evidence that the canon of the Bible was ever written in Aramaic. It is here your argument falls to pieces.
Furthermore, your argument fails in that you failed to look at post #53, by Bob Ryan made the night before (a nine hour difference) when Bob posted this for you:

Your argument that "petra" being a feminine noun would never be used for Christ fails on this account alone. It is used for Christ over and over alone.

The Q document is pure fiction. That which is our authority is the Word of God, which we now possess in the 66 books of the Bible, written by holy men of old, guided by the Holy Spirit and penned on MSS as the very inspired words of God. We have copies of those words which are preserved for us to this day. Any other words are not inspired and therefore not authoritative.

It is not the translator. Translations are now in the thousands. It is the Holy Spirit who wrote in the Greek and told Matthew what to write. What Matthew wrote was inspired by God. Your argument therefore is with God. There is a definite difference between petros and petra.

At this point I would question just who has the rubbish.

 

And your responses tell me that you have neither the inclination nor the capacity to address this subject in a mature and intelligent way. Your member image says it all.

Peace!

 

Let me know when you have something of value to say...

 

You read the wrong history books. You are biased in your reading. You are like the Mormon that reads only Mormon literature and thus asserts his scholarly conclusion is more educated than yours.

No need to see the above. You want to read the "Roman Catholic Church" back into first century history. Do you also want to read computers back into first century history. We don't start with a present premise and try to prove that it was in the first century. You have become biased before you have even started.

The canon was finished at the end of the first century with the writings of the Apostle John. Your assumption is that the Apostles were so stupid that they could not educate first century believers what was Scripture and what was not. In fact this is the position of all Catholics. It is so arrogant that is pitiful.
The fact remains that the RCC did not even exist until the fourth century. What do you think believers did before that century?
Have you ever heard of the Peshitta, the Itala, and other second and third translations of the Bible, that existed far before the RCC did.

Yeah, it is simple logic. Rome (the RCC) had the authority to murder thousands through the Inquistions, the Crusades, and various other persecutions and tortures. Yep, they had the authority all right. But God never gave them the authority to touch, create, keep, preserve, the Word of God. That was in the hands of "holy men of old"--the prophets of the OT and the apostles of the NT, and the early believers. The RCC was and is one of the most wicked organizations to exist. God would never entrust His holy Word to them. Please don't make that assumption. To say that they were guided by the Holy Spirit is ludicrous. The Holy Spirit does not guide to murder, torture, persecute. If you were a true student of history you would know these things. But you conveniently gloss over them. It sounds to me you have both an axe to grind and one to defend--unfortunately (defending the axe that beheaded the martyrs that stood for the Word is sickening)!

You ought to wonder; but maybe not. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
You are not a Baptist. You are a Catholic spouting Catholic doctrine lying on your profile saying you are a Catholic when you are not. No Baptist believes this garbage.

No, it was a statement of fact.
No Baptist believes this garbage. That is not opinion. You are not a Baptist.

Honesty is a Christian trait.
If you are honest then you should leave the SBC which you are associated with and join the RCC which you so ardently defend. Why are you so dishonest?

--Man is a sinner. He is not infallible. Only God is infallible.
It stands to reason then that no Council is infallible.
It also stands to reason that no Council of the RCC is infallible.
The only authority that is infallible is the Bible which is inspired of God, not of man. The RCC had nothing to do with its canonization.

You prefer the early church; I prefer the leading of the Holy Spirit.
You prefer the early church; I prefer the objective study of the Scriptures.
You prefer the early church; the ECF which you prefer were caught up in many heresies.

Ireaneus believed that Christ lived up to the age 80. Reliable wasn't he?
Origen was declared a heretic even by the RCC.
Tertullian at one stage believed that baptism saved, and that at another stage believed in believer's baptism. Later he became a Montanist. Which account do you believe?
Eusbius was a follower of Origen; who knows what he believed, as he was a follower of the heresies of Origen in many of his philosophies.

So, go and believe your heresies. I will believe the Word of God.

If they are not saved, they are not my brothers and sisters.
Jesus said (John 8:44) "Ye are of your father, the devil...)
Catholic doctrine teaches that the new birth is baptism. If that is their belief they cannot be saved, and therefore are not my brothers and sisters. The RCC is not and never was a Christian Church. With all of its anti-Biblical doctrines it falls outside the realm of Christendom.

Yes it is right. Early believers recognized the canon that was already in existence. But the RCC recognize "the stupidity" of the Apostles. That is unfortunate.

And we had the Apostles to teach us which were Scripture and which were not. It doesn't take much brains to figure that out.

 

And let me know when your man enough to stand up for who you really are.

 

Are you pretending you do? You should go read my post on Sola Scriptura.

 

The world trembles in the face of your rapier wit.

Please note the dates here DHK -- they precede your ridiculous 4th century theory by around two hundred years.

St. Ignatius of Antioch: A.D. 107
"Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Oops...

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Agustine verifies this a little later...

Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).
2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

If it were not for the Crusades, you would be bowing to Allah under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Be carefull where you cast dispersions there DHK. Again, you show your complete ignorance of history.

Oh please - spare me the self-righteousness!

Let me say this again! I was born and raised a Baptist. My ancestors were Baptist back to the Civil War. I could really care less what you think about me, so deal with it!

And you are not God!

Insert Charlie Brown's Teacher's voice here...wah... wah... wah... wah

This is complete and utter twaddle representing only your opinion.

Do you think that the Early Church was NOT led by the Holy Spirit? Do you think that some newcomer religion is closer to Christ than the early Church? Clearly you do!

Do you think that the "objective study of the Scriptures" is closer to the truth than the practices of the early Church? Apparently so!

Well, some of those heretical ECF's put forth the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. Do you deny those doctrines? Be consistent there DHK!

No - you believe in your fallible interpretation of the Word of God!

And just who the heck are you to decide who is or is not saved - God? Do you know who is in heaven or hell DHK? You certainly appear to claim that authority for yourself. Carefull, lest you wind up in hell for commiting the sin of presumption!

Blah... blah... blah... Just more of the same bigotted opinion from you, DHK!

And that diatribe is completely divorced from reality.

Peace!

 

And let me know when I care what you think about me.

Peace!

 

Well, I don't think that you can show me directly from scripture where scripture claims that it is the SOLE authority for Christians regarding faith and morals. Wanna' try again? And this time please address the material and formal sufficiency of scripture.


Peace!

 

Your heritage as a Baptist doesn't make you one. You must be born again. If you haven't been born into the family of God, by the Spirit of God (and not of water--the water of baptism), then you are not saved, and not a Baptist. You don't hold to Baptist doctrine whether or not you sit in a Baptist church. You are not Baptist because you come from a Baptist family. You sit here and spout Catholic doctrine. It is obvious to all who read your posts that you are not a Baptist. You need to be honest.

I don't have to be God. Jesus said: "You shall judge them by their fruit."
That is what I do. I judge by your fruit. Your fruit is not Biblical but unbiblical if not anti-biblical. It is the fruit of the RCC, not of a Christian and not of a Baptist.

Suit yourself with your own immaturity.

No, it is fact. The Bible was written by the prophets and the apostles (2Pet.1:20-22). It is the inspired Word of God (2Tim.3:16). Thus it had nothing to do with the RCC. It claims its own inspiration.

The early church, yes. The RCC, no.
The promise is to every believer the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the RCC wouldn't know that. They trust in man not God. That is why they have a magesterium, a group of men to guide them.

Than the early church fathers, yes! Go ahead, trust in the works of Origen et. al. I would never do so.

I teach what the Bible teaches. The Bible taught the trinity long before they did.

I am not stuck on the heresies of the ECF. Apparently you are.

By their fruits you shall know them.

You are opposed to listening to truth--always have been. That is why you have rejected your Baptist heritage.

Early believers recognized the canon that was already in existence, but it is pure folly on the part of the RCC not to recognize the early believers.