A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

Actually, this is not true. The Apostles only taught what some of scripture was and some which was not. If we relied only on what the apostles referred to our bibles would be smaller.

 

.

What? I just gave you the evidence. I think it is clear where the lack of support resides.

That's not a word - it's phrase and one that I didn’t use. If you actually READ what I provided for a change, you will see that phrase was used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his work entitled “Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D.” He WAS a Catholic!

The Church never declared St. Augustine a heretic. Perhaps you, in your arrogance, are. However, I would like to remind you that St. Augustine was nothing less than a mental giant and Father of the Church. If you are critiquing him, then you are out of your league there, DHK. Further, might I remind you that the Catholic Church existed at least as far back as documented below:

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

That’s 110 AD there DHK. That’s only approximately 77 years after the death and resurrection of our Lord and only about 30 years after the death of the last apostle.

And as the natives here in South AL often say: “now - lay there and waller’ in it.”

I most certainly did give you evidence to the contrary. You, on the other hand have provided me with nothing by your own opinions about what history should be. In formal logic, your position is what is called “Argumentum ad ignorantium”.

I have no Earthly idea what you are talking about.

Once again, you conveniently shift the topic and provide your interpretation of scripture accompanied by your personal bloviations. Very well. You know as well as I that there was blood on everyone’s hands - Protestant and Catholic alike. What you fail to grasp, however, is that the Catholic Church had no MILITARY arm. Up until the time of the Reformation, the civil authorities (Kings/Queens, etc.) implemented military actions and these were sometimes (but not always) done outside of the authority of the Church. If you (as you say), “know history” then you know this to be true. Thus, I can only conclude that you don’t actually have a good understanding of history, or you choose to simply ignore the facts. Either of these scenarios is a sad state of affairs.

The blood of the martyrs was the blood of Catholics shed by Nero, Diocletian, and other Emperors who persecuted the Church. I think you’re in the wrong time period there, DHK.

Amen!

DHK knows all - if you don't believe me, then just ask him.

So you say. You know what they say about opinions don’t you, DHK?

I don’t believe that you posses enough of the truth to provide a dram let alone a dose.

Peace!

 

OK...

In post #52 you asked: “ saw a comment in one reply that most of Christendom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.”

In post #60, I provided what you asked for and in return I get a few verses talking about the traditions of men. Can we say: non sequitur?

P.s. Scripture denies the traditions of men, but not all traditions.

Peace!

 

Consider 2 Thess 2:15

or 2 Tim 2:2

or 1 Cor 11:2

or 1 Thess 2:13

Seems to support tradition. Especially when considering what 2 Pet 3:16 says

 

This was a duplicate and incomplete post -- see post #107 below.

 

What's often missed about Origen is that he realized he was breaking ground thing theology and knew he might makes mistakes so he said what ever is believed by the church I believe it. If not I never believed it. However, he was breaking new ground. I personally would love to have seen his Hexpala.

 

Well, I am born again from above by water and the Holy Spirit. Thus, by your own definition, I am a Baptist!

Yes – by water Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Like it or not that’s the Bible way there, DHK.

Show me a unified Baptist doctrine and I’ll let you know if I hold to it or not.

And you need to stop playing God – the position is taken.

Judge not lest ye yourself shall be judged.

I believe it is abundantly clear to any honest reader where the immaturity lies – both scriptural and emotionally.

As far as I know, the RCC only claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when deciding which books would be in the canon of the NT, and claims it when making doctrinal statements (ex cathedra). I think you have it wrong there, DHK. (BIG surprise)

As I have repeatedly shown for history, the RCC and the Early Church are synonymous.

Well, if you believe, 2,000 years after the fact, that you have more of the truth than those who were closest to Jesus, then I would say that you are deceiving yourself.

First, you teach what you believe is in the Bible – your fallible interpretation of it. Secondly, as you well know (and continually ignore) the doctrine of the Trinity was developed from scripture, intellectually condensed by the ECF’s who were Catholic, and finally made a doctrine by the RCC. Who do you think the ECF's were often writing against? Why, the heretics who denied biblical truth such as the Trinity. Further, who do you think declared these people heretics? Why, the RCC of course.

Back at you there, DHK!

Well, I would say that you don’t hold to the original Baptist beliefs, as they were mostly Calvinists with a puritanical bent. As to our Baptist heritage, that only goes back to 1639, were the first Baptist church was established in Providence, Rhode Island. Not much of a long heritage there is it DHK.

That is antithetical to history DHK and and would be recognized as such by any rational student thereof.

Peace!

 

Why should I bother to show that the Scripture clearly teaches the sufficiency of the Word of God when your just going to reject it. And why should I address the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture when it never speaks of such a distinction?

 

Because scripture can be sufficient and not have the SOLE authority over Christians regarding faith and morals. Do you even know the difference?

Peace!

 

Ok – let me clear this up for you right now. The fact that Jesus decided to change Simon’s name to Kephas [rock] in no way diminishes Christ’s position as the corner stone. It simply means that Jesus made Peter the rock upon which he would build HIS Church. Notice Jesus said HIS church – not Peter’s church. Thus, if Christ is the corner stone, naturally the next piece of the foundation to be laid down would be a rock as well.

Well, Christ is called many things in scripture (I.e. the corner stone, the Lamb of God, the door, the truth, the way, etc.) so that statement is, on its face, absurd – even from a Baptist viewpoint.

Again, I point you right back to my original post:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In context, Matthew 16:13-20 IS about Jesus, AND it describes how Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him [PETER] full authority on Earth in anticipation of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In other words, Peter will be Jesus’ representative (look at the significance of a King giving the keys to someone in Jewish culture.) Remember this - “feed my sheep” , “tend my flock”?

Post canon? You folks are constantly in need of rewriting history. Ok – one more time. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage that officially decided which books belonged to the Bible and which did not, took place in A.D. 382, 393, 397, respectively. Now look at dates of the quotes that you asked for, which I provided.

Tatian the Syrian A.D. 170
Clement of Alexandria A.D. 200
Tertullian A.D. 200
Letter of Clement to James A.D. 221
Origen A.D. 248
Hippolytus A.D. 235
Cyprian A.D. 251
Ephraim A.D. 351
Gregory of Nyssa A.D. 371
Ambrose A.D. 379
Pope Damasus A.D. 382

Of all the quotes, only those from St. Jerome and St. Augustine were “post-canon” and those only by ten years or less.

The quotes that I gave you were not in lieu of scripture, but in support of it!

So, Paul rebuked Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). Did this demonstrate that papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. Whom you choose to eat with is not a doctrine of faith.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

You must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—you cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

The non sequitor was your response to the historical record (which reinforces the biblical fact that Peter was the rock upon which Christ founded the Church), with a few verses indicating that we should not follow the traditions of men (Pharisees). Again, note that Paul talks about the traditions that he passes on either by written word or by word of mouth. Not all traditions are the traditions of men. Thinkingstuff pointed all of this out in another post.

They are not my traditions - they are the traditions handed down by the apostles to the Church. But, hey – thanks for the complement. Alas, I’m way past young.

Peace!

 

So have you all changed anyone's mind?

Both sides are arguing from different foundations and pre-suppositions. You'll never reach agreement. And we Baptists should never reach agreement with a cult-like group that puts man's teaching as the means to interpreting the Scripture. If I'm not mistaken - and I'm not - that was the very basis of the Reformation.

 

One never knows...

One never knows...

And what were the apostles who went out teaching the good news of Jesus? They were MEN!

I believe (and scripture clearly states) that the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth, as the H.S. is truth itself and thus, cannot err. Yet your interpretation of scripture differs from mine, other Christians, and other Baptists for that matter. All of our interpretations are fallible. Hmmm...

Well, if you attribute the Reformation solely to a disagreement over the means of interpreting the Scripture, then that position is most definitely wrong and astoundingly historically shallow as well.

If I may, I would like to recommend a very short and concise book (around 100 pages) that lays this out without taking sides.

Roots of the Reformation - by Karl Adams.

Peace!

 

You know very well that I never said claimed scripture was non sequitur – I said that your application of it was.

What are you talking about?

Then you agree that some traditions are of value in the life of a Christian.

No, and he doesn’t exhort anyone to be a dog, a cat, or a tomato either. He, as did all of the apostles, exhorts us to be Christ-like.

You are speaking about three different things.

I accept the traditions as taught and handed down by the apostles.

These are Christian traditions given to us by God through the apostles. They are traditions of the RCC only because she was there at the beginning and was responsible for passing them down through time. However, they are available to us all.

Withstand me to my face?

Peace!

 

I haven't read every post as the few pages I have read are redundancies.

So this question might have already been asked.

If Peter, supposedly the first pope, initiated/founded/started (choose proper word) the church at Rome, why didn't Paul address him, greet him, acknowledge him or even mention him in his epistle to the Romans?

HankD

 

As you know, not everything was recorded in scripture. In fact Jesus never told anyone to write down anything. However, we do have a trail of recorded history from the ECF's indicating Peter as preeminent among the apostles, and as leader of the Church of Rome with ultimate authority

Ref: Post #60

Peace!

 

Thanks Billy.

I am former Catholic. Your answer is very weak in my estimation.

My answer would be that Peter did not evangelize Rome but Paul who was sent there to "appeal to Caesar".

My guess would be that through his dialogues with the prison guards one or more of them converted from Paganism to Christianity and a local church grew there in Rome.

But then this would necessitate that either 1) Paul was released by Caesar (contrary to tradition) or that the Book of Romans was a "prison" epistle (also contrary to tradition).

It just seems very unlikely that Peter was not greeted or even acknowledged in his Epistle to the Romans.

I am not against Peter being "chief" among the apostles. However he is very unpope like in so many places e.g.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.​

Even if he were the initiator of the local church at Rome, IMO, the hierarchy of the church of Rome had defected from the faith by the time of the Edict of Milan (AD312) when Constantine and Licinius made a marriage of christendom and Paganism.

Later came the "Holy Roman Empire" and the bloodbaths of the Crusades and the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions.

Jesus never told any of the apostles to murder those who would not believe in Him.

Granted other "Christian" organizations have not faired well in this area but Rome is chief among sinners when it comes to the martyrdom and bloodshed of Christians and non-Christians alike.

Examples: The Saint Bartholomew Day Massacre
http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

another (among many): the slaughter of the waldensian peoples
http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=744

These historical facts of mass slaughter and bloodshed along with the doctrinal corruption of salvation by grace through faith (and many other errors) caused my departure from the church of Rome.

While I believe that it is within the realm of possibility that Peter may have preached the gospel in Rome and a local church came forth, Peter is not the originator or founding Apostle of what is modernly called the Roman Catholic Church.


HankD

 

Why not deal with facts instead of fairy tales.
Most of the doctrine of the RCC comes from those things that are not written down in the Bible. The only place they can be found is in pagan tradition. They are not Christian whatsoever:
Examples: Purgatory, limbo, indulgences, rosary, worship of relics and icons, immaculate conception of Mary, assumption of Mary, Mary as Queen of Heaven, confession of sin to a priest, penance, etc. } All the man-made doctrines of religious organization that has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.

So you say!

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--This verse specifically speaks of the Scripture that the Apostles would right. The Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL truth when the time would come for them to write the truth of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
--Not by the will of man, but by God's will was the Holy Scripture written.
They were moved (almost forcibly so) by the Holy Spirit. They were instruments used in the hand of God to write the words that God wanted them to write.

This is a joke isn't it?? :laugh:

The Catholics claim that Peter was the Pope of Rome for 25 years.
Let’s see how viable this is:

Peter was present at Pentecost in 29 A.D.

In Gal.2:11, Peter was rebuked by Paul. The context tells Peter was in Antioch at this time. The corresponding passage is in Acts 11:19-26. The date of this event was 42 A.D.


Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem in 50 A.D., and James was the pastor of that church.


The Epistle of Rome, written by the Apostle Paul, was written in 60 A.D. Neither in the greeting of chapter 1 or in the salutations in chapter 16 Peter is not mentioned.



The First Epistle of Peter was written in 60 A.D.
The Second Epistle of Peter was written in 66 A.D.

--Both were written from Babylon, putting Peter there during those years.


1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.


In Second Peter, Peter speaks of him imminent death:
2 Peter 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
--He knew that his death was soon, even as Paul stated the same in 2Tim.4.



So Paul was in Babylon in 66 A.D. writing his second epistle.

The entire empire was undergoing an intense persecution by the Roman Government under Nero, which Peter writes about in his first epistle. His theme is peace in the midst of suffering. It was a severe persecution brought upon the believers by Nero.



However Nero died in June 68 A.D. by suicide knowing that a revolt was imminent, and he didn't want to be killed by the hand of another.



Peter died either late 67 or early 68. He was in Babylon in 66.
It is only Tradition that puts him in Rome at the time of his death where he supposedly died by being crucified upside down.



Other than that we have no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome whatsoever, and the time line above gives no room for him to be in Rome either. The fact is: it was impossible for him to be a pastor, bishop or pope in Rome at any time.

 

All good points.

Lateran IV calls for the "extermination" of Jews and heretics and then threatens the civil authorities who fail to carry out the order.

in Christ,

Bob