I have a staute of a cat of my fireplace mantle that looks like my kitty. Its not in my church, nor do I worship it, or honor it, or pay homage to it. It has nothing to do with God, or whom my prayers are lifted up to. Its also not a creature in Heaven above or Earth beaneth that no man has ever seen, and use his imagination to conjour up. The Golden Calf represented a pegan God it wasnt something Aaron and company dreamed up, or a new idol to a new God. That act violated two of the commandments. The Cherubum for the Ark God commanded to be made and the size of them. The snake on the pole God commanded to be made and looked upon, but not worshipped. Gods direct commands in one time instances over rule general guidance/Laws that he provided us. The issue really boils down to the holliness of God do you worship him simply, or do you (as man) try to improve it or dress it up. God dosent need that! Its man sinfull nature at its finest saying Ill do it my way!
Marie and Libby
- Thread starter libby
- Start date
I have a staute of a cat of my fireplace mantle that looks like my kitty. Its not in my church, nor do I worship it, or honor it, or pay homage to it. It has nothing to do with God, or whom my prayers are lifted up to. Its also not a creature in Heaven above or Earth beaneth that no man has ever seen, and use his imagination to conjour up. The Golden Calf represented a pegan God it wasnt something Aaron and company dreamed up, or a new idol to a new God. That act violated two of the commandments. The Cherubum for the Ark God commanded to be made and the size of them. The snake on the pole God commanded to be made and looked upon, but not worshipped. Gods direct commands in one time instances over rule general guidance/Laws that he provided us. The issue really boils down to the holliness of God do you worship him simply, or do you (as man) try to improve it or dress it up. God dosent need that! Its man sinfull nature at its finest saying Ill do it my way!
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Wow, you're in serious need of a Bible study my friend. "Not sola scriptura"?? You couldn't be more mistaken. And that is the very reason why the RCC has come under judgment in the past for some of the things they teach.
The 66 books of the Bible weren't compiled in English until @1350AD BUT the writings have been around since the time of Moses, who wrote the "Tora(h)", which was the main scriptures for the Jews.
God DID say to Moses and others to write things down and the Catholic church did not have them under lock & key.
Paul said: (1 Corinthians 4v 6) "do not go beyond what is written", meaning do not let anything from the (oral) traditions of any man override what is written. Jesus said the same thing in (Matthew 15 v 3-6). The 10 commandments were written in stone. Many of the writings were on scrolls, even the Dead Sea scrolls. Come on Libby, you know word of mouth changes over time. Do a search in a concordance and see how many times the words "write or written" are used. Words & pictures were written on cave walls and stone slabs before animal skins were used but they still had to be written down. Even angels told people to write the words of God down for others to read.
I don't understand your last statement. What is charism? And just pick any one of my suggested "doctrines" to discuss. You mentioned Peter, so explain where you get the concept of pope from it.
- <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone") <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Sola fide ("by faith alone") <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone") <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Solus Christus ("Christ alone") <LI class=toclevel-1>5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
The Catholic church was NOT started by Jesus. Jesus started the Christian church which was continued by the Apostles. The RCC could have never been started by Jesus due to it's many man made, Bible contradicting practices. Jesus would have never tolerated them while He was on the earth.
And, yes, sometimes "bible only" people can't agree on it's meaning but it doesn't make the Bible wrong. My post #33 tells what is true about understanding Scripture verses. Usually, if the passage is a secondary issue, it can be debated but a primary issue of the Bible cannot be debated and is ALWAYS very clear to a TRUE Christian.
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Libby,
The reason we dont give Peter that office is because.
Foundational Principles of Reformed Church Government
1. The church is the possession of Christ, who is the Mediator of the New
Covenant.
Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27
2. As Mediator of the New Covenant, Christ is the Head of the church.
Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23-24; Colossians 1:18
3. Because the church is Christ's possession and He is its Head, the principles governing the church are not a matter of human preference, but of divine revelation.
Matthew 28:18-20; Colossians 1:18
4. The universal church possess a spirit unity in Christ and in the Holy Scriptures.
Matthew 18:18; Ephesians 2:20; I Timothy 3:15; II John 9
5. The Lord gave no permanent universal, national or regional offices to His church. The office of elder (presbyter/episkopos) is clearly local in authority and function; thus Reformed church government is presbyterial, since the church is governed by elders, not by broader assemblies.
Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5
6. In its subjection to its heavenly Head, the local church is governed by Christ from heaven, by means of His Word and Spirit, with the keys of the kingdom which He has given it for that purpose; and it is not subject to rule by sister churches who, with it, are subject to the one Christ.
Matthew 18:19; Acts 20:2-32; Titus 1:5
7. Federative relationships do not belong to the essence or being of the church; rather, they serve the well-being of the church. However, even though churches stand distinctly next to one another, they do not thereby stand disconnectedly alongside one another. Entrance into and departure from a federative relationship is strictly a voluntary matter.
Acts 15:1-35; Romans 15:2-27; Colossians 4:16, Titus 1:5; Revelation 1:11,20
8. The exercise of a federative relationship is possible only on the basis of unity in faith and in confession.
I Corinthians 10:14-22; Gal. 1:8-9; Ephesians 4:16-17
9. Member churches meet together in consultation to guard against human imperfections and to benefit from the wisdom of a multitude of counselors. In the broader assemblies. The decisions of such assemblies derive their authority from their conformity to the Word of God.
Proverbs 11:14; Acts 15:1-35; I Corinthians 13:9-10; II Timothy 3:16-17
10. In order to manifest our spiritual unity, local churches should seek the broadest possible contacts with other like-minded churches for their mutual edification and as an effective witness to the world.
John 17:21-23; Ephesians 4:1-6
11. The church is mandated to exercise its ministry of reconciliation by proclaiming the gospel to the ends of the earth.
Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 1:6; II Corinthians 5:18-21
12. Christ cares for His church through the office-bearers whom He chooses.
Acts 6:2-3; Timothy 3:1,8: 5:17
13. The Scriptures encourage a thorough theological training for the ministers of the Word.
I Timothy 4:16; II Timothy 2:14-16; 3:14; 4:1-5
14. Being the people of God, chosen and redeemed, the church, under the supervision of the elders, is called to worship Him according to the Scriptural principles governing worship.
Leviticus 10:1-3; Deuteronomy 12:29-32; Psalm 95:1,2,6; Psalm 100:4; John 4:24; 1 Peter 2:9
15. Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, it is called through the teaching ministry to build up the people of God in faith.
Deuteronomy 11:19; Ephesians 4:11-16; I Timothy 4:6; II Timothy 2:2; 3:1-17
16. Christian discipline, arising from God's love for His people, is exercised in the church to correct and strengthen the people of God, maintain the unity and the purity of the church of Christ, and thereby bring honor and glory' to God's name.
I Timothy 5:20; Titus 1:13; Hebrews 12:7-11
17. The exercise of Christian discipline is first of all a personal duty of every child of God, but when discipline by the church becomes necessary it must be exercised by the elders of the church, the bearers of the keys of the kingdom.
Matthew 18:15-20; Acts 20:28; I Corinthians 5:13; I Peter 5:14
I know this isnt what your domination teaches but this is why we dont agree.
Peter might have been called the rock but Christ is the cornerstone.
Jesus promised to build his church. While in the district of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus said, "And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it'' (Matthew 16:18). Jesus here told the Apostle Peter that upon the truth (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God) which Peter had just confessed, he (Jesus) would build (establish) his church.
Thats not correct church history, it started being corruppted by Man, somewhere about 98 AD. After the Apostles were gone and folks started adding to and doing there own thing! Just like the Pharsees did with the law! Bishops are mentioned in scripture and deacons and elders no other offices are.
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Wow Marie, that's a real Freudian slip there.Many Old & New testament verses call Christ the chief cornerstone, so that needs no more discussion.
What you said is true. There is a misunderstanding that comes from the English words "rock & Rock". In the Greek there is no problem. The verse would read: You are "petros" and upon this "Petra" I will build my church. Clearly it can be seen that Jesus did NOT build His church on Peter. Especially when Jesus even called him satan once. And there is no way to glean out a pope in that passage either. Again, I say: this is what happens to even the most sincere people who listen to man and not the Bible. Man will not be our judge. God's Word will be.
Okay, we'll go over authority. But, I'll be out most of today, (Libby has a life???) so I may get a bit started this evening.
T
toppick08
Guest
T
toppick08
Guest
You're converting..?
Convert?? NEVER!! Just so nobody thinks I've bailed on a tough question, I'm working on what-I-consider a deliberate response. As IT said, we've gone over the seemingly contradictory passages, so I'm taking a bit more time.
I'm going to put this in a few successive posts because I'm guessing they might be too long for a single post.
I have also made an attempt to make my case without insulting the Bible Christian position. If IT, 2A, Marie or Starman choose to respond, I will hope that they will try to offer the same courtesy to Radiant 1, Bavarian and myself, those who hold to the Catholic Tradition.
Again, for me, I'm going to avoid cut and paste Bible passages that support my position, although I understand that it is integral to each of our points. There are passages included, but I'm trying to present something a bit more methodical, but by no means exhaustive.
I have also made an attempt to make my case without insulting the Bible Christian position. If IT, 2A, Marie or Starman choose to respond, I will hope that they will try to offer the same courtesy to Radiant 1, Bavarian and myself, those who hold to the Catholic Tradition.
Again, for me, I'm going to avoid cut and paste Bible passages that support my position, although I understand that it is integral to each of our points. There are passages included, but I'm trying to present something a bit more methodical, but by no means exhaustive.
I am going to make an attempt at a methodical walk through of the papacy in Scripture. When I am done, I do not expect you to agree that the RCC has had it right all along; however, I do hope that some on this board will, at least, be able to accept that there is a reasonable support for why some so fervently believe in the office of Peter.
In the OT- God established the human family with husband having authority over wife (Adam and Eve)
The human couple become a family, becomes a tribe (Noah), and becomes a nation (Israel). In the course of all of this there is always an authority within the households.
God establishes a nation, Israel, and Moses speaks to the nation for God. There are all of the well known examples, but I consider it prophetic that in Numbers 12 we see the following exchange:
Numbers 12:1-15 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses...; and they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it.. ...And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, ..., and called Aaron and Miriam; ... And He said, ....., with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. ......"
There was further hierarchical set up in the OT.
Of the twelve tribes of Israel, the temple service was restricted to the tribe of Levi.
Within that tribe, specific tasks were assigned to certain families. Eg. Only Aaron and his descendents could be priests (Num 3:1-4).
1) the priesthood. Within the priesthood (Aaron and his descendents), one only was appointed as an acting high priest.
(Jesus is our only high priest; our ordained priesthood to assist here on earth.)
2) non-priestly clerical duties assigned to other families of the tribe of Levi.
(Read Numbers chapters 3 and 4)
I find that the common (for lack of a better term) priesthood that we all share is akin to #2.
It's interesting that some of the Levitical families were not satisfied with their assigned roles and envied the priesthood assigned to Aaron's descendants. God dealt harshly with their revolt. (Can read about it in Numbers, chapter 16).
From the beginning there is an order, an authority. That is God’s mercy and wisdom, knowing our fallen nature can lead us into error.
In the OT- God established the human family with husband having authority over wife (Adam and Eve)
The human couple become a family, becomes a tribe (Noah), and becomes a nation (Israel). In the course of all of this there is always an authority within the households.
God establishes a nation, Israel, and Moses speaks to the nation for God. There are all of the well known examples, but I consider it prophetic that in Numbers 12 we see the following exchange:
Numbers 12:1-15 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses...; and they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it.. ...And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, ..., and called Aaron and Miriam; ... And He said, ....., with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. ......"
There was further hierarchical set up in the OT.
Of the twelve tribes of Israel, the temple service was restricted to the tribe of Levi.
Within that tribe, specific tasks were assigned to certain families. Eg. Only Aaron and his descendents could be priests (Num 3:1-4).
1) the priesthood. Within the priesthood (Aaron and his descendents), one only was appointed as an acting high priest.
(Jesus is our only high priest; our ordained priesthood to assist here on earth.)
2) non-priestly clerical duties assigned to other families of the tribe of Levi.
(Read Numbers chapters 3 and 4)
I find that the common (for lack of a better term) priesthood that we all share is akin to #2.
It's interesting that some of the Levitical families were not satisfied with their assigned roles and envied the priesthood assigned to Aaron's descendants. God dealt harshly with their revolt. (Can read about it in Numbers, chapter 16).
From the beginning there is an order, an authority. That is God’s mercy and wisdom, knowing our fallen nature can lead us into error.
T
toppick08
Guest
Now I’m going to move on to Peter. First, we all know that Peter’s name was, at the first, Simon. He was renamed by Christ, and the translation of that name is “rock”. God had changed names at other times in Scripture. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock."
We can go back and forth about the “large rock” vs. “small pebble”, as the Greek translations leave us with Petros/Petra. However, Christ spoke Aramaic, and in that language there is only one “Kepha”, so the passage reads, “Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church.”
We see in Isaiah 22 that there are prophetic keys that are given. We would all agree that those keys were a foreshadowing of Christ’s authority, “I will place the key of the house of David on his shoulder.” That same key is given unto Peter in Matthew 16: 19, and Jesus is speaking only to Peter at that time. In Rev. 3:7 we see again that there is one who holds the keys, “'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open.” Pretty much exactly what Christ said to Peter. It is interesting to note that the next line says, “you have limited strength, yet you have kept my word…” Because of this “limited strength” Revelation cannot be talking about Jesus, it has to be a human being. (Now, I’ll admit right now that I had not yet seen this particular verse, but obviously I’m more convicted than I was before!) I’ve given the chapter a once over, and it surely seems to fit in with the teaching.
We can go back and forth about the “large rock” vs. “small pebble”, as the Greek translations leave us with Petros/Petra. However, Christ spoke Aramaic, and in that language there is only one “Kepha”, so the passage reads, “Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church.”
We see in Isaiah 22 that there are prophetic keys that are given. We would all agree that those keys were a foreshadowing of Christ’s authority, “I will place the key of the house of David on his shoulder.” That same key is given unto Peter in Matthew 16: 19, and Jesus is speaking only to Peter at that time. In Rev. 3:7 we see again that there is one who holds the keys, “'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open.” Pretty much exactly what Christ said to Peter. It is interesting to note that the next line says, “you have limited strength, yet you have kept my word…” Because of this “limited strength” Revelation cannot be talking about Jesus, it has to be a human being. (Now, I’ll admit right now that I had not yet seen this particular verse, but obviously I’m more convicted than I was before!) I’ve given the chapter a once over, and it surely seems to fit in with the teaching.
We see in Matthew 23 that Jesus acknowledges the existence of the “chair of Moses”. Going back to my first post on this subject, and put that tidbit together with Jesus’ affirmation of the reality of a “chair”, and the authority of the occupant, and it’s a prophetic to my way of thinking.
Let’s remember that Jesus never condemned the teachings of the priests, just their deeds. This is consistent with the Catholic position that the pope is infallible, when he speaks “from the chair of Peter” (or ‘ex cathdra’) on matters of faith and morals. This does not mean the pope is a sinless human being, and more than the scribes and Pharisees were sinless.
Let’s remember that Jesus never condemned the teachings of the priests, just their deeds. This is consistent with the Catholic position that the pope is infallible, when he speaks “from the chair of Peter” (or ‘ex cathdra’) on matters of faith and morals. This does not mean the pope is a sinless human being, and more than the scribes and Pharisees were sinless.
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
He didn't speak only Aramaic but none the less the word in Greek is what we have to go by. They can't introduce Aramaic whenever they want. Plus, the Bible names Christ a few times as the chief cornerstone of the church. That leaves any human out.
"Keys" in the Bible are not literal keys like we have for our homes or cars. Having the "keys" to anything in the Bible means having power and authority over the listed entity.Libby said:
When Jesus speaks of "having limited strength", He's NOT talking about anything to do with Peter. He's speaking to the people of the church in Philadelphia. What does this have to do with the pope?
This "chair" is simply another word for the successors of Moses and is not even a literal chair. It has nothing to do with the chair that the pope sits in where he thinks he gets magic powers from. Besides that, Jesus references the OT law, not the NT new covenant in Christ. Can you see, yet, how a simple misinterpretation can be turned into an entirely wrong belief system?
The pope can only be infallible if he read from the Bible and this he does very little. Again Libby, I'm not trying to beat you up verbally, I'm just trying to show you the danger and fallacy of the RCC's reasoning for the existence of the pope. One more thing. It's not wrong to have a leader for your church. What is wrong is what you folks call him and how you revere him. That is pure & simple idolatry and blasphemy and it is dangerous. So don't take this wrong, you can still believe what you want. I'm just trying to show you the truth.Libby said:
He didn't speak only Aramaic but none the less the word in Greek is what we have to go by. They can't introduce Aramaic whenever they want. Plus, the Bible names Christ a few times as the chief cornerstone of the church. That leaves any human out.
"Keys" in the Bible are not literal keys like we have for our homes or cars. Having the "keys" to anything in the Bible means having power and authority over the listed entity.
When Jesus speaks of "having limited strength", He's NOT talking about anything to do with Peter. He's speaking to the people of the church in Philadelphia. What does this have to do with the pope?
This "chair" is simply another word for the successors of Moses and is not even a literal chair. It has nothing to do with the chair that the pope sits in where he thinks he gets magic powers from. Besides that, Jesus references the OT law, not the NT new covenant in Christ. Can you see, yet, how a simple misinterpretation can be turned into an entirely wrong belief system?
The pope can only be infallible if he read from the Bible and this he does very little. Again Libby, I'm not trying to beat you up verbally, I'm just trying to show you the danger and fallacy of the RCC's reasoning for the existence of the pope. One more thing. It's not wrong to have a leader for your church. What is wrong is what you folks call him and how you revere him. That is pure & simple idolatry and blasphemy and it is dangerous. So don't take this wrong, you can still believe what you want. I'm just trying to show you the truth.
Okay, so instead of stating your case, you focused on dismantling mine. I didn't ask you if you thought I was right or wrong. I'm all grown up and I believe the better case is made for the office of Peter. Unless someone else on the board happens to want a response to your points, I won't bother going over them.
I guess it's just too much to ask for. My bad.