Faith

Discussion in 'Fellowship Time' started by MaryseBlossom, Aug 10, 2013.

  1. Indeed Jesus did say "Petra" referring to the the rock he was building his Church upon, and then "Petrus" referring to Peter, but the difference is masculine and feminine. Just as I wouldn't call someone named Mario "Maria." The words, "Rock" is feminine by default, but since he was addressing peter (masculine) it was "Petrus."
     
  2. ..and it was 'this' rock in view: the declaration of Deity, not carte blanche to a group of men to add and interpret to their sole discretion.

    I think by now it should be clear that rather that leaving interpretation to a line of clergy, it is to the Scriptures that continual recourse can be made, as the Spirit of God through the Word reveals Christ to the reader, in all Christ's glorious offices and saving power.
     
    Sparrow likes this.
  3. Amen. You are in agreement with the Catholic Church in this statement. It is by no means taking the carte blanche approach.

    The scriptures are consistent with the Catholic position. But while the scriptures are 100% true, we shouldn't ONLY be looking to the scriptures. If that were true, it would 1) neglect that the Church was established before the Bible was even completed, and 2) the Bible would need to direct to itself as the only infallible authority of Christian practice.
     
  4. I could quote numerous differences between the Scriptures and its 'official' position, to great length. But I don't think our exchange is based on comparable assumptions.
     
  5. Much of it would be based on differences of translation--for example, your translation of Matthew 16:16-19 vs. the Church's translation.
     
  6. #26 Brother_Mike_V, Aug 12, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2013
    The rock argument simplified: why would god establish a church on the 'rock' of a man when man is a sinful being?

    Answer: God wouldn't. The "Rock" is God-Jesus Christ, not any man. But we can play the throw scripture around game if you want. It's idle chatter and benefits no one. [UPDATE: Simon Peter was one stone placed on the foundation of the ROCK.]

    Jesus Christ IS the way the truth and the life-"High Priest" of the Church-Old and New Testament. Only Jesus Christ gives salvation-not the members of the Church (That includes Brother Simon Peter). He paid the price once and for ALL.

    The Bible really is not that hard to comprehend- WE make it hard.
     
    Kurt75 and Sparrow say Amen and like this.
  7. Untrue. Historically what the Scriptures teach and what the Roman clergy have taught has some similarities but many differences, and they don't just hinge on obscurities, and they are not resolved by the clergy simply 'correcting' and reinterpreting the clear statements of Scriptures on a whole area of aspects relating to the Person and Work of Christ.

    At very great length these expects could be cited, but I don't sense that you are particularly enquiring about what the Scriptures teach, as opposed to wanting to reinforce what the clergy tells you, so it would maybe be superfluous. This is MaryseBlossom's thread anyway.
     
  8. Amen. If anyone is worshiping the Church or make the claim that the Church or anyone/anything other than the grace of God has saved them, then they have indeed missed the point.
     
  9. Not at all. As it says in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching..." (not "ONLY Scripture is inspired by God...). I think it would be a big mistake to dismiss the holy Bible when it was a gift to us.
     
  10. Right you are--we've gotten quite a bit into this. I was only responding to side comments ;)
     
  11. To imply that 2 Timothy 3:16 says and means that the clergy's statements are as inspired as, and even more so to overrule them, than the Scriptures are, is frankly not what that verse, or any other Scripture verse, says.
     
  12. That wasn't my statement. I used that verse in explanation that the scriptures are infallible and true. The bit regarding the misunderstanding of the verse was only a side comment--but it's a very common misinterpretation.
     
  13. Maybe the doctrinal section would be particularly suitable.
     
  14. Interesting to note: Paul said “I am a Pharisee”…

    I think it is more than affiliation with a corporal church or a group or a party…

    Acts 23:6
    6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the [a]Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”
     
  15. Indeed. Some of the Jews were divided between Pharisees and Sadducees (a more secularized version).
     
  16. Matthew 16:16–18
    "Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (ESV)

    Some Christian denominations, such as the Catholic Church, interpret this verse to mean that Peter is the rock upon which the church was founded, and for this reason, Peter is considered the first Pope. However, Protestants as well as other Christian denominations understand this verse differently. Though many believe Jesus noted the meaning of Peter's name here as rock, there was no supremacy given to him by Christ. Rather, Jesus was referring to Peter's declaration: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This confession of faith is the rock upon which the church is built, and just like Peter, everyone who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord is a part of the church."
     
  17. The common interpretation from Protestants of this passage isthat Jesus is speaking of Peter's faith--or Peter's confession. That'soften why people divide "Petra" vs. "Petros" thinking Peter is onlya pebble, and on this Rock, (namely Christ -- 1 Corinthians 10:4 and so on)"I will build my Church." This is a position even some of the most anti-Catholic Protestant scholars admit readily and candidly.

    Peter just said, "You are the Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros." There is a little parallelism there. "You are the Son of the Living God" and "You are the son of Jonah, Simon Bar-Jonah; you are the Petros." Jesus' beatitude of Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader. In regards to Peter as 'The Rock,'It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church.

    This was expressing even by many Protestant scholars, like W. F. Albright and R.T. France. Albright wrote "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter...To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright went on, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence" (I found this from Scott Hahn's book 'Rome Sweet Home').

    I used to agree the notion of Christ ONLY addressing Peter as the Rock was silly. It took a lot of studying (and even common sense), to realize that I was wrong and that Christ was indeed addressing Peter as the Rock of the Church.
     
  18. Colossians 1:18
     
  19. Amen.
     
  20. I jump around churches. I think as long as they have the basic foundation of the gospel, it's okay. For me if I feel I can have a good fellowship through the church, then I would consider that to be a good church.
     

Share This Page