So according to your definition the Pope is saying that redemption only applies to atheists if they do good?
How ever you want to define it the Popes words are a very big problem.
-
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!
is the Catholic Church officially now Apostate?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
So according to your definition the Pope is saying that redemption only applies to atheists if they do good?
How ever you want to define it the Popes words are a very big problem.
saturneptune
New Member
All the talk about differences between redemption, atonement, salvation, etc really have nothing to do with the Catholic Church being apostate. It was apostate the day before the Catholic Church came into existence.
Here is an example of the meaningless activity these clowns in the Catholic hierarcy perform daily. Isn't this cute?
Maybe this could be a movie entitled "The Apostate Meets the Heretic."
Here is an example of the meaningless activity these clowns in the Catholic hierarcy perform daily. Isn't this cute?
Maybe this could be a movie entitled "The Apostate Meets the Heretic."
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
All the talk about differences between redemption, atonement, salvation, etc really have nothing to do with the Catholic Church being apostate. It was apostate the day before the Catholic Church came into existence.
Here is an example of the meaningless activity these clowns in the Catholic hierarcy perform daily. Isn't this cute?
Maybe this could be a movie entitled "The Apostate Meets the Heretic."
Looks like Santa Clause in a struggle with the rogue that stole his beard?
official catholic teaching is that God will save those earnest other religions followers who are ignorant of RCC teachings, and that the pope appears to haveincluded now athiest who would merit salvation by good works showing somehow 'working with Grace of god!
ONLY ones excluded from salvations are those who willyfully reject RCC truth, or ex cathilics who rejected those truths!
they do teach salvation apart from faith in jesus saves those people!
OFFICIAl RCC teaching is that IF a sincere person of another religion is"working with Grace of god" as they understand it, IF ignorant of Rome teachings, God will save such a one!
NOT biblically. heretical!
The Council of Ephesus said this:
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] said:
There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, **received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ**, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc."
So an Ecumenical Council plainly linked Matthew 16:18-19 to the Peter AND the Papacy, which at that time was held by Pope Celestine.
Is this the best you can do? Quote an UNINSPIRED man to overrule the words of INSPIRED Peter Himself??????? Peter claimed that Christ is the "petra" in a church building context where the materials for building that church upon Christ are "stones" just as Peter's name characterizses in a building context.
Ask yourself this question, "Where did Peter get the analogy for describing the materials for building a church as "lively stones"? ANSWER: Matthew 16:18.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is this the best YOU can do? Ignore the all evidence that the history of the Church gives us because you know you haven't got a shred of evidence that the anyone ever held you 'baptistic' view of the Rock before the Reformation. Or did those nasty Cat'lics destroy all the evidence? If you have any, please present it.
Can you tell me in your view why I have never heard it addressed why Christ changed Peter's name to "Rocky" in the exchange. Why change the name if there was no other meaning behind it? I have heard some go so far as to say it was a slight insult (making the mythical distinction between petra, petros) but yes the idea is not very well reasoned, neither does it fit grammatically. And, NO nobody was using the word "petros" to carry that meaning in Jesus' day, PERIOD. Can you prove your assertion that it was? In fact, if one peruses the New Testament, when a "small stone" is being described, the term used is always "lithos" and never "petros", and the only time "Petros" is used, is as Peter's name. If so, please show me where other than when Jesus changes Peters name!
What is disingenuous is when Baptists and other Protestants (Baptists are indeed Protestants) conclude that Jesus was making fun of Peter, calling him a pebble. Jesus is now the master punster, calling Peter insignificant. This approach demonstrates how far Protestants go to fit through the eye of the needle that Luther and his political allies needed to obtain property and power.
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, we can put aside the petra/petros discussion and simply look at the context. In Matthew 16:17 Jesus affirms Peter for his understanding of who Jesus is. Then in verse 18 Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose. Having affirmed Peter twice like this, why would anyone in his right mind think Jesus was making a pun to belittle Peter in verse 18? Answer: Baptists have to do it because to do otherwise would be admitting that Jesus was placing Peter in charge of the Church Militant.
There are certain passages that Baptists can't handle because they utterly refute their erroneous beliefs and this is one of them. So what do they do with them? They make them say things that no right thinking reader would ever imagine. For Baptists these are hard passages and they do their best to ignore them. I know this because I have been teaching out of Lifeway literature for nearly 30 years. However, when they have to consider them, they take a meat cleaver to them and cut them into little pieces because they hate them.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Last edited by a moderator:
this is nothing but empty blathering. Deal with the grammatical and contextual evidences that prove the contrary. There is no pun on his name but an intentional use of it to provide what would be missing without it. In regard to verse 19 look at Christ's own application in Matthew 18:18 and the PLURAL "you" which has for its nearest antecedent "the church" in verse 17 which is presented as the final authority, not Peter or any apostles or all the apostles or all the ordained.
I am looking at it grammaticlly (English, not Greek, I don't read Greek, although I'm pretty good at English and all the English translations say more or less the same thing) and contextually. Jesus would not affirm Peter in v. 17 and again in V. 19 while belittling him in v. 18. Give a man an English bible who knows nothing about church doctrines and ask him to read this passage, and I guarantee his views of it will be the Catholic views, not yours.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You have a few problems to overcome to make your case stick.
1. The councils of Ephesus were held about FOUR HUNDRED YEARS after the death of Paul.
So your "Claim" is that any doctrine, any claim, any teaching FOUR HUNDRED YEARS after Paul cannot possibly be in error... err... umm... because "tradition is never in error no matter what the Bible says to the contrary"?? or what??
2. Paul himself by contrast states that IN THE FIRST century they have FALSE Apostles 2Cor 11:13, Forged documents 2Thess 2:1-3 and false doctrine (1Tim 1, Titus 1)
WHAT in the world would cause us to think that FOUR HUNDRED YEARS later - no error at all can be found in the man-made-traditions of an ecumenical council???
How do you make that leap?
3. So then instead of opting to ignore FIRST century documents and instead focus on FIFTH Century documents of questionable content - let's go to the FIRST century itself for our information.
and there as already noted - we have
=========================================
Originally Posted by BobRyan
In 1 Cor 10- long after Christ had spoken in Matt 16 - "That PETRA is Christ".
In 1Cor 3 - " No Other Petra - That PETRA is Christ".
In all of the NT there is no "That PETRA is Peter" - no not even once.
In Matt 7 it is the "PETRA" that is the bedrock upon which the saints are to build and Jesus said this is HIS Word - not the word of Peter.
In Matt 16 where Peter is called "petros" he is also called Satan.
Jesus said to Peter in Matt 16 "get thee behind me Satan" - I don't think I would be going to Matt 16 to make the case for Peter if I were Catholic.
In all of the texts you quote - nobody is asking Peter to render his decision on behalf of the entire church.
But in Acts 15 - (which I notice you did not mention) after Peter and others give their views - it is James that "renders the decision" for the Group saying in conclusion "it is my decision that we ...".
Now having said that - it would be a mistake to assume that Protestants do not think Peter was Christian or that he was not one of the 3 leading disciples--- perhaps one of the leading Apostles who knows?
What is strongly contested however is that the distinctive doctrines of the Catholic church were taught by - or even known by - any of the Apostles so it is not just an issue with Peter it is a claim that none of them taught or knew about Purgatory, or praying to the dead as a Christian practice, or indulgences or infant baptism --
More specifically the difference between the two groups is that the Protestant view says that the Bible is to test all doctrine and all tradition.
in Christ,
Bob
Thomas Helwys
New Member
I'm sorry, but it is the Roman Catholics who have to ignore all rules of grammar, word meanings, and linguistics, as well as scholarship to try and make scripture say what they want it to say on the issue of Peter and the rock. But that is the case with most Romanist dogma. The Roman church is the worst innovator of all denominations, adding a multitude of doctrines with absolutely no scriptural support.
The Bible was written by Catholics, compiled by Catholics and kept exclusively by Catholics for 1,500 years. It is a Catholic book. If they didn’t love it they could have destroyed it because it was exclusively in their possession. And no, they are not innovators. The Catholic view of scripture has existed since the first century and continues down to the present day. Your view, however, was concocted less than 500 years ago by men who perceived their own minds as greater than the wisdom of the ages, men who rejected the deposit of faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. Think about it, do you want to accept a view of scripture that someone devised 1500 years after it was written or do you want a view of scripture that was held by the men who actually penned it?
saturneptune
New Member
This is one time, I stand with you, rare as it may be. I cannot believe some of these posts. The Catholics had/have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. All 66 had been put pen to paper by the Holy Spirit, inspiring the men who wrote them, centuries before the apostate clowns decided to start a club to help with the local kingdoms of Europe and call it a church.
Canons were held throughout the centuries to form the Bible, but we owe the Catholics nothing for that. They decided to add a few books that did not go in the Bible. God and God alone is reponsible for revealing His plan and Himself to man. No doubt we would have done fine if the first pope, long after Peter died, had never put on his beenie hat.
The idea that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic hierarchy and dead theologeans anything is as about as insane as it gets. I am really sorry to inform everyone, but a Pharisee handing off the sacred scrolls to a Pope is not how God's Word was preserved.
saturneptune
New Member
First of all, Baptists are not indeed Protestants. Their ancestors have been around a few hundred years longer than your Micky Mouse Club, hereafter referred to as the RCC. They were preserving the church while the RCC was trying to destroy it.
Where on earth did you get this phrase from "The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine?" He is about as holy and blessed as my pet cat. The point is, when you are making counter points in your posts, use Scripture, and not useless RCC babble and documents.
SN you need to read more history and when you do you will come to realize that Peter, Luke, John, Paul, Jude and Barnabas were among the first Catholics. The church referenced by Jesus in Matthew 16 and 18 is the Catholic Church. Once you get that through your head you will have less difficulty realizing that the Catholic Church is authentic and Protestants are the interlopers. You're a smart guy, so I know you're up to the task. :thumbs:
This is simply not true! Jesus does not refer to "Peter" in verse 17 but to "Simon Bar Jona." It is this change from how he is first introduced in verse 17 that is significant, and the fact that the change occurs in a church building text.
Ask yourself an obvious question! Where did Peter get the idea in his own church building context to describe church members as "stones" and Christ as the "Petra" - 1 Tim. 2:5,8????
You are not looking at the English Grammar except through rose colored glasses. Peter is given the keys as characteristic of such a building "stone" and Christ makes this clear by attributing the power of the keys to the PLURAL "you" in Matthew 18:18 already identied as "the church" not Peter in Matthew 18:17.
Can't get it clearer or plainer!
saturneptune
New Member
Well, I do not know about smarts. I had a "C" average through most of high school due to laziness. It was not until college until I finally figured out that the effort was well worth getting "As" and "Bs". Back to the op, I was unaware that the Catholic Church existed during the time that Peter, Luke, John, Paul, Jude and Barnabas walked the earth. As far as church history goes, I do have a good grasp of it, but since it is not my occupation, certainly not as well as some on this board. However, I do have sense enough to know that one, the Catholic Church was centuries away, and two, if these individuals were members of said church, they would not have tolerated the doctrine that is practiced by the RCC.
We have had I do not know how many threads describing the gap in vivid detail between Catholic rhetoric and Scripture. For example, I doubt Paul would have prayed to Mary.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I am always happy to find agreement wherever it can be had.
As you can imagine - one or two Catholic members on this board as well as myself were a bit "surprised" to find that there are some Baptists that think that the Catholic church and the Adventist church are in some sort of conspiracy together against the Baptists.
In Malachi Martin's book "Keys of this blood" part of the book discusses the view of other denominations taken by the Catholic Church. Both Baptists and Adventists are mentioned in that book and neither of them appear to be in some sort of league or conspiracy with the Catholic church - even by their standards.
I believe Catholics that choose Christ are saved just like anybody else - but I do not always agree with their doctrine and I often differ with their traditions as well as their statements on what happened in history.
in Christ,
Bob