'Zackly! :thumbs:
-
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!
Sola scriptura or prima scriptura
- Thread starter Anastasia
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Walter
New Member
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
WRONG, THE MAJORITY opinion in the ECF IS AGAINST YOUR INTERPRETATION!!
Ka-ching.
All you have to do to know this is read their works in their entirety to know that. Rather than take out what you like and leave the rest.
Surely your not naive enough to post this. Haven't you done the math? This is an impossibility.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (Acts 8:14)
And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, (Acts 8:18)
--Here Peter went from Jerusalem to Samaria. This is where Simon Magus was. This is that Simon who is being referred to. The date is after Pentecost, just before the conversion of Paul, maybe ca. 35 A.D. In the next chapter Paul gets saved. According to his testimony, he spends three years in Arabia and then Barnabas introduces him to the apostles at Jerusalem where Peter still is. That would put us up to 38-40 A.D.
Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. (Acts 12:1)
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (Acts 12:3)
--This was in Jerusalem. The time of his reign, and of this event is said to be ca. 47 A.D. according to Barnes.
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. (Acts 15:4)
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. (Acts 15:6)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (Acts 15:7)
--Peter was here at Jerusalem at the Jerusalem Council. There has not been one indication yet that he has ever been to Rome. The date of this council can be set no earlier than 50 A.D., possibly later.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (Galatians 2:11-12)
--Now Peter is at Antioch causing problems, the very problem that he was part of solving about two years earlier. The year here is about 51-52. The sorry "pope" is being scolded and harshly rebuked by this pharasaical "johnny-come-late" apostle, called Paul.
According to Calmet, Peter was martyred in 66 A.D. and his last epistle was written just one year before that.
He wrote the second epistle shortly after the first where he said:
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. (1 Peter 5:13)
--He was at Babylon, located on the Euphrates River, the center of all Asiatic activity. The Jews had been dispersed. He writes to:
the Jewish "dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia," and Babylon is at the center of those places.
Furthermore, in his last epistle he says:
Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. (2 Peter 1:14)
--He knows martyrdom awaits him. It is 65 A.D. There is still not a shred of evidence that he has ever been in Rome for one day, much less 25 years. Now he says (from Babylon) that he is going to die (put off this tabernacle).
Is that enough for you to give up this 25-year popish theory?? It is a myth, a contrived RCC story.
And this proves what? Clement quoted Scripture and that is all. He said nothing more than Scripture said and nothing less.
Again that can be read two different ways, just as it is in our KJV. It is worded just the same as if he is quoting Scripture. It doesn't give any solid evidence that Tertullian believed one way or the other. The keys are simply the gospel that opens the door to the kingdom (being saved). A few chapters later we see Jesus giving the same keys to all the disciples. Bound and loosed is referring to church discipline within the church.
Read carefully. What you quoted is nothing more than Scripture being quoted.
Clement's remarks on the keys are confusing. But that is an aside.
The Bible says that the prophets and the apostles make up the foundation of the church with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Clement simply looked at Peter as being an important stone in that foundation, perhaps the first one placed, other than Christ himself. He elevated Peter above the other disciples. But then Peter was a leader in many ways, wasn't he? That is all he is saying here.
It sounds like Cyprian is way off base, but then much of the quote is missing.
So, Who is Ephraim?
Ambrose gives you no help at all. First he quotes the verse. Then he poses a rhetorical question that has no answer. In no way does he say that Peter has any great authority.
This quote gives nothing of any real value.
A papal decree of heresy. How nice. Right from the horse's mouth!
Hence.....Confusion! If we have 'Tradition' thatno one can prove, we are in a worse state than ever. Fortunately, 'All Scripture is God-breathed....so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped...' Good enough for me.
Hence.... Tradition!
WM
I started my previous post, saying, 'Well, for a start...' I haven't finished yet, so save your Ka-chings. One refutation was easy; the other two won't be hard.
Steve
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
It is clear from this post you haven't read the ECF in their entirety. Had you done so you would have known Simon Magus continued to be a problem for the early church. You would have known the Romans Built a statue of him on the Tiber and that unlike Christianity Simon's cult was actually accepted by the Roman Senate and thus the incident to which Jerome is referring to is much later that Pentecost and a particular issue with the Romans. This is what I mean about choosing a piece rather than going through the Whole.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Dr. Walter
New Member
The third interpretation asserts that the words, ‘On this rock,’ etc., are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed—that this faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the living God is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East, are Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.
Do you have problems counting? Your position is only supported by SIXTEEN among the EFC's whereas my position is supported by FORTY-FOUR!
However, all this proves is HUMAN TRADITIONS are worthless as they are divided. The scriptuers are "MORE SURE" and must be the final authority. It should be noted that you could not deal with the inspired scriptures, the Greek grammar, the syntax, and so you are the one who introduced the confusion of TRADITIONS.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Walter
New Member
We pointed the Greek grammar and overall Biblical evidence that denies the Catholic interpretation that the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 is Peter.
You guys couldn't refute the grammar and so you ran to the IMAGINARY Aramaic argument.
That did not work for you, so you ran to TRADITIONS.
Now, TRADITIONS do not work for you.
Let us get back to the real authority God has provided, not Aramaic imaginations, not divided traditions but the Biblical context and grammar that has been provided for us for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16).
You guys couldn't refute the grammar and so you ran to the IMAGINARY Aramaic argument.
That did not work for you, so you ran to TRADITIONS.
Now, TRADITIONS do not work for you.
Let us get back to the real authority God has provided, not Aramaic imaginations, not divided traditions but the Biblical context and grammar that has been provided for us for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16).
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You will find each of the Fathers holds to the pre-eminance of the Church when taken in whole of all their documents. DO you have a problem reading? Also the same fathers you quote also have shown the primacy of Peter in their documents. It is clear you haven't read them in their entirety and that is clear. I can make a case from each of these writers for both of these issues. What is clear is you piece-meal the fathers to get what you want. Clearly you are showing your propencity for your Traditions and since you are a man its a tradition of men.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You haven't pointed out anything. You can't even conceed that Jesus and his Apostles spoke to each other in Aramaic as is evidence in John 1. And if Jesus taught in Aramaic then by natural understanding the Apostles would have to interpret it into Greek in order to write it in Greek. ITs all very simple.
And once again Dr. Walter you have proved once again I am right and you are wrong.
Hi, I'm new here and still not use to this set up , please bear with me. I'm not very adapt at computers.
Sola Scriptura, I find nothing about it in the Bible, only that the Bible itself speaks of the Church being the pillar/foundation of Christian Faith. 1 Tim 3:15
We are to obey the Church - Heb. 13:17
Church as final authority - Mt 18: 17-18 in this verse we understand that if a brother ,refuses to listen to two or three other born again /saved believers, if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the churc h, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
In this preceding verse, one can almost hear the note of amazement in Christ's voice when he said , "If he refuses to listen even to the church.... "[ implying that for someone to ignore the Church- His Church - would be the height of stupidity and foolishness
In these two verses, Romans 16: 17-18, 1 Cor. 1 v 10 , we see that those that are opposed to the "doctrine ' given way back then, not many years later in the 16th century , which you have been taught [ back then ] avoid any new teachings ,years later. Do not add any thing different than that which was given back then. In plain words , no new churches wanted or needed by Jesus ,[ Jesus' authority was never given to any man or women to start a new church different than His of Matt. 16: 15-19 ] avoid dissensions , which the protesters certainly brought forth after 1500 years of Christ's Churchs' history.
Sola Scriptura, I find nothing about it in the Bible, only that the Bible itself speaks of the Church being the pillar/foundation of Christian Faith. 1 Tim 3:15
We are to obey the Church - Heb. 13:17
Church as final authority - Mt 18: 17-18 in this verse we understand that if a brother ,refuses to listen to two or three other born again /saved believers, if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the churc h, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
In this preceding verse, one can almost hear the note of amazement in Christ's voice when he said , "If he refuses to listen even to the church.... "[ implying that for someone to ignore the Church- His Church - would be the height of stupidity and foolishness
In these two verses, Romans 16: 17-18, 1 Cor. 1 v 10 , we see that those that are opposed to the "doctrine ' given way back then, not many years later in the 16th century , which you have been taught [ back then ] avoid any new teachings ,years later. Do not add any thing different than that which was given back then. In plain words , no new churches wanted or needed by Jesus ,[ Jesus' authority was never given to any man or women to start a new church different than His of Matt. 16: 15-19 ] avoid dissensions , which the protesters certainly brought forth after 1500 years of Christ's Churchs' history.
Well, not really.Westminster Man said:
1. The Lord Jesus pronounces Simon Barjonah blessed on his confession of faith. All those who believe that Jesus is the Christ are blessed (Rom 10:9; 1John 5:1 etc.).
2. The Lord tells Simon that God has revealed this to him. No one can believe this unless God reveals it to him (1Cor 2:14; 12:3).
3. The Lord Jesus tells Simon that his new name is Peter.
4. The Lord tells Peter that on the Rock He will build His church. Since it is Christ Himself who is the Rock (1Cor 10:3; 1Peter 2:6 etc.) and all the Apostles are foundation stones (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), our Lord can only mean that it is on the confession of Jesus as the Christ that the Church will be built.
5. Our Lord tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against His true Church. Nor will they.
6. The Lord Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The preaching of the Lord Jesus as the Christ is the key that will open heaven to those who believe.
7. The Lord Jesus tells Peter that his preaching will open or shut the kingdom of heaven. All true Gospel preaching does that (2Cor 2:15-16).
8. The Lord describes Peter as Satan and as an offense when he attempts to impose himself upon God's purposes (Matt16:23).
Steve
Dr. Walter
New Member
Why do you constantly change the subject when you can't answer the evidence? We were not discussing the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church but the the interpretation of "rock" in Matthew 16:18! First, we were discussing it from a Biblical contextual point of view. You could not handle that, so you shifted the discussion to an imaginary Aramaic supposition for which had no evidence. You could not handle that and so you shifted to a numerical listing by ECF's concerning the interpretation of "rock" in Matthew 16:18 and when I presented evidence by a high ranking Catholic that proved numerically that my interpretation was the most prominent one, you now switch again to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church. All one has to do is review the past posts to see my point.
If you will kindly point out where any evidence was presented concerning the doctrine of the primacy of the church in our discussion on Matthew 16:18 I will read it.
I am not the one who gave that presentation of numerical evidences concerning the ECF's interpretation of "rock" in Matthew 16:18. I simply quoted a high ranking Roman Catholic who presented this evidence that demonstrates you are in error when you claimed that the term "rock" in Matthew 16:18 is interpreted to be "peter" by the the majority of ECF.
Again, it was a high ranking Roman Catholic official that made these statements, not I! Again, he was speaking specifically of the majority opinion concerning the interpretation of "rock" in Matthew 16:18. However, you can't handle that evidence either so you charge him with "peice-meal" tactics when in fact, he correctly spoke to the very point in our argument while you are expanding the argument because you are wrong and simply can't respond to the SPECIFIC evidences that oppose you.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Catholic Church does not hold as dogma that Peter is the rock. If its members want to believe that, it is OK but they may also believe that the rock is Peter's confession. "Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church." CCC Section 424.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I never denied that Aramaic was spoken by the apostles and Christ. I simply denied that the Holy Spirit chose to use Aramaic in the writing of the New Testament. I simply denied that the the context in John equals the context in Matthew. You have nothing but IMAGINATION to base your theory of Matthew 16:18 upon.
Your rationale is rediculous! The Greek language was much more sophisticated and expressive than Aramaic and could more easily express your theory if that was the intent. All Matthew had to do to express your theory was simply to say "YOU are Peter and upon YOU Peter, I will build my church." He could have easily said that but didn't. If he had said that, there would be no gender difference, there would be no second person versus third person difference, there would be no third person singular antecedent that takes you back to verse 16 as the grammatical antecedent.
In addition, if your theory was correct we would have no second person plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 in regard to the use of the keys. If your position were true then we would not have Peter using the same analogy of the church being composed of "lively stones" and Jesus identified as the "petra" in 1 Pet. 2:5,8.
Your theory has no exegetical support and the greater number of EFC's who dealt with that specific issue could clearly see that - 41 to 16.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Tell that to Thinkingstuff not me - I already knew that. I used that very quote in my book in regard to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I am not the one disputing that - Thinkingstuff is disputing it not I.
Steve[ Martin Marprelate ] you wrote the following -
"Well, not really.
1. The Lord Jesus pronounces Simon Barjonah blessed on his confession of faith. All those who believe that Jesus is the Christ are blessed (Rom 10:9; 1John 5:1 etc.).
2. The Lord tells Simon that God has revealed this to him. No one can believe this unless God reveals it to him (1Cor 2:14; 12:3).
3. The Lord Jesus tells Simon that his new name is Peter.
4. The Lord tells Peter that on the Rock He will build His church. Since it is Christ Himself who is the Rock (1Cor 10:3; 1Peter 2:6 etc.) and all the Apostles are foundation stones (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), our Lord can only mean that it is on the confession of Jesus as the Christ that the Church will be built.
5. Our Lord tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against His true Church. Nor will they.
6. The Lord Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The preaching of the Lord Jesus as the Christ is the key that will open heaven to those who believe.
7. The Lord Jesus tells Peter that his preaching will open or shut the kingdom of heaven. All true Gospel preaching does that (2Cor 2:15-16).
8. The Lord describes Peter as Satan and as an offense when he attempts to impose himself upon God's purposes (Matt16:23)."
My refute is as follows-Ezechiel 34: 23 - " And I will set up one shepherd over them , and he shall feed them [ sheep ]
Jesus said to Simon Peter , " Feed my lambs ... feed my lambs....feed my sheep" [ John 21 ; 15-17 ]
Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
Can we find that One True Church today ? Yes, only the Catholic Church' Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you "-Matt. 28 ; 20
Definitely the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as we find from the Holy Bible ----
Most certainly thhough only His Apostolic / Catholic Church--
" He who hears you, hears me ; and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me "- Luke 10 v 16 .
"Well, not really.
1. The Lord Jesus pronounces Simon Barjonah blessed on his confession of faith. All those who believe that Jesus is the Christ are blessed (Rom 10:9; 1John 5:1 etc.).
2. The Lord tells Simon that God has revealed this to him. No one can believe this unless God reveals it to him (1Cor 2:14; 12:3).
3. The Lord Jesus tells Simon that his new name is Peter.
4. The Lord tells Peter that on the Rock He will build His church. Since it is Christ Himself who is the Rock (1Cor 10:3; 1Peter 2:6 etc.) and all the Apostles are foundation stones (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), our Lord can only mean that it is on the confession of Jesus as the Christ that the Church will be built.
5. Our Lord tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against His true Church. Nor will they.
6. The Lord Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The preaching of the Lord Jesus as the Christ is the key that will open heaven to those who believe.
7. The Lord Jesus tells Peter that his preaching will open or shut the kingdom of heaven. All true Gospel preaching does that (2Cor 2:15-16).
8. The Lord describes Peter as Satan and as an offense when he attempts to impose himself upon God's purposes (Matt16:23)."
My refute is as follows-Ezechiel 34: 23 - " And I will set up one shepherd over them , and he shall feed them [ sheep ]
Jesus said to Simon Peter , " Feed my lambs ... feed my lambs....feed my sheep" [ John 21 ; 15-17 ]
Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
Can we find that One True Church today ? Yes, only the Catholic Church' Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you "-Matt. 28 ; 20
Definitely the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as we find from the Holy Bible ----
Most certainly thhough only His Apostolic / Catholic Church--
" He who hears you, hears me ; and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me "- Luke 10 v 16 .
Just a question lakeside.
St. John the Baptist Church is a Catholic Church isn't it?
Please answer honestly.
- Status