Christian Forums

I was gone for about a week and since Ive been gone there have been alot of new topics and new posters who have in my opinion utterly embarrassed protestants who truly seek the Truth. I'm hoping with this post I ca educate some o my fellow protestants and Ive even sunk as low as to ask Catholics for help.(No disrespect intended)

Sola Scriptura and the other Five Solas are the corner stone of protestant faith. I am a protestant but I have to share my realization when it comes to flaws of this incomplete doctrine.

First point just to get us started.

Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Sola Scriptura teaches that scripture alone is the absolute authority of the faith but here Christ esteems Peter above the rest of the disciples as the means to formulate The Church on Earth.

Peter being charged with this task simply had to have some authority. Scripture was not yet constituted and the Helper had not yet descended.The authority of the faith had to lie somewhere.

Im going to post this in the theology forum too if any Catholics would like to help me out there too.

I was gone for about a week and since Ive been gone there have been alot of new topics and new posters who have in my opinion utterly embarrassed protestants who truly seek the Truth. I'm hoping with this post I can help educate some of my fellow protestants.

Sola Scriptura and the other Five Solas are the corner stone of protestant faith. I am a protestant but I have to share my realization when it comes to flaws of this incomplete doctrine.

First point just to get us started.

Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Sola Scriptura teaches that scripture alone is the absolute authority of the faith but here Christ esteems Peter above the rest of the disciples as the means to formulate The Church on Earth.

Peter being charged with this task simply had to have some authority. Scripture was not yet constituted and the Helper had not yet descended.The authority of the faith had to lie somewhere.

Lets begin.

He is talking to Peter, about Himself

Thou[Peter] art Peter, and upon this rock [Jesus Christ]...

KJV is handy with the thees, thous and ye because it helps you know exactly who was being spoken to, and whether it was a singular or plural "you". Since Jesus was talking to Peter, He would not say "upon this rock", but "upon thee", if Peter was the foundation of the church.

1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


God bless

You've got two threads? Which one to respond to.

Well, I'll respond a different way in here :)

Everyone makes a big fuss of Peter being "the rock", but, the greater commission was given to Paul, who built the gentile church, was Apostle to the gentiles, and was given the revelation of the mystery that had been hid in God before the foundation of the world. Peter went to the circumcision which continually rejected the grace of God, whereas the gentiles received it in great numbers.

1Ti 1:16  Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Eph 3:1  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7  Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Rom 11:25  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 16:25  Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Rom 16:26  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Gal 1:11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul was taught something by revelation of Jesus Christ that no other man knew before him. This was a mystery that God kept hidden (from the OT prophets, from the Apostles, even from Peter), and revealed unto Paul. Paul called this mystery "my gospel", and claims he received it not from Peter, or any other man, but from Jesus Christ himself. In fact, He has to convince Peter and James of this fact! This mystery is that both Jews (who Peter was sent to) AND Gentiles could be FELLOWHEIRS by faith alone, without the works of the law, based upon the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So I don't see what the big deal is about Peter being "the rock" when the doctrine for the church in this dispensation of grace today is not Petrine at all, but Pauline. Take away Paul, and you have very little church doctrine left. And remember, Paul himself said that his message was not from Peter, or any other man, but from Jesus Christ himself.

Quote from: Lukasaurus on Sat May 08, 2010 - 00:44:11
You've got two threads? Which one to respond to.

Well, I'll respond a different way in here :)

Everyone makes a big fuss of Peter being "the rock", but, the greater commission was given to Paul, who built the gentile church, was Apostle to the gentiles, and was given the revelation of the mystery that had been hid in God before the foundation of the world. Peter went to the circumcision which continually rejected the grace of God, whereas the gentiles received it in great numbers.

1Ti 1:16  Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Eph 3:1  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7  Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Rom 11:25  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 16:25  Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Rom 16:26  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Gal 1:11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul was taught something by revelation of Jesus Christ that no other man knew before him. This was a mystery that God kept hidden (from the OT prophets, from the Apostles, even from Peter), and revealed unto Paul. Paul called this mystery "my gospel", and claims he received it not from Peter, or any other man, but from Jesus Christ himself. In fact, He has to convince Peter and James of this fact! This mystery is that both Jews (who Peter was sent to) AND Gentiles could be FELLOWHEIRS by faith alone, without the works of the law, based upon the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So I don't see what the big deal is about Peter being "the rock" when the doctrine for the church in this dispensation of grace today is not Petrine at all, but Pauline. Take away Paul, and you have very little church doctrine left. And remember, Paul himself said that his message was not from Peter, or any other man, but from Jesus Christ himself.

I see this is the dispensationalist "two gospels" theory invented by John Darby in the late 19th century.

There is pelnty of of evidence that Peter was given the leadership of the Church, and Paul recognised this:

When Paul was converted he went back to Jerusalem and was brought to the apostles by Barnabus.

He wasn't really ready for preaching and they sent him to Tarsus for a while.

Paul says that after 3 years he went up to Jerusalem to confer with Peter and spent 15 days with him. (Gal 1:15)

He then seems to have returned to Tarsus.

Some years later, Barnabus, who was now in charge of the church at Antioch went and brought Paul from Tarsus. (Acts 11)

Sometime later Barnabus and Paul went to Jerusalem and got approval from Peter for his ministry. (1 Gal 2:9).

Quote from: Lukasaurus on Sat May 08, 2010 - 00:26:43
He is talking to Peter, about Himself

Thou[Peter] art Peter, and upon this rock [Jesus Christ]...

KJV is handy with the thees, thous and ye because it helps you know exactly who was being spoken to, and whether it was a singular or plural "you". Since Jesus was talking to Peter, He would not say "upon this rock", but "upon thee", if Peter was the foundation of the church.

1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


God bless

Jesus was making two points by saying "upon this rock"

1. When Jesus had called Peter he had renamed him Kephas (Jn 1:42), which means rock. So he was emphasising that (and making a pun on his name).
You are Rock and on this rock I will build my church.

2. They were at Cesarea Phillipi where there is a huge rock face with temple or shrine to Pan cut into it. I've been there and seen it. So Jesus was emphasising he would build his Church not like Pan's temple on that rock , but on this one - Peter who was called Rock.

Are you Roman Catholic. If so, I understand why you believe as you do. If not, then I have no idea why you believe what you do.

I have no idea who J.N. Darby is. I know who Clarence Larkin is, and he is a dispensationalist, but I have only read parts of his book of charts and stuff. Most of what I believe has come from comparing scripture.

Before I quickly go down that path of several gospels, if Peter is the foundation of the church, then why does Paul have to correct him?

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:11

Peter was telling them (gentiles) to observe jewish laws and customs, even though he himself wasn't. He was mixing law and grace. Paul was the one with the authority of Jesus Christ at this time.

Anyway, two gospels.

First, I want to define what the gospel for US today is

1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So the gospel Paul preached was - Jesus died for sins, buried and rose again.

In Luke, Jesus sends His apostles out preaching.

Luk 9:6  And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

This is speaking of the Apostles - they went out, preaching the gospel. But what gospel did they preach? Jesus had not yet died, been buried, or rose again. And, this is the part that convinced me, they didn't even believe it would happen.

Mat 16:21  From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

This is AFTER Luke 9:6, and here we see Peter REBUKING Jesus for saying exactly what Paul said above. So what on earth was Peter and the apostles preaching when they went out? Surely Peter did not preach something he didn't even believe was going to happen? If you can't see that there are two different "good news" being preached here, then I guess we can't discuss it any further :)

Mat 4:23  And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Mat 9:35  And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Mar 1:15  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

The gospel of the Kingdom was associated with healing, signs, wonders and miracles. The Kingdom was offered to the Jews, and they rejected it. Even when Jesus ascended, they were still asking about the Kingdom.

Act 1:6  When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

In Acts 2 and 3, we cannot find Peter preaching the gospel of the grace of God. He doesn't teach anyone how to be saved. Read it. Where is the blood sacrifice? Where is the washing away of sins? Where is the new creation in Christ Jesus in Acts 2-3? It is not there. Acts 2 - 3 is a rebuke to Israel for crucifying their Messiah.
Act 20:24  But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Paul received a separate commission from Jesus Christ - it was to testify the gospel of the grace of God, not the gospel of the Kingdom. Paul was an enemy, a blasphemer, saved by Jesus Christ, to be a pattern to them that would believe on Jesus name. Peter was a friend of Jesus Christ, called to the Jews.

If you want me to clarify anything, I'm more than happy to, but I'm not into debating :) I'm not saying that to sound arrogant and say "I am right, you are wrong", but I just find debating to be fruitless, since it very rarely has any good fruit or change come from it :)

God bless
Luke

Lukas: "So I don't see what the big deal is about Peter being "the rock" when the doctrine for the church in this dispensation of grace today is not Petrine at all, but Pauline. Take away Paul, and you have very little church doctrine left. And remember, Paul himself said that his message was not from Peter, or any other man, but from Jesus Christ himself."

Amen! Peter's mission was to "the Jew first" (Acts 1:8; 13:46) along with the other men who had been with Him from "the beginning" ((John 15:27). The Church, which I believe is the "local church of Christ," joined together by real people with a mission to evangelize or the "Messianic kingdom" spoken of in Daniel 2:44 "that shall never be destroyed."

It is true that the first church of Christ was a "Jewish church" for approximately ten years until Peter was SENT to Caesarea by God (vs.33-34) to preach salvation to Cornelius and his household (Acts 10). We see Paul fulfilling his mission as a "chosen vessel" AFTER the church of Christ (Acts 9:4) in Jerusalem was being "persecuted and scattered abroad" (Acts 8:1; 13:46). 

Peter used the "keys to the "kingdom" to unlock the "gate" to both types of "flesh" as seen through the eyes of God. When men of any nation hear this message, repent and be baptized into Jesus Christ  for the remission of their sins they are "promised" the gift of the Holy Spirit" and "added to His church"  (Acts 2:38-47).  Note the terminology "added" in Acts 2:47 and "translated into the kingdom of his dear Son" in Colossians 1:13. This is a synonymous teaching of entry into His kingdom! There is NO other way! Being "voted" into a church is like being voted into a man made organization like the Elks or Monkeys....lol
If you have not been "added" by God you are still a monkey?

It really takes professional help to miss God's plan of salvation. Both, Catholicism and Protestant theologians have marched through history with their collars turned backwards, ("professionals") have led men into hell. Their "judgment" is explained by Jesus in His Olivet discourse in Matthew 25:31-46. The "professionals" have turned this teaching of His in Matthew 25:35-39 into a "benevolent bivouac."  Absurd! if this was true, men would be saved by their works not Jesus' death on the cross! Are Christians to be benevolent? Absolutely! but Jesus is not teaching benevolence here...but judgment in how men receive His gospel as preached by His apostles. "These my brethren" are His "voice" among all nations. Read it in the New Testament! "The Spirit of life" (2 Cor. 3:6). 

well, to confuse the subject even more...

I've always taken this to infer upon the confession that Jesus is the Christ of God... as Peter had just proclaimed.  Upon this rock, Jesus Christ, we are by our recognition of that fact built as the Church.

I'm kind of confused by the title, Sola Scriptura, which has nothing to do with "upon this rock"... but anyway I'm scandahovian and things get stirred up easily in my brain.

Perhaps Peter having had received his awareness of Christ in that moment, from the Father, is significant.  I say that because Jesus taught that the Father draws men to Christ, Christ returns them into the Father's hand, and no one can remove them from the Fathers hand.

We as living stones are being built into a spiritual house, with Christ as the chief cornerstone and the foundation laid by the Apostles teaching.

Roughly.

In terms of Sola Scriptura, I think that some folks think this means Solo Scriptura.  There is no one who is correct in an opinion I've run across which is:  Just me, the Holy Spirit and my Bible.  That's all I need.

We were made for relationships, with God, each other, the rest of creation.

IMO.

Peace and mercy are on all those who live by the rule of the New Creation.

Sorry - new here...  Can you explain what you mean by this phrase:

Quote from: gralan on Sat May 08, 2010 - 08:08:06....the rule of the New Creation.

Thanks! 

QuoteI was gone for about a week and since Ive been gone there have been alot of new topics and new posters who have in my opinion utterly embarrassed protestants who truly seek the Truth. I'm hoping with this post I can help educate some of my fellow protestants.

Sola Scriptura and the other Five Solas are the corner stone of protestant faith. I am a protestant but I have to share my realization when it comes to flaws of this incomplete doctrine.

First point just to get us started.

Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Sola Scriptura teaches that scripture alone is the absolute authority of the faith but here Christ esteems Peter above the rest of the disciples as the means to formulate The Church on Earth.

Peter being charged with this task simply had to have some authority. Scripture was not yet constituted and the Helper had not yet descended.The authority of the faith had to lie somewhere.

Lets begin.

If the above is true, then Peter is now Satan, and the one who seeks to fulfill the desires of men above God, since Christ labeled him as such shortly after making the above statement you have quoted.

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

If the former statement established Peter as such forever, then certainly the latter statement only four verses later in the same chapter does so also.  The latter of course over riding the former, being spoken by the absolute authority of Christ's word.  No, but the latter is truth.  Not that Peter himself represents Satan, but that all who will lift up a man to the position of Christ do.  Savouring "not those things which be of God, but those that be of men".

Besides this, most Protestants today will say they are of Paul, not Peter, though they make the same mistake.  I am of Christ, and will have no other lord themselves over me.

1 Cor 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Who do you think Cephas in the above scriptures is reffering to?  Is it not Peter?

Quote from: Lukasaurus on Sat May 08, 2010 - 06:12:24

Before I quickly go down that path of several gospels, if Peter is the foundation of the church, then why does Paul have to correct him?

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:11

Peter was telling them (gentiles) to observe jewish laws and customs, even though he himself wasn't. He was mixing law and grace. Paul was the one with the authority of Jesus Christ at this time.

Anyway, two gospels.

There is no two different gospels.  The gospels that St. Paul and St. Peter preached were the same.  First of all, it was never St. Peter who told the Gentiles to observe Jewish laws and customs.  It was the disciples of St. James who did that.   Also, St. Peter was the FIRST one who baptized the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48).  

The conduct of both Paul and Peter were the same.  When St. Paul corrected St. Peter's conduct, Paul's conduct was also not blameworthy and in different circimstances St. Paul was to do the same.  In the following Scriptures, it shows that St. Paul ended up doing the same thing that St. Peter was guilty of.  According to Scripture:    

Acts 16: 1-3  From there he went to Derbe, and then on to Lystra.  Here there was a disciple called Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess who had becime a believer; but his father was a Greek.  The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of Timothy,  and Paul, who wanted to have him as a travelling companion, had him circumcised.  This was on account of the Jews in the locality where everyone knew his father was a Greek.

As you can see in Scripture, Timothy was an uncircumcised Gentile and St. Paul had him circumcised according to Jewish laws and customs.  Why did he do it?  According to scripture, he did it because of the Jews in those places.  Now, let's take a closer look at Galatians:  

Galatians 2:11-13  When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong.  His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision.  The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior.  

Scripture shows that it was St. Peter's custom to eat with the pagans.  He stopped this ONLY when the disciples of James came into the room.  The other Jews including Barnabas copied St. Peter's pretense.  The only reason that St. Peter did what he did was because he didn't want to cause a conflict between the Jews and the Gentiles.  In the same way, the only reason St. Paul circumcised a Gentile according to Jewish laws was also because he didn't want to cause a conflict.  

Quote

There is no two different gospels.  The gospels that St. Paul and St. Peter preached were the same.

You can say that all you want. And while I believe Peter did preach the Pauline gospel later in his ministry, he didn't start out that way.

What gospel was Peter preaching in Luke 9 when Jesus sent them out. I posted about it up above. Are you one of those people that skips over the Bible verses because you are actually just looking for an argument and think you know everything the Bible has to say?

Quote from: Lukasaurus on Sun May 09, 2010 - 00:07:06

Quote

There is no two different gospels.  The gospels that St. Paul and St. Peter preached were the same.

You can say that all you want. And while I believe Peter did preach the Pauline gospel later in his ministry, he didn't start out that way.

What gospel was Peter preaching in Luke 9 when Jesus sent them out. I posted about it up above. Are you one of those people that skips over the Bible verses because you are actually just looking for an argument and think you know everything the Bible has to say?

He preached the same gospel as St. Paul.  "Gospel" means "good news."  Both St. Paul and St. Peter preached the good news that Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins, resurrected from the dead, and redeemed mankind.  Below is Scripture showing what St. Peter said about the pagans during the council at Jerusalem:  

Acts 15: 7-11  Peter stood up and addressed them.  "My brothers, " he said, "you know perfectly well that in the early days God made his choice among you: the pagans were to learn the Good News from me and so become believers.  In fact God, who can read everyone's heart, showed His approval of them by giving the Holy Spirit to them just as He had to us.  God made no distinction between them and us, since He purified their hearts by faith.  It would only provoke God's anger now, surely if you imposed on the disciples the very burden that neither we nor our ancestors were strong enough to support?  Remember, we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are: through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ."  

As you can see from Scripture that both St. Peter and St. Paul spoke about the grace of God.  St. Paul believed that we are saved by God's grace, and so did St. Peter.  They preached the same Good News.  And the pagans did learn the Good News from St. Peter first because it was St. Peter who baptized them first.  

Yes, that was Acts 15, but before that, Peter didn't. In fact, Paul had to rebuke him.

But I asked specifically what Gospel was Peter preaching in Luke 9. Did you even read my post or just fly off the handle when you read something different to what you have been taught and believe?

I'll repost the part I am referring to here for you benefit:

Quote
First, I want to define what the gospel for US today is

1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So the gospel Paul preached was - Jesus died for sins, buried and rose again.

In Luke, Jesus sends His apostles out preaching.

Luk 9:6  And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

This is speaking of the Apostles - they went out, preaching the gospel. But what gospel did they preach? Jesus had not yet died, been buried, or rose again. And, this is the part that convinced me, they didn't even believe it would happen.

Mat 16:21  From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

This is AFTER Luke 9:6, and here we see Peter REBUKING Jesus for saying exactly what Paul said above. So what on earth was Peter and the apostles preaching when they went out? Surely Peter did not preach something he didn't even believe was going to happen? If you can't see that there are two different "good news" being preached here, then I guess we can't discuss it any further :)

I'm not going to respond after this, but just to clarify the above, Peter was sent out in Luke 9:6 to preach the gospel. If the gospel he preached was "the death for our sins, burial and ressurection" that Paul preached, then we have an absurdity where Peter preached something he never believed - because later, in Matthew 16, Peter says that Jesus is not going to die. So he couldn't have been preaching the pauline gospel in Luke 9 because he didn't even know it.

Of course, you can believe what you like, and I ain't going to argue :)

God bless

Quote from: Lukasaurus on Sun May 09, 2010 - 00:38:06


But I asked specifically what Gospel was Peter preaching in Luke 9. Did you even read my post or just fly off the handle when you read something different to what you have been taught and believe?

How was St. Peter preaching a Gospel in Luke 9 when it wasn't until Luke 24 when he was commanded by Christ to go out and preach to all the nations?  It wasn't until Luke 24 when Christ told him to spread the Good News. 

Quote from: Lukasaurus on Sun May 09, 2010 - 00:38:06
Yes, that was Acts 15, but before that, Peter didn't. In fact, Paul had to rebuke him.

But I asked specifically what Gospel was Peter preaching in Luke 9. Did you even read my post or just fly off the handle when you read something different to what you have been taught and believe?

I'll repost the part I am referring to here for you benefit:

Quote
First, I want to define what the gospel for US today is

1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So the gospel Paul preached was - Jesus died for sins, buried and rose again.

In Luke, Jesus sends His apostles out preaching.

Luk 9:6  And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

This is speaking of the Apostles - they went out, preaching the gospel. But what gospel did they preach? Jesus had not yet died, been buried, or rose again. And, this is the part that convinced me, they didn't even believe it would happen.

Mat 16:21  From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

This is AFTER Luke 9:6, and here we see Peter REBUKING Jesus for saying exactly what Paul said above. So what on earth was Peter and the apostles preaching when they went out? Surely Peter did not preach something he didn't even believe was going to happen? If you can't see that there are two different "good news" being preached here, then I guess we can't discuss it any further :)

I'm not going to respond after this, but just to clarify the above, Peter was sent out in Luke 9:6 to preach the gospel. If the gospel he preached was "the death for our sins, burial and ressurection" that Paul preached, then we have an absurdity where Peter preached something he never believed - because later, in Matthew 16, Peter says that Jesus is not going to die. So he couldn't have been preaching the pauline gospel in Luke 9 because he didn't even know it.

Of course, you can believe what you like, and I ain't going to argue :)

God bless

The apostles didn't understand the gospel until after the resurrection.  However, Jesus explained it clearly to them long before Saul became Paul.

Luke 24
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Peter explains it here:

Acts 15
7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Quote from: Lukasaurus on Sat May 08, 2010 - 00:44:11
You've got two threads? Which one to respond to.

Well, I'll respond a different way in here :)

Everyone makes a big fuss of Peter being "the rock", but, the greater commission was given to Paul, who built the gentile church, was Apostle to the gentiles, and was given the revelation of the mystery that had been hid in God before the foundation of the world. Peter went to the circumcision which continually rejected the grace of God, whereas the gentiles received it in great numbers.

1Ti 1:16  Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Eph 3:1  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7  Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Rom 11:25  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 16:25  Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Rom 16:26  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Gal 1:11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul was taught something by revelation of Jesus Christ that no other man knew before him. This was a mystery that God kept hidden (from the OT prophets, from the Apostles, even from Peter), and revealed unto Paul. Paul called this mystery "my gospel", and claims he received it not from Peter, or any other man, but from Jesus Christ himself. In fact, He has to convince Peter and James of this fact! This mystery is that both Jews (who Peter was sent to) AND Gentiles could be FELLOWHEIRS by faith alone, without the works of the law, based upon the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So I don't see what the big deal is about Peter being "the rock" when the doctrine for the church in this dispensation of grace today is not Petrine at all, but Pauline. Take away Paul, and you have very little church doctrine left. And remember, Paul himself said that his message was not from Peter, or any other man, but from Jesus Christ himself.

You fail to understand the improtance of Peter's commission. When Christ gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom"(Not Literal) He established a system by which men would head the Church on Earth. Christ isnt establishing Peter as greater than the rest of the disciples but someone who has to lead. In a world where two cultures of man can look up at the same great ball of light and one worship it as a god and another as a chariot of a god, there must be a final authority to settle disputes among these oppossing viewe points.

To argue my point about Sola Scriptura you have to at least understand the vbasic truth that men lead the Church on Earth like Abraham , Moses and the Pharisees before them.

Sola Scriptura is incomplete because opposing views points cant be settled "officially" with it. Take the debate over the Eucharist. Some believe the bread and wine are transfromed into literal flesh and blood while see it as just a symbolic ceremony for honoring the sacrifice of Christ. How can the two oppsoing sides go to the Bible, an inadament object, and say help us figure this out.

Scripture requires interpretation. Christ revealed the true message of His parables only to the disciples. Then the Holy Spirit descended. The Holy gave the Church "official" scripture and interprets the Truth of these scriptures to its leaders. The Holy Spirit resides in us so that we might recognize the Truth when its spoken. Although any man can understand Truth through the Holy Spirit on his own, the commission to deliver "official" doctrine to men is a charge given to the leaders of the Church.

Sola Scriptura( scripture ALONE is the authority of the faith) only opens the door to chaotic confusion.

I just want to remind everyone that Im a protestant, not a catholic. I just have common sense enough to understand the basics.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 08, 2010 - 09:21:11

QuoteI was gone for about a week and since Ive been gone there have been alot of new topics and new posters who have in my opinion utterly embarrassed protestants who truly seek the Truth. I'm hoping with this post I can help educate some of my fellow protestants.

Sola Scriptura and the other Five Solas are the corner stone of protestant faith. I am a protestant but I have to share my realization when it comes to flaws of this incomplete doctrine.

First point just to get us started.

Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Sola Scriptura teaches that scripture alone is the absolute authority of the faith but here Christ esteems Peter above the rest of the disciples as the means to formulate The Church on Earth.

Peter being charged with this task simply had to have some authority. Scripture was not yet constituted and the Helper had not yet descended.The authority of the faith had to lie somewhere.

Lets begin.

If the above is true, then Peter is now Satan, and the one who seeks to fulfill the desires of men above God, since Christ labeled him as such shortly after making the above statement you have quoted.

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

If the former statement established Peter as such forever, then certainly the latter statement only four verses later in the same chapter does so also.  The latter of course over riding the former, being spoken by the absolute authority of Christ's word.  No, but the latter is truth.  Not that Peter himself represents Satan, but that all who will lift up a man to the position of Christ do.  Savouring "not those things which be of God, but those that be of men".

Besides this, most Protestants today will say they are of Paul, not Peter, though they make the same mistake.  I am of Christ, and will have no other lord themselves over me.

1 Cor 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Who do you think Cephas in the above scriptures is reffering to?  Is it not Peter?

It is my interpretation of scripture that Christ is speaking directly to Satan. I took this text as Christ rebuking all that was in Peter that was of Satan or more accurately all that was sinful. Commissioning Peter with sucha great task calls for one to be held to a higher standard. Christ was proclaiming to Satan that Peter was a charge of God and that he "officially would be held to a higher standard. A standard that would not permit sin ain any form. This is later supported when Peter was compelled to stay with Christ after the others fled when He was arrested. It continues on after Peter denied Christ and later was compelled to repent. Once again this just my personal interpretation because I do not hold authority great enough to make official decisions on when it comes to interpreting scriptures.


So my intial quote still stands.

   

Posting the same topic in multiple forums is a violation of the board rules.  Topics have been merged.

 

Understood. My apologies. 

However what do I do if the topics have a need to be heard by both protestants and catholics? The audiences exist in separate forums so how do I transcend these discussions without violating the rules?

If it deals with both catholics and protestants (ie, Christianity in general), post it in the theology forum...catholics go there as well.

This sub-forum is not designed to segregate them, but to provide an arena to discuss topics primarily related to catholicism.

Bond

Quote from: LightHammer on Fri May 07, 2010 - 20:54:50



Sola Scriptura teaches that scripture alone is the absolute authority of the faith but here Christ esteems Peter above the rest of the disciples as the means to formulate The Church on Earth.

1.  Sola Scriptura doesn't teach anything.  Sola Scriptura is a PRAXIS that embraces Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines being taught among us.

2.  Whether Christ "esteems" a person or not is entirely moot to what is best as the norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines among us.  Jesus never said, "Thou art Peter and thou art infallible, inerrant, unaccountable, and whatever thou sayest is simply to be accepted with docility - oh, and this goes for everyone whom The Catholic Church regards as the Pope, too.  Thus, whatever said Pope says is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from all and any norming, and simply to be accepted with docility."   

QuoteScripture was not yet constituted and the Helper had not yet descended.The authority of the faith had to lie somewhere.

Jesus references Scripture normatively some 50 times.  How often did He reference The Catholic Church as such? But we're off topic; Sola Scriptura addresses the issue of the norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines among us.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

Quote from: LightHammer on Mon May 10, 2010 - 10:59:03


Sola Scriptura is incomplete because opposing views points cant be settled "officially" with it. Take the debate over the Eucharist. Some believe the bread and wine are transfromed into literal flesh and blood while see it as just a symbolic ceremony for honoring the sacrifice of Christ. How can the two oppsoing sides go to the Bible, an inadament object, and say help us figure this out.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of looking to Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions.
Yes, it IS "incomplete" in that the evaluation also requires arbitration, but that's another subject for another day.
Let me use this illustration:  Let's say you and your neighbor decided to build a wall on your property line, and this wall is to be 6 feet tall.  You mutually hire a contractor and he builds the wall.  The wall is now finished, and he claims it is 6 feet tall.  The issue then is this:  Is the wall 6 feet tall?  Is the position of the contractor correct?   Now, YES, you could accept the insistence of the contractor that he and he alone is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from any norming, and that whatever he says is simply to be accepted with docility because he so insists that he is; in that case, accountability is rejected by one for the self same one and we're done.  But let's say, for the sake of this illustration, the contractor doesn't so insist and accountability is embraced.  There is a mutual concern for truth.  There are thus two primary issues:  WHAT will serve as the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") or as it is called in epistemology, the "norma normans" (the norm that norms)?   The more objective, the more knowable by all and alterable by none, the more universally accepted as reliable, the more outside and above all parties involved, the better this norma normans will be for this purpose.  THIS is the ONLY issue addressed by Sola Scriptura:  The norma normans will be Scripture.  The inerrant, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white, written words of God.  Now, yes, you are correct, there is a second issue too:  HOW will it be determined if the position "measures up" to the "measuring stick?"   This is called arbitration.   It's moot in Protestant/Catholic discussions, however, since we don't agree on the first step, the common norma normans.  We don't even agree on the presumption - that the correctness/truthfulness of positions matters and thus must be accountable, for The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is INCAPABLE of error in matters of dogma and thus the entire issue is moot, it and it itself alone is right because it says it's right so it can't be wrong, whatever it says is NOT be to normed (by WHATEVER the norma normans might be) but is rather to be accepted as dogmatic truth "with docility."   Read the Catholic Catechism # 87 for starters.

QuoteScripture requires interpretation

That's hermeneutics.   The issue here is norming, the determination if a position among us is correct.   The position may or may not be the result of hermeneutics. 

QuoteSola Scriptura( scripture ALONE is the authority of the faith) only opens the door to chaotic confusion.

I suppose the same could be said of the Rule of Law or any other Rule/canon/norma normans.   But the "problem" isn't with having an agreed upon common norma normans, it's from each one declaring self alone to either be exempt from norming (usually because self alone insists that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong) or from self alone declaring self alone to be the sole authoritative arbiter (self is the judge and jury in all issues of the correctness of self).  IMHO, this is a fault in the epistemology of The Catholic Church.  It alone declares it alone to be the sole individual interpreter and authority, it alone declares that it alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong in the matters that it alone declares it alone as so being, and it alone appoints it alone as the sole authoritative arbiter for whether it is correct, but moot since it alone has already declared that it alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and what it alone says is just to be accepted as correct "with docility."   But I don't disagree that some non-catholics use the same playbook and do the same thing, albeit never to the same degree (at least that I've seen); rarely declaring self alone to be infallible or that whatever self alone says is to be just accepted with docility.    When Protestants act too much like The Catholic Church, I agree - that's problematic to epistemology.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

Quote from: Josiah on Sat May 22, 2010 - 15:20:28
1.  Sola Scriptura doesn't teach anything.  Sola Scriptura is a PRAXIS that embraces Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines being taught among us.

Whilst it is true that sola scriptura as a rule of faith is a praxis, most protestants I have come across claim more for it, as Lighthammer indicated, when they take it as the source of their authority.

That has moved from praxis to belief and becomes a doctrine that they espouse.

winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?

bond

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 07:52:22
winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?

bond

John 20
The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 07:52:22
winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?

bond

There is authority under God. Jesus received authority from the Father and as chestertonrules has pointed out above he passed authority on to the apostles.

No Protestant denomination really applies "Sola Scriptura". Every one has its one (human) Tradition. For example, a Baptist can not really interpret scripture to advocate infant baptism and expect to remain a Baptist. Presbyterians are Calvinists (Calvin is  a big part of their Tradition). Methodists are Arminians and so on.

Each denomination has a Tradition it follows. It's that the Catholic Church follows the Tradition of the Early Fathers who has actually seen Jesus and the (majority of) Protestants follow the Traditions of some guys in Medieval Europe 1500 years AFTER Jesus

Quote from: winsome on Sun May 23, 2010 - 08:21:47

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 07:52:22
winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?

bond

There is authority under God. Jesus received authority from the Father and as chestertonrules has pointed out above he passed authority on to the apostles.

You did not answer my question...neither did chesterton.

I will ask a second time:  winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?


Bond

Bondservant,

Authority to do what?? If you mean "authority" to interpret the Bible then Yes, we need humans to do it (God is not expected to show up to help out personally everytime someone needs help interpreting a Bible passage) and Jesus passed on this authority to His Apostles. The Apostles passed it on to their students (with the laying on of hands) and so on.

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 10:21:49

Quote from: winsome on Sun May 23, 2010 - 08:21:47

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 07:52:22
winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?

bond

There is authority under God. Jesus received authority from the Father and as chestertonrules has pointed out above he passed authority on to the apostles.

You did not answer my question...neither did chesterton.

I will ask a second time:  winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?


Bond

Are we going into a philosophical discussion on the nature of authority?  

There is primary authority and delegated authority.

Since God created the world and everything that exists (apart from himself) then God is the primary authority.

Now where does that take us?

As I pointed out in my post:
There is authority under God. Jesus received authority from the Father and as chestertonrules has pointed out above he passed authority on to the apostles.

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 10:21:49

Quote from: winsome on Sun May 23, 2010 - 08:21:47

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 07:52:22
winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?

bond

There is authority under God. Jesus received authority from the Father and as chestertonrules has pointed out above he passed authority on to the apostles.

You did not answer my question...neither did chesterton.

I will ask a second time:  winsome, do you believe there is an authority aside from God?


Bond

There answer is obviously yes.  God is the ultimate authority, but that doesn't preclude the existence of secondary authorities.  Try disobeying a police officer!

God sent Jesus and Jesus chose the apostles.  The apostles chose others to lead the flock when they were gone.  These chosen men have authority in matters of faith and morals. 

So you would both agree that God is THE authority and man is subsurvient to Him?

You also agree that man's authority is delegated by God and thus also subsurvient to Him?

Is that correct?

Bond

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 15:41:54
So you would both agree that God is THE authority and man is subsurvient to Him?

You also agree that man's authority is delegated by God and thus also subsurvient to Him?

Is that correct?

Bond

Absolutely.