the church

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Jesus thought it important enough to discuss multiple times, and the apostles thought it important enough to write down and echo in their teachings to the early Church, but the Roman Catholic Church does not consider it important, so it's not? Or you don't think it's important, so it's not? Or am I completely misunderstanding?

If I'm not misunderstanding, I'm left with a hierarchical church structure telling me that the portions of scripture indicating Jesus and the apostles were against a hierarchical church structure are not important therefore we can focus on more important things and essentially ignore them.
the church is the largest organization in the world
over one billion members
over 37,000 priests
over 17,000 parishes
over 6,000 schools
over 500 hospitals
so you were wondering about hierarchy?
how would you handle a flock this big?
 

DavidK

New member
the church is the largest organization in the world
over one billion members
over 37,000 priests
over 17,000 parishes
over 6,000 schools
over 500 hospitals
so you were wondering about hierarchy?
how would you handle a flock this big?

I wouldn't. :D

If my picture I'm forming from my study is correct, I'd trust the Holy Spirit to handle that flock as expressed through thousands of groups of elders across the cities of the world.

Who is the head of the Church?
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I wouldn't. :D

If my picture I'm forming from my study is correct, I'd trust the Holy Spirit to handle that flock as expressed through thousands of groups of elders across the cities of the world.

Who is the head of the Church?

the pope
 

Cruciform

New member
What happens when a Pope is heretical?
That's like a 1st-century skeptic asking what happens when the apostles are heretical, or when the apostles' canonical writings contain formal doctrinal error. The question itself is internally flawed.
 

DavidK

New member
That's like a 1st-century skeptic asking what happens when the apostles are heretical, or when the apostles' canonical writings contain formal doctrinal error. The question itself is internally flawed.

Well, Chrysostom refused to answer my question based on a refusal to look at historical evidence, but I'll try with you. What about Popes who declared themselves to be heretical?

They weren't heretical until they declared themselves heretical, at which point whatever teaching they declared heretical becomes retroactively so?
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Is the body of Christ different than the Church?

yes -
we are all part of the body of Christ -
you don't have to be catholic -
the church is a body of knowledge, the truth -
closely guarded by the pope and his bishops -
they are the ones who gave you the bible -
they are the ones who guide us in this modern world -
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
I'm hoping you have the intellectual integrity to affirm the truth as taught by Christ's one historic Catholic Church.
13892201_10207216690352555_8228384628635254632_n.jpg
 
Last edited:

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
Roman Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built. That interpretation then becomes the basis for the doctrine of papal succession. But is that what Jesus meant when He declared, "Upon this rock I will build My church"?

Peter=petros=pebble
Jesus=petra=stone, boulder

1Co 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.*

*[[Psa 18:2/KJVLite]]* The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

*[[Psa 18:31/KJVLite]]* For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

*[[Psa 18:46/KJVLite]]* The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

*[[Psa 27:5/KJVLite]]* For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock.

*[[Psa 28:1/KJVLite]]* A Psalm of David. Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.

*[[1Pe 2:4/KJVLite]]* To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

*[[1Pe 2:6/KJVLite]]* Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

*[[1Pe 2:7/KJVLite]]* Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

*[[1Pe 2:8/KJVLite]]* And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Roman Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built. That interpretation then becomes the basis for the doctrine of papal succession. But is that what Jesus meant when He declared, "Upon this rock I will build My church"?

when God changes someone's name, pay attention, it is important -
do you have a theory as to why simon's name became peter?
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
when God changes someone's name, pay attention, it is important -
do you have a theory as to why simon's name became peter?
my theory is that you took a step in the wrong direction and joined a cult. a fatal step

Peter, the rock

"I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (v. 18).*
— Matthew 16:13–20
The most disputed text on ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) is Matthew 16:13–20. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox alike contest the use of Christ’s affirmation of Peter by Roman Catholics to establish the papacy.

Unfortunately, we can consider the issues raised by today’s passage only in brief. Foremost among these is what Jesus does not say in His commendation of Peter. Though invested with authority in verse 19, Peter is not thereby given supreme authority over the church universal. As a steward over God’s house, Peter’s keys give him (but not only him) authority among God’s people. For example, he can assure repentant sinners of divine pardon, not because he is able to forgive sin, but because he proclaims the free Gospel of forgiveness. Therefore, the keys also enable him to assure the impenitent that they can by no means inherit the kingdom of God. Yet Peter’s keys also belong to every apostle and, in a qualified sense, church leaders today as well (18:15–20; Eph. 2:19–20). Furthermore, Matthew 16:13–20 says nothing about Peter passing on a “unique” office to successive bishops, and it gives no support for papal infallibility.

Historic Protestantism recognizes such truths, and often says that Peter’s confession is the rock to which Jesus refers. This makes good sense, but we err if we say that Peter himself is not in any sense a rock upon which the church is built (Eph. 2:22). There is a play on words in the original Greek text: Peter’s name, Petros, is based on petra, that is, “rock” (v. 18). In other words, Jesus declares, “Simon, you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my church.” Peter has primacy in the church — a historical primacy, not papal primacy. Aside from being the first to confess Christ, Peter is the first apostle to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10), and his leadership and teaching set the stage for the church’s expansion and maturity (chap. 1–15; 1 and 2 Peter). Thus, we conclude with John Calvin: “It is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.”

CORAM DEO
When we study Scripture, we should be careful not to let the excesses of opposing positions unduly influence our own applications of the text. All the teachings of those with whom we disagree may not necessarily be wrong, and we should strive to be faithful to God’s Word, not driven to make decisions that are contrary to what our opponents do just because we do not want in any way to look like them. Let us be true to Scripture no matter what others do.

PASSAGES FOR FURTHER STUDY
Mark 8:27–30
Luke 6:12–16
Acts 15:1–35
Revelation 21:9–14
©*2016 Ligonier Ministries
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
yes -
we are all part of the body of Christ -
you don't have to be catholic -
the church is a body of knowledge, the truth -
closely guarded by the pope and his bishops -
they are the ones who gave you the bible -
they are the ones who guide us in this modern world -

:chuckle:
 

Right Divider

Body part
Why did Saul become Paul?
That do be overly pedantic, but Saul did NOT "become" Paul.

Acts 13:9 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:9) Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,

It does make sense that Luke discontinued using his Hebrew name and from then on used his Greek/Roman name, since he is the apostle of the gentiles.

I'd say this is further confirmation of the uniqueness of Paul's ministry and its difference from the ministry of the twelve.
 
Top