The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives

[ScottA]

LOL, thus, you concede the Catholic point at issue in Matthew 16:16. 19)! So when Jesus then proceeds to establish Peter as "the Rock" (foundation), not Himself, on which He will build His church, He is invoking divine authority (not "flesh and blood") for Peter the Rock's control over "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and Peter's resulting authority (1) to "bind and loose" both on earth and in heaven and therefore (2) to "forgive" or "retain" sins (similarly John 20:23). Academic commentaries generally agree that Peter, not Jesus, is "the Rock" here because Peter's name ("Cephas") means "rock" (hence Jesus' word play on Peter's name) and because Jesus refers to Himself as "the cornerstone (Mark 12:10 par.)," but never as "the rock." As the 3rd first-century bishop of Antioch in succession from Peter, Ignatius now considers himself a "Catholic" bishop with the full status of a monarchical bishop that characterizes ensuing Catholic bishops.

Again...you leave out "My Father" ("My Rock"), choosing the lesser.

And by this same measure you shall also receive.

 

[ScottA]

Incidentally - many Protestant scholars agree with the Catholic position on Matt. 16:17-19 . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19
1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
· "In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

· "Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

· "Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broke off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.

· "I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

· "The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.
· "The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

· "When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

· "The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

· "The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

· "The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter
· "Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

· "Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which--in accordance with the words of the text--applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

· "By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

· ". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

· "The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

· "The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.

· "'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

· "Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

· "Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.

· "It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

The teachings of men.

You should have heard in Spirit, but unlike Peter, you did not.

 

[ScottA]

You seem to misunderstand Matthew 16:17-19.

"When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, But who do you say I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly father." Matthew 16: 13-17.

The bolded means that no human being ("flesh and blood" is a Semitic expression meaning 'human beings') revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah; the Son of the living God, but that God Himself revealed this (that Jesus is the Messiah/Son of God) to Peter...

...which is why Jesus said to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah (Peter)". Peter had been "blessed" by God the Father by revealing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God to Peter.

All who receive the Holy Spirit are "blessed." Peter was the first stone placed by Christ-- a rock, "not" the Rock, not "My Rock." This is the message that Christ brought about through Peter, clarifying just which Rock His church would be built upon.

I understood it completely, as did Peter, who announce it on the day of Pentecost as foretold by Joel the prophet. But the church fathers did not understand it. And the rest is history.

 

[Taken]

Taken: "Hebrews built their Temple and Synagogs upon their Rock called, LORD."

LOL, no OT text claims that the Jews built their Temple and synaogug on the divine Rock.

Taken: Duet 3: [3] Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Duet 3: [37] And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted...

ALL book commentaries on Deuteronomy identify "the Rock" chap. 3 as Yahweh, not Christ.

Taken: "Catholics built their Church upon their rock, called Peter.
(A successive line of men, called their popes and their holy fathers)."

Your quarrel is actually with Jesus, not Protestants. Jesus identifies Peter, not Himself, as "the Rock" on which "I will build my Church (Matthew 16:16). Even Protestant academic Bible scholars concede this point because Jesus is using a wordplay on the "meaning of "Petros" (Aramaic "Cephas"), which means "Rock" and Jesus views Himself as the "cornerstone" (so Mark 10:12 par.), not as "the Rock."

Jesus asked His Disciples WHO men thought He was.
Jesus asked His Disciples WHO they thought He was.
None could give Jesus the CORRECT ANSWER.

Jesus identified Simon Barajona as being BLESSED BECAUSE God Himself gave Simon Barajona the CORRECT ANSWER.

Simon Barajona spoke aloud the CORRECT ANSWER God gave him.
It is the CORRECT ANSWER UPON WHICH JESUS IS BUILDING HIS CHURCH!
The ROCK, is Christ is the HEAD, and FOUNDATION Rock of Jesus’ Church.

Jesus’ Church is built upon;
Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Jesus’ TWELVE appointed are the First to be established joined members of Jesus’ Church Spiritual Church, as a mason would build stone upon stone, adding more stones upon stones, every member joining Christ Jesus’ Spiritual Church being added, BINDED, as stones upon stones. BINDED together on Earth as they shall be BINDED together in Heaven, while others who are NOT members shall be LOOSED.


"Protestants build their Churches upon their Rock, called Christ.

In doing so, they defy Jesus' intention (1) to build the Church on Peter the Rock's apostleship (Matthew 16:16) and therefore (2) to give Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the use of the authority to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven in the ministry of pronouncing absolution (so John 20:23).

MALARKEY!
The first of Christ Jesus’ Church is Christ the Rock. The first Apostle added was Simon Peter, thereafter the rest of the Apostles, thereafter others Converted “IN” Christ. Stones upon Stones of the Rock.

Your church is upon one man Peter, one rock, and a secession of other men “your church” takes credit of being “THE” Church, without credit due it is Christ’s Church.
“Your church” appoints men as as holy fathers, without credit due it is God who is the Holy Father.
“Your church” has transferred all that is Christ Jesus’ into the hands of men, making due to them the credit that is Christ Jesus’.
And when your “church fathers” are found underhanded, corrupt, deceitful, their deeds are hidden and “your church” continues exalting itself.

I am not in defiance of Christ Jesus. I am WITH and IN Christ Jesus, doing the WILL of the Holy Father who knows the Truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just what I said-- You all missed it completely!

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19

Simon Bar-Jonah (Peter) = rock​

My Father = My Rock​

Two possible contributors to build Jesus' church, one of who He says "not." "Not "flesh and blood." But you all didn't see or hear it--and chose the wrong [o]ne anyway.

Moses foretold, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear", and warned "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life."--but you all heard only what you wanted to hear.

Interesting . . .
IUmmmmm - did the SIXTY -FIVE or so Protestant scholars I listed in posts #231 & 232 also "miss it"??

What a ridiculous rabbit trail you are attempting to lead us down into instead of just presenting the simple text of the verse.
As I expolained to you earlier - The Aramaic word for "Rock" is "Kepha" - period. There's no special hint that we need to "decode" in order to understanda very simple threefold blessing - that is foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:22 . . .
Isaiah 22:20-22
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.


ound familliar?
That's because Jesus fulfills the OT type in Matt. 116:

Matt. 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[d] in heaven.”

And, as I also explained to you - THIS is why Peter is referred to as "Cephas" in Paul's letters - because Cephas is a Greek transliteratioon of the Aramaic, "Kephas".
So, stop fighting the Word of God and simply submit to it as yourProtestant friends in posts 231 & 232 did.

 

[ScottA]

Interesting . . .
IUmmmmm - did the SIXTY -FIVE or so Protestant scholars I listed in posts #231 & 232 also "miss it"??

What a ridiculous rabbit trail you are attempting to lead us down into instead of just presenting the simple text of the verse.
As I expolained to you earlier - The Aramaic word for "Rock" is "Kepha" - period. There's no special hint that we need to "decode" in order to understanda very simple threefold blessing - that is foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:22 . . .
Isaiah 22:20-22
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.


ound familliar?
That's because Jesus fulfills the OT type in Matt. 116:

Matt. 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[d] in heaven.”

And, as I also explained to you - THIS is why Peter is referred to as "Cephas" in Paul's letters - because Cephas is a Greek transliteratioon of the Aramaic, "Kephas".
So, stop fighting the Word of God and simply submit to it as yourProtestant friends in posts 231 & 232 did.

Still you leave out "My Father", "My Rock."

Isaiah didn't, Jesus didn't, nor did Peter-- but you all did. You can't even go there--you just leave Him out.

I hate to say it, but Satan made a better argument in the garden.

 

[Mink57]

Jesus asked His Disciples WHO men thought He was.
Jesus asked His Disciples WHO they thought He was.
None could give Jesus the CORRECT ANSWER.

Jesus identified Simon Barajona as being BLESSED BECAUSE God Himself gave Simon Barajona the CORRECT ANSWER.

Simon Barajona spoke aloud the CORRECT ANSWER God gave him.
It is the CORRECT ANSWER UPON WHICH JESUS IS BUILDING HIS CHURCH!
The ROCK, is Christ is the HEAD, and FOUNDATION Rock of Jesus’ Church.

Jesus’ Church is built upon;
Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Jesus’ TWELVE appointed are the First to be established joined members of Jesus’ Church Spiritual Church, as a mason would build stone upon stone, adding more stones upon stones, every member joining Christ Jesus’ Spiritual Church being added, BINDED, as stones upon stones. BINDED together on Earth as they shall be BINDED together in Heaven, while others who are NOT members shall be LOOSED.


"Protestants build their Churches upon their Rock, called Christ.

I agree with most of what you wrote ^.

MALARKEY!
The first of Christ Jesus’ Church is Christ the Rock. The first Apostle added was Simon Peter, thereafter the rest of the Apostles, thereafter others Converted “IN” Christ. Stones upon Stones of the Rock.

O.k....

Your church is upon one man Peter, one rock, and a secession of other men “your church” takes credit of being “THE” Church, without credit due it is Christ’s Church.

Our church is not upon "one man". It's upon Jesus. That's stressed in my Catholic Bible over and over again. Christ is THE Head of the church. Not "my" church. Not "your" church, but THE church.

“Your church” appoints men as as holy fathers, without credit due it is God who is the Holy Father.

How in the world do you know this? Yes, the Catholic church does appoint ORDAINED men as holy fathers...because the Apostles appointed holy men as 'father's' starting with the election of Matthias. But who said that this is done "without credit due it is God who is the Holy Father?

By the way, big difference between "holy father" and "Holy Father".

“Your church” has transferred all that is Christ Jesus’ into the hands of men, making due to them the credit that is Christ Jesus’.

Once again, where are you getting your information? What I quoted isn't even close to the truth.

And when your “church fathers” are found underhanded, corrupt, deceitful, their deeds are hidden and “your church” continues exalting itself.

Again, not even close to the truth. I believe there was a post on this thread that linked a number of articles that discuss how the Catholic church isn't the ONLY church where underhanded, corrupt, deceitful deeds are found. [/QUOTE]

I also find no universally recognized authority that claims that the Catholic church "exalts" itself in the face of those atrocities. In fact, just the opposite is true. The CC has made great strides since the 1990's, in eliminating as many of these unfortunate atrocities as they humanly can.

Both Jesus and Paul both taught that there would be evil and corruption in Jesus' church. But we have to remember that satan seeks to destroy his church.

Just because some people are evil inside the church doesn't make the whole church evil...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Still you leave out "My Father", "My Rock."
Isaiah didn't, Jesus didn't, nor did Peter-- but you all did. You can't even go there--you just leave Him out.

That;s because Jesus never called Himse;f NOR His Father a "Rock" in Matt. 16:18.
He was talking about Simon bar Jonah, His disaciple.

ONE more time . . .
THIS is why Peter is referred to as "Cephas" in Paul's letters - because Cephas is a Greek transliteratioon of the Aramaic, "Kephas".

Hope it sinks in that time . . .

I hate to say it, but Satan made a better argument in the garden.

Hmmmmm . . .
Did hr msake a better argument than the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scholars in po #231 & #232 who disagree with YOU?

 

[ScottA]

That;s because Jesus never called Himse;f NOR His Father a "Rock" in Matt. 16:18.
He was talking about Simon bar Jonah, His disaciple.

ONE more time . . .
THIS is why Peter is referred to as "Cephas" in Paul's letters - because Cephas is a Greek transliteratioon of the Aramaic, "Kephas".

Hope it sinks in that time . . .

Hmmmmm . . .
Did hr msake a better argument than the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scholars in po #231 & #232 who disagree with YOU?

"One more time...?" that's insanity.

But, here, here is what you all missed:

"God my Rock." Psalm 42:9
​

...very simple, but then you all looked instead to "flesh and blood." And what is worse, is you all actually know you are wrong--or you would not have scoured all the records to find "65 Protestant scholars" to support and defend your folly. That's amazing! One would only do that if they had first discovered their own error.

 

[Brakelite]

What's even MORE interesting is how SDAs cherry-pick what they want about the Sabbath - but IGNORE what the New Testament says the Sabbath:

Col. 2:16-17
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon OR A SABBATH. These are a SHADOWof the things to come, but the SUBSTANCE belongs to Christ.

Matt. 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to FULFILL them."

Apparently - YOU'RE still waiting for the Messiah to come., along with our Jewish brothers.
He already came and accomlished His work - and we wait in joyful hope for His return.

As for the debatre over Sola Scriptura - it's a dead point since it cannot be substantiated by ther very Scripture it purports to be our "SOLE" Ahuthority.
Jesus gave FINAL earhtly Authority to His Church, who GAVE us the NT under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . .

Matt 16:18-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Sorry, but your own church denies the applicability of the Colossians 2 argument... As well as common sense, good biblical exegesis, and smart intelligent thinking. You are just parroting the same lame feeble excuses as the rest of protestantism.
As for Sola scriptura', that's true protestantism. I am well aware it isn't Catholicism. And your Sunday sacredness doctrine is evidence of that fact. I just refuse to buy into it. You can have your Sunday god with all it's pagan roots.

 

[Phoneman777]

Much of the fundamentalist screed directed against Catholics here consists of mindless unbiblical generalizations. These fundamentalists lack the integrity to actually study the biblical basis for Catholic doctrinal distinctives and practices.

No, it's directed against Catholic doctrine because Catholicism finds NO BASIS in Scripture.

The infamous "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (JDDJ) is deceptively worded to teach "salvation is by grace alone through the merits of Christ's work alone" which is bulldookey. This is nothing but the same old Catholic doctrine, deceptively worded so that the Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., would sign onto it and bury the old "protestant" hatchet, which signing was on October 31st, the very day Luther nailed his 95 theses. Protestantism today is DEAD and is why so many "protestants" are found here defending the doctrines of your church, friend.

We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH IN THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS ALONE, not by our works, our might, our power, and certainly not by priesthood.

However, Catholicism teaches that God was so pleased with Christ's life of obedience that He said, OK, Jesus, I'll save them" and then bestowed upon the Catholic priesthood the duty of "salvation administration" where they themselves by their "authority" decide to either bestow or withhold that gift of salvation, as they see fit.

So, then, for what benefit to us is Jesus? Why, His "good works", according to Catholicism, are deposited in a bottomless barrel of "merit" from which the priesthood can scoop out and apply to any saved person to lessen his time in Purgatory, for while his sin is forgiven, he still has to pay for it before he can go to heaven. BTW, Catholicism teaches that the merits of Mary are more efficacious than the merits of Jesus. Really? What blasphemous arrogance!

NO confessional in Scripture
NO purgatory in Scripture
NO Immaculate Conception of Mary in Scripture
NO Assumption of Mary in Scripture which makes the "Trinity" now a "Holy Quartet"
NO salvation by works in Scripture, etc.

You're not dealing with the ordinary run-of-the-mill protestant here who wouldn't know a 95 Thesis from Windows 95 ...I've been studying your faith a long time and I would encourage you to heed the warning to "come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and recieve not of her plagues".

 

[BreadOfLife]

"One more time...?" that's insanity.

But, here, here is what you all missed:

"God my Rock." Psalm 42:9
​

...very simple, but then you all looked instead to "flesh and blood." And what is worse, is you all actually know you are wrong--or you would not have scoured all the records to find "65 Protestant scholars" to support and defend your folly. That's amazing! One would only do that if they had first discovered their own error.

Oh? We "ALL" missed that - did we??

Apparently, you're under the false idea that God is the ONLY one in Scripture who is called "Rock".
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

In Isaiah 51, we read the following:
Isaiah 51:1-2
Look to the ROCK from which you were cut
and to the quarry from which you were hewn;
look to Abraham, your father

- God/Jesus is called "Rock/Cornerstone" (Psalm 78:35, 2 Sam. 23"3, Matt. 21:42, etc.)
- Abraham is called "Rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)
- Peter is called "Rock" (Matt. 16:18)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry, but your own church denies the applicability of the Colossians 2 argument... As well as common sense, good biblical exegesis, and smart intelligent thinking. You are just parroting the same lame feeble excuses as the rest of protestantism.

Really??
Can you show me in the Catechism where this is "denied" by thhe Church?

In Col. 2:16-17, Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit refers to festivals, dietary laws, holy days, new moons – and YES, the Sabbath the Sabbath is included in what St. Paul calls aa mere “SHADOWS". He poinht to Christ as the reality - the fulfillment of all these things.

Here is a Biblical example of one of these shadows . . .

I Chron. 23:31
And the Levites are to stand in the morning to give thanks, and to sing praises to the Lord; and in like manner in the evening. As well in the oblation of the holocausts of the Lord, as in the Sabbaths and in the new moons, and the rest of the solemnities, according to the number and ceremonies prescribed for everything, continually kept before the Lord.

As for Sola scriptura', that's true protestantism. I am well aware it isn't Catholicism. And your Sunday sacredness doctrine is evidence of that fact. I just refuse to buy into it. You can have your Sunday god with all it's pagan roots.

Yes, I know it is - I never said it wasn't.

What I DID say is that it is Scripturally unteneble.
In other words - the Bible doesn't suppost the false, 16th century, man-made invention thatr the Biblle alone is our "SOLE" Authority.

As an SDA - you shouold know that - seeing as hown you SPLIT your faith between Scripture and the lunatic ravings of Ellen G. White.

 

[Enoch111]

In other words - the Bible doesn't support the false, 16th century, man-made invention that the Bible alone is our "SOLE" Authority.

The very fact that the Bible exists supports the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

1. Who gave mankind the Bible? The LORD God Almighty
2. Who gave every word of God total authority? The Lord Jesus Christ
3. Who said that ALL SCRIPTURE is all-sufficient for all Christians? The Holy Spirit through Paul.

So this is not a 16th century manmade invention but it is a teaching from God Himself. The Bible says "Thy Word is forever settled in Heaven". And that settles it.

 

[Berserk]

Phoneman: "The infamous "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (JDDJ) is deceptively worded to teach "salvation is by grace alone through the merits of Christ's work alone" which is bulldookey."

In the absence of reasoned dialogue, you must resort to such ad hominens because you lack the integrity to engage all the relevant biblical texts cited by informed Catholics. Worse, you lack the grace to wait until this topic comes up according to the OP's specified order of discussion.
Unlike many informed Catholics, you don't know Greek or Hebrew and don't even own a standard Greek and Hebrew dictionary that would help educate you on the relevant issues you dimly grasp. But you will learn the relevance of the original languages when I take up the Catholic doctrine of justification, As Greek text critic B. F. Wescott wisely said on this matter, "The simple Gospel is not so simple as the simple would have you suppose."

Phoneman: 'NO confessional in Scripture"

Just another mindless fundamentalist pontification from someone who hasn't even bothered to read the decisive refutation of his groundless claims on this thread. Scroll down and actually read the case for priestly confession and absolution so that you might make an informed contribution to the discussion!

Phoneman: "NO salvation by works in Scripture, etc."

A gross distortion of the Catholic position concocted to avoid the hard work of getting into the Word and discovering how informed Catholics rightly divide the Word on this issue. Stay tuned for the time when this thread gets to that topic.

Phoneman: "You're not dealing with the ordinary run-of-the-mill protestant here"

Yes, you think you're smarter and better informed than the other evangelical posters on this thread.
Well, you're not dealing with a Catholic here, but with an evangelical who served as a theology professor at a Catholic university for 12 years and even successfully sued the Catholic church!

 

[BreadOfLife]

The very fact that the Bible exists supports the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

1. Who gave mankind the Bible? The LORD God Almighty
2. Who gave every word of God total authority? The Lord Jesus Christ
3. Who said that ALL SCRIPTURE is all-sufficient for all Christians? The Holy Spirit through Paul.

So this is not a 16th century manmade invention but it is a teaching from God Himself. The Bible says "Thy Word is forever settled in Heaven". And that settles it.

That's funny - because NEITHER Paul NOR the Holy spirit ever said that.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

The Greek word used here is οπηελιμοσ (fel'-ee-mos) - which means: Profitable or useful.
NOWHERE does Scripture make the claim that it is "all-sufficient" for teaching, reproof, correction or training - NOR does it say that it is our "Sole Authority" for these things.

Both Paul AND the Holy Spirit DID say, however, that we are to hold fast to what the Traditions taught by the Church - WHETHER by ORAL teaching - OR by the written Word (2 Thess. 2:15).

Sola Scriptura is 100% an invention of prideful, rebellious MEN men in the 16th century, who saught to divirce themselves from the Church.

The NT came from the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - and NOT the other way around.

 

[Illuminator]

The very fact that the Bible exists supports the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

The very fact that the Bible doesn't tell us what books belong in it destroys sola scriptura.

1. Who gave mankind the Bible? The LORD God Almighty

It fell from the sky???

2. Who gave every word of God total authority? The Lord Jesus Christ

Nowhere in Scripture is "word of God" used to mean the written word alone.
The ESV mentions it 51 times, or use any version you like. I haven't been able find where "word of God" is used in the context of the written word alone. Why don't you be the first?
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "word of god

3. Who said that ALL SCRIPTURE is all-sufficient for all Christians? The Holy Spirit through Paul.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 – Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Tim. 3:14 – Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 – Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 – further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 – also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
SCRIPTURE ALONE ("SOLA SCRIPTURA") - Scripture Catholic

So this is not a 16th century manmade invention but it is a teaching from God Himself. The Bible says "Thy Word is forever settled in Heaven". And that settles it.

The Bible does NOT say "thy written word alone is forever settled in heaven." THAT a 16th century manmade invention.

Only one means of transmitting His word is placing limits on God. He is much bigger than that.

 

[Mink57]

@Illuminator

Just to add a little to your eloquent post, even JESUS didn't SOLELY rely on scripture for his teaching.

 

[Illuminator]

@Illuminator

Just to add a little to your eloquent post, even JESUS didn't SOLELY rely on scripture for his teaching.

Thank you. When Jesus did use scripture, He taught what it meant, He didn't let the scriptures speak for themselves. The "it is written" argument fails because the OT quotes used by Jesus have nothing to do with scripture alone.

 

[Taken]

Our church is not upon "one man". It's upon Jesus. That's stressed in my Catholic Bible over and over again. Christ is THE Head of the church. Not "my" church. Not "your" church, but THE church.

Not "my" church. Not "your" church ...

Agree.

...but THE church.

Would say instead, Christ Jesus’ Church.

How in the world do you know this?

I listen.

Yes, the Catholic church does appoint ORDAINED men as holy fathers...because the Apostles appointed holy men as 'father's' starting with the election of Matthias. But who said that this is done "without credit due it is God who is the Holy Father?

By the way, big difference between "holy father" and "Holy Father".

I do not Scripturally see the appointment of “holy men, holy fathers”.
I see Jesus having called men and having appointed men as students to hear, and as disciples to listen, and as Apostles who believed and as teachers to preach Gods word, continually giving the Lord God Himself full credit.

Once again, where are you getting your information? What I quoted isn't even close to the truth.

* Again, I listen.
Sure there is a PRINTED difference between “a h and H”... “holy father and Holy father”.
There is no difference between ORALLY spoken “holy father and Holy father”.
* Again, I observe.
Bowing down in Reverence to the Heavenly Holy Father whose Throne is Heaven.
or bowing down in reverence to men on earth, who wear a man-made crown, who sit on a man-made throne, and men on earth who bow down to man made statues on earth.
Big difference.

Again, not even close to the truth. I believe there was a post on this thread that linked a number of articles that discuss how the Catholic church isn't the ONLY church where underhanded, corrupt, deceitful deeds are found.

Again, I listen.
Repeatedly “the Catholic Church”, is claimed by the Catholic Church, is claimed by it’s members, as “THE” only recognized Church.
I Disagree. ^
I Believe “THE Church”, is expressly, Christ Jesus’ Church, expressly WITHIN men, regardless of what man-made building men call a church.

* Sure, man-made buildings are established as churches, have men who sit as heads (Preachers), appoint men as deacons, and give a whole host of titles, regarding that buildings business.
* Sure, some men who sit as heads, who are appointed, wander off from being godly representatives of Gods Word.
* AND the members thereof those particular “religious organizations”, can certainly continue “supporting”, continue “advocating”, continue “trusting”, or leave such “religious organizations”.
* IF and WHEN I personally identify as a member of a “particular religious organization” that is identified with “corrupt” ungodly advocation ... you can challenge my membership participation.

I also find no universally recognized authority that claims that the Catholic church "exalts" itself in the face of those atrocities.

“Those atrocities”? Brought to the higher counsel of the Catholic Religious Organization and dealt with HOW for centuries? Hiding the culprits? Silencing or Ex-communicating the complaining member?

In fact, just the opposite is true. The CC has made great strides since the 1990's, in eliminating as many of these unfortunate atrocities as they humanly can.

Since the 1990’s ? The CC Eliminating atrocities? HOW?
Appointing men such as Reinhard Marx, as a Cardinal, as an Archbishop, as an advisor to Pope Francis....when Reinhard Marx himself is an advocator of Karl Marx Communist ideals? ...(same as some former Popes?)

Both Jesus and Paul both taught that there would be evil and corruption in Jesus' church. But we have to remember that satan seeks to destroy his church.

Just because some people are evil inside the church doesn't make the whole church evil...

Sure...and “he” who is sitting in offices dictating what is allowed and is not allowed should also be “recognized”, IF What he is dictating, applies to “himself” as well.