22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's talk about what the reformers taught about Mary, and compare it with todays cover-ups by radical Protestants.

I couldn't care less what they taught about Mary. I'm not a Reformer. Does Catholicism teach that she was sinless? That is my understanding. Is that your understanding and belief as well?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, I mean something quite different than you by Christ Jesus's Church. I think that was established from the outset.


Jesus Christ's Church consists of God's elect, those who have been called by the Lord and born again of the Spirit and are therefore in Christ. We cannot know exactly who this is, who make up His Church. In that sense, it is invisible... to us.

"For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7)​

​

WRONG.

We CAN know who is ini His Church – and NOT all of them are on the narrow path. The Wheat exist right along with the Weeds (Matt. 13:24–43).

His Church has good teachers and false teachers. He WARNED about this in Matt. 7:14-19.

Being a member of His Church is NOT a guarantee of salvation. Those who endure in faith to the end will be saved. Those who do not will be gathered up and burned with the rest of the weeds.

Well the Lord gives spiritual gifts to His people, gifts of the Spirit, and these are for the common good, yes. Romans 12 is clear on this also, I agree. You're either missing or avoiding the point, BreadOfLife. Some of both, I think, but I can't really know... (see what I did there? :))

YOU sound like an elitist who believes that ONLY the “Saved” are among those in Christ’s Church.

I take it you’re a Calvinist?

Yes, and you were talking about something different than I was. Specifically, I was responding to your alarmist statement (you actually used the word 'alarming' in reference to people leaving the church).


God calling people unto Himself and thereby building His kingdom is a very different thing than mere numbers of people leaving the church. Why are they leaving churches? Lots of reasons, but basically, as I have said at least three times now, as John says, they are going out from us because they are not of us and even proving to us that they are not of us. I would assert that the number of folks God had/has actually called was always much, much less than the number of folks merely professing belief in Jesus... or, in the case of others, merely going through the motions for one reason or another. Ergo, my reasoned assertion that the number of true believers is actually increasing ~ God is building His kingdom; it is becoming ever larger, just as He promised ~ even while the number of people remaining in churches is decreasing.

Once again – you live in a fantasy world where everything ins “peaches and cream”.

The Church is in decline – Catholic and Protestant. That’s just a FACT.

We can hide our heads in the sand and live in denial about it – or we cab DO something about it by spreading the Gospel message.

Okay, well, again, regarding denominations in general and whether the Catholic Church is one of them, again, we can agree to disagree.

Yes, we can.

However – YOURS is a denial of the very definition.

I... honestly can't even make sense of this... :) Denominations are recognized autonomous branches of the visible Christian Church, religious organizations whose congregations are united (at least somewhat) in their adherence to its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church qualifies intensely as such.

The Catholic church is not a “Branch” of Christianity.

It is the Original Tree from which ALL of the other branches sprouted.

Are you sure about this Scripture reference? This is right in the middle of Paul's conversion: "And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." Seems you may be referring to some other passage...?

No – that’s the one.

In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus equates his Body – the Church - with his very self:
He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Notice that Jesus DOESN’T say, “Why are you persecuting the Church?” (which is EXACTLY what Paul was doing).
Jesus chose to equate the Church with himself.

Well, in the sense that, as he writes in Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...", and earlier in this passage, specifically in Ephesians 1:3, that "God the Father... has blessed us in Christ..." We will agree that Paul is indeed talking about Christ's universal church. But we will disagree, obviously, that Christ's universal Church is limited to Catholics. :)

In much the same sense, BreadOfLife, God's Israel is not just a parcel of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea ~ God's Israel is a people that God calls to Himself out of every tongue, tribe, and nation ~ and Jews are not merely ethnic Jews ~ the true Jew, the one truly of God's Israel, is one inwardly, and circumcised of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, and his/her praise is not from man but from God, as Paul writes in Romans 2:29.

Like it or not – Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18.

That Church is His BODY and HE is the Head (Col. 1:18).

He prayed for the UNITY of that Church – that it remain ONE and He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23).

ALL Christians are incorporated to this ONE Church through Baptism (John 3:5, Mark 16:16). This is the “circumcision of the heart” that Paul speaks of.

Protestant Christians, however, are self-separated from that ONE Church.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, so I'm not going to disagree with it outright. But if you mean by this statement what it seems, on its face, to mean, I would very much disagree with this, too. Aside from any possible disagreement here, though, I would just say, one will never know Jesus without... His knowing that person, in the sense of the discussion we were having a bit ago with regard to this knowledge and what it really is. :) As John says, "We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

Jesus established the Church one earth so that the world would NEVER be without Him.
He and His Church are ONE (Acts 9:4-5, Col. 1:18, 1 Cor. 12).

You CANNOT know Him if you refuse to know His Church.

LOL! Wow. No, it's Catholic dogma that, as you said, "the Catholic Church... is the Original Tree... from which the Protestant denominations were born." Maybe 'dogma' was not the most accurate label to put on that, but that assertion is quite ridiculous, and wrong Scripturally, as I said. I actually kind of wonder (but just kind of... :)... if the Pope himself would make such a statement, or if that's just a BreadOfLife original... :) But that matters not, either, I guess.

I actually got that metaphor from a PROTESTANT source.

Church historian, Kenneth Samples wrote that in an essay for the Christian Research Institute that operates the Bible Answer Man radio show.

The name of the essay is “What Think Ye of Rome?”

Well, in a worldly sense ~ and dogmatic sense ~ ...whatever. As I said to Illuminator (quoting myself), "The whole impetus of the Reformation was to return Christianity back to Scripture and its Scriptural roots ~ and to thereby to promote unity rather than somehow detracting from it... The purpose of the Reformation was most assuredly not "endless division." To suppose it was or even to try to paint it that way is ridiculous, really; it was quite the opposite of "endless division."

Grace and peace to you!

I honestly don’t know how you can say this with a straight face.

New doctrines were being invented by different men during this time who eventual started they OWN sects based on their personal interpretations.

This is the very definition of division

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’ve given Biblical answers for ALL of those doctrine.

YOU said that you "poked plenty of holes" in them.
Care to show me WHICJ doctrine you did that to??

Purgatory is simply not taught anywhere in scripture. The Catholic understanding of the pope being a successor to Peter and the way they put the pope on a pedestal as if he is infallible is not taught anywhere in scripture. The idea that Mary was sinless is not taught anywhere in scripture. You are telling me you have given biblical answers to these things? Where?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus never quoted from your aprocryphal "canon".

Irrespective of what you asked me, is that a true statement?

I an MORE than happy to answer your questions - AFTER YOU answer just ONE of mine.

You keep playing this game where you changed the topic or ask new questions without addressing the ones I have asked of YOU for several days now.

Please answer the question I have asked you FIVETIMES now:

Can you explain WHY you adhere to the 39-Book OT Canon that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) who proclaimed a FALSE Messiah (Simon Bar Kokhba), in the 2nd century.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Like it or not – Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18.

Of course He did. But, it's not the false Catholic Church, that's for sure.

Protestant Christians, however, are self-separated from that ONE Church.

No, they are not. That ONE church is not the false Catholic Church. The ONE church consists of those who have repented of their sins and put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So, you don't have to be part of the Catholic Church to be in His One Church. That is a lie from hell.

Jesus established the Church one earth so that the world would NEVER be without Him.
He and His Church are ONE (Acts 9:4-5, Col. 1:18, 1 Cor. 12).

You CANNOT know Him if you refuse to know His Church.

Where is this taught anywhere in scripture? What does it even mean to "know His Church"?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Purgatory is simply not taught anywhere in scripture. The Catholic understanding of the pope being a successor to Peter and the way they put the pope on a pedestal as if he is infallible is not taught anywhere in scripture. The idea that Mary was sinless is not taught anywhere in scripture. You are telling me you have given biblical answers to these things? Where?

YOU keep telling me that you have "poked plenty of holes" in these doctrines.
I have addressed EACH on - and I will repeat the explanation for EACH on. But I'm STILL waiting read about the "holes" that YOU claim you poked in them.

 

[covenantee]

You haven’t showed me a SINGLE example of “blasphemy”.

You're obviously intentionally ignorant of its meaning.

From Merriam-Webster:
"the act of claiming the attributes of a deity"

Bellarmine claimed that the pope possesses the attributes of Christ.

Got it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

YOU keep telling me that you have "poked plenty of holes" in these doctrines.
I have addressed EACH on - and I will repeat the explanation for EACH on. But I'm STILL waiting read about the "holes" that YOU claim you poked in them.

You obviously missed the posts I made about these things.

I talked about how Jesus Himself is the Rock and Cornerstone of the church, not Peter or his supposed successors. Peter was just one of the apostles and prophets that make up the foundation of the church (Ephesians 1:19-22).

In terms of Mary being sinless, that blatantly contradicts the scriptures which say that all people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). That includes Mary. Jesus is the only person ever who was sinless. That's why only He could died for the sins of the world.

Purgatory is simply not taught anywhere in scripture. Scripture indicates that every person goes to one of two places when they die: heaven or hell. That's it.

So, there you go. So, go ahead and repeat the explanations that you supposedly already gave for these.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course He did. But, it's not the false Catholic Church, that's for sure.

Sure it is.
Here is a FIRST CENTURY witness to prove my point:

Ignatius of Antioch (Lifelong student of the Apoetle John)
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

"Follow your Bishop . . ."
"Obey your clergy . . ."
"The sole EUCHARIST . . ."
"The CATHOLIC CHURCH . . ."

Gee - WHICH Church does THAT sound like??

 

[BreadOfLife]

You're obviously intentionally ignorant of its meaning.

From Merriam-Webster:
"the act of claiming the attributes of a deity"

Bellarmine claimed that the pope possesses the attributes of Christ.

Got it?

WRONG- and I already corrected you on that point.

Bellarmine only attributed the TITLES of Jesus with regard to His Authority over the Church.

EPIC FAIL . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, they are not. That ONE church is not the false Catholic Church. The ONE church consists of those who have repented of their sins and put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So, you don't have to be part of the Catholic Church to be in His One Church. That is a lie from hell.

WRONG.

The ONE Church is ONE (John 17:20-23).
It is a visible entity - "a city on a hill that cannot be hidden" (Matt. 5:14).

One of the MAIN reasons for the Protestant Revolt was to separate from the Church. Mission accomplished . . .

Where is this taught anywhere in scripture? What does it even mean to "know His Church"?

He and His Church are ONE (Acts 9:4-5, Col. 1:18, 1 Cor. 12).
His Church is the FULLNESS if HIM (Eph. 1:22-23.

If you don't know His Church - you DON'T know HIM.
It's simple deductive reasoning . . .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure it is.
Here is a FIRST CENTURY witness to prove my point:

Ignatius of Antioch (Lifelong student of the Apoetle John)
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

"Follow your Bishop . . ."
"Obey your clergy . . ."
"The sole EUCHARIST . . ."
"The CATHOLIC CHURCH . . ."

Gee - WHICH Church does THAT sound like??

LOL! He was not referring to the Roman Catholic Church that we know today. LOL! The word catholic comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου 'on the whole, according to the whole, in general', and is a combination of the Greek words κατά 'about' and ὅλος 'whole'. All he was talking about was the universal/catholic Christian church of which all who have repented and put their faith in Christ belong (regardless of whether they are Catholic, Protestant, etc.), not your false Roman Catholic Church. Nice try.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

WRONG.

The ONE Church is ONE (John 17:20-23).
It is a visible entity - "a city on a hill that cannot be hidden" (Matt. 5:14).

One of the MAIN reasons for the Protestant Revolt was to separate from the Church. Mission accomplished . . .

The ONE church has Jesus Christ alone as its Rock and its head, not some ridiculous Pope.

His Church is the FULLNESS if HIM (Eph. 1:22-23.

If you don't know His Church - you DON'T know HIM.
It's simple deductive reasoning . . .

Then you don't now Him because you don't know His church, which is not the ridiculous Roman Catholic Church, but rather consists of ANYONE who has repented of their sins and put their faith and trust in Him as their Lord and Savior. What you are saying is that someone needs to be part of the Catholic Church in order to be saved. That is what you believe, isn't it? You can't be saved and not know Jesus.

 

[covenantee]

WRONG- and I already corrected you on that point.

Bellarmine only attributed the TITLES of Jesus with regard to His Authority over the Church.

EPIC FAIL . . .

It is to guffaw.

Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

So when Isaiah called Christ Wonderful, He wasn't really Wonderful, because that was only His title.
So when Isaiah called Christ Counsellor, He wasn't really Counsellor, because that was only His title.
So when Isaiah called Christ The Mighty God, He wasn't really The Mighty God, because that was only His title.
So when Isaiah called Christ The Everlasting Father, He wasn't really The Everlasting Father, because that was only His title.
So when Isaiah called Christ The Prince of Peace, He wasn't really The Prince of Peace, because that was only His title.

Your claim is beyond risibly abominable.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You obviously missed the posts I made about these things.

I talked about how Jesus Himself is the Rock and Cornerstone of the church, not Peter or his supposed successors. Peter was just one of the apostles and prophets that make up the foundation of the church (Ephesians 1:19-22).

In terms of Mary being sinless, that blatantly contradicts the scriptures which say that all people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). That includes Mary. Jesus is the only person ever who was sinless. That's why only He could died for the sins of the world.

Purgatory is simply not taught anywhere in scripture. Scripture indicates that every person goes to one of two places when they die: heaven or hell. That's it.

So, there you go. So, go ahead and repeat the explanations that you supposedly already gave for these.

I’ll take these ONE at a time . . .

With regard to Peter being the “Rock” of Matt. 16:18 – I presented a list of respected and eminent PROTESTANT scholarship on the matter.

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.

 

[PinSeeker]

No, "the Catholic Church... is the Original Tree from Which the Protestant denominations were born." is a historical fact you don't like.

Well I don't "like it," that we'll agree on... :) But that it's actually a historical fact, no... :) Actually, we're talking about two different things, really. Which ~ and by this I'm speaking to something much bigger than you and me ~ is not a new phenomenon. :) But, speaking to you in the context that you make this assertion ~ and really along some of the same lines as in the conversation between me and BreadOfLife; you will recall, perhaps, that I made the assertion that I was and am a member of Christ Jesus's catholic Church ~ I would agree with you, but in a very different sense than you mean it. It's analogous in a way to the fact that I can go to, say, Ancestry.com, and trace my family back through the centuries (we agree in this way), but, as a Christian, Who's family am I really a part of?

The survey presented is based on answers to questions, it is not "beside the point" to your spin of Catholic disunity.

The questions themselves are very misguided, even if the statistics you offered are accurate to any degree (and I'm not saying they are not).

The so called "reformation" is locked into 16th century politics, and remains so.

You're absolutely... entitled to your opinion. :) The man who started the Reformation, Martin Luther (see above), stood against popes and emperors in defense of the gospel, and what drove him to do that wasn’t "arrogance" or "ignorance," but rather that he very personally knew what it meant to live in the darkness of unresolved guilt, and once he discovered that his acceptance before God is a gift received by faith alone in the merits of Christ alone, Luther was set free, and he would not rest until the light of this truth went out to the world. This was Luther's purpose in nailing his 95 theses to the Castle Church door in 1517. Now, many of the things that people then took it on themselves to do spurred some people to do was political and even sinful, but these were purposes that they manufactured for themselves for various reasons, and while many of those things are very regrettable, they were not encouraged or advocated or sanctioned in any way by Martin Luther or any of the other Reformers.

I never said the so called 'reformation' was purposed for endless division, endless division is the consequence of the reformation.

LOL! I never said that you said the Reformation was "purposed for endless division." :) I understood then and now that you were and are speaking to consequences of the Reformation. So, okay, and I say again, the purpose of the Reformation was quite opposite to some of the consequences that precipitated from Martin Luther's actions in October of 1517.

endless division is the consequence of the reformation. It began when Calvin disagreed with Luther, and the divisions haven't stopped since.

Ah, interesting. Calvin's chief contemporary with whom he disagreed was Jacobus Arminius, not Martin Luther. And it was not a new disagreement; it goes back centuries before that, even before there was such a thing as the Catholic Church ~ though Catholics will certainly disagree with that ~ in the sense that it exists today. Augustine and Pelagius had the same basic disagreement concerning Scripture.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible...

Certainly, the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church... :) We can get into a lot of... well, things... :) ...there in Matthew 16... :)

...therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

I wholeheartedly agree with this in principle. But that's what we're all talking about, Illuminator, what ~ who ~ really is Christ's one true holy and apostolic and catholic church. It's similar to who are in reality ~ in God's eyes ~ true Jews, part of God's Israel, which is inclusive of at least some ethnic Jews, but also Gentiles, and in the aggregate an innumerable multitude of people from every tongue, tribe, and nation).

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division.

Well, Paul does tell us, in various ways, to avoid controversies (1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:23, Titus 3:9) which produce dissention/quarrels, because they are unprofitable and worthless, for sure. But never are we exhorted or instructed to reject anyone.

It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church...

Nope. :) Again, the principal disagreement here is what ~ who makes up ~ the Church of Jesus Christ.

Your glorious reformation isn't so glorious.

Some of the things that have happened sense are not so glorious, I agree. But see above. There's a lot that could be said here, but I think we can speak to it all by just echoing Paul's great statement, that,~ thanks be to God ~ "God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28).

Grace and peace to you, Illuminator.

 

[covenantee]

I’ll take these ONE at a time . . .

With regard to Peter being the “Rock” of Matt. 16:18 – I presented a list of respected and eminent PROTESTANT scholarship on the matter.

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.

Debunked previously.

The NT authors did not write in Aramaic. They wrote in Greek.

Every known Greek manuscript (and there are many) distinguishes between Petra and Petros.

There is no Aramaic manuscript which pre-dates the oldest Greek manuscript.

The Codex Vaticanus in your Vatican library is Greek, and distinguishes between Petra and Petros.

You lose.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’ll take these ONE at a time . . .

With regard to Peter being the “Rock” of Matt. 16:18 – I presented a list of respected and eminent PROTESTANT scholarship on the matter.

LOL! You just don't get it. You are just a robot incapable of having any thoughts of your own. I DO NOT CARE about "Protestant scholarship". Do you understand what I'm saying? There are many false teachers in BOTH Catholicism and Protestantism. Is that something you are capable of understanding? Who are YOU to decide who should be respected or not? You have clearly shown that you are not qualified to make that determination.

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.

None of this matters. All of these clowns are not taking the following passage into account when interpreting Matthew 16:18:

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

This passage makes it very clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the Rock and chief cornerstone of the church. As Paul said, "in HIM the whole building is joined together". To put anyone else on a pedestal the way the false Catholic Church does is an insult to Jesus Christ Himself! Peter was just one of the apostles and prophets that make up the foundation of the church. There is no basis WHATSOEVER for putting Peter or anyone else on a pedestal the way you do.

 

[covenantee]

LOL! You just don't get it. You are just a robot incapable of having any thoughts of your own. I DO NOT CARE about "Protestant scholarship". Do you understand what I'm saying? There are many false teachers in BOTH Catholicism and Protestantism. Is that something you are capable of understanding? Who are YOU to decide who should be respected or not? You have clearly shown that you are not qualified to make that determination.


None of this matters. All of these clowns are not taking the following passage into account when interpreting Matthew 16:18:

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

This passage makes it very clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the Rock and chief cornerstone of the church. As Paul said, "in HIM the whole building is joined together". To put anyone else on a pedestal the way the false Catholic Church does is an insult to Jesus Christ Himself! Peter was just one of the apostles and prophets that make up the foundation of the church. There is no basis WHATSOEVER for putting Peter or anyone else on a pedestal the way you do.

Excellent and amen, bro.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You obviously missed the posts I made about these things.

I talked about how Jesus Himself is the Rock and Cornerstone of the church, not Peter or his supposed successors. Peter was just one of the apostles and prophets that make up the foundation of the church (Ephesians 1:19-22).

In terms of Mary being sinless, that blatantly contradicts the scriptures which say that all people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). That includes Mary. Jesus is the only person ever who was sinless. That's why only He could died for the sins of the world.

Purgatory is simply not taught anywhere in scripture. Scripture indicates that every person goes to one of two places when they die: heaven or hell. That's it.

So, there you go. So, go ahead and repeat the explanations that you supposedly already gave for these.

With regard to Mary’s Immaculate Conception – We read about that in Luke 1:28.

Luke 1:28
And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!

The Greek text is very different – and more difficult to translate into one word.

The Angel didn’t say, “Greetings, O favored one”, He said, “Greetings, Kecharitomene.”

Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with a permanent result. So it translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

This is a person who has been completed in grace, which is something that WE are all still hoping for.

As for the idea that “ALL have sinned” – I have a couple of questions for you:

What about Jesus? Is He not part of “ALL”?
How many infants do you know who have sinned? I never met one.

Here is a Scriptural comparison of the OT Type that was the Ark of the Covenant with Mary, who is the NT Fulfillment of the Ark. She is the Ark of the NEW Covenant (Jesus):

The Ark had to be completely purified and blessed inside and out in order to carry symbols of God’s power within it.
How much more blessed and pure would the vessel that actually carried GOD Himself have to be?

OT - The Tabernacle that housed the Ark was overshadowed by the cloud of glory of the Lord (Shekinah glory) filled the Tabernacle (2 Chron. 5:13-14).
NT - Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Most High (Luke 1:35).

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) who carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the Word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

I have more - nut I'll leave this for you to chew on for now.

So instead of your usual denials – how about offering a Scriptural refutation??