Peter the Rock?

[BreadOfLife]

Identifying Christ's church is the question isn't it, and the specific criteria we use in establishing a conclusive answer.
The first criteria we need to discuss is the use of scripture, and the view of scripture any church adopts as it's source of truth, faith, and practise. Hence all the debates we currently pursue on these forums, and historically the debates between Rome and everyone else since the time of the Albigensian and Waldensian crusades going back over 1000 years.
The bottom line in these debates is twofold. One side holds as final authority in spiritual matters, Christ. The other, the church. While one side holds Christ as final authority in spiritual concerns, they recognise the church as having authority regarding behaviour as church members. Rome had always taken that a step or two further.
The other thing is religious liberty. Are Christians obliged to compel others to believe precisely as they do? Or are they to allow, even protect, the rights of others to believe, or not to believe, according to conscience? When Jesus said make disciples of all nations, preaching the gospel and baptizing, what methods did He use as our example in teaching, preaching, and sharing the love of God with the world?

That said, what specific biblical criteria are there in identifying God's church? Especially relative to the times in which we live?

First of all - your argument is based on a FALSE premise.

The Catholic Church holds JESUS as our final Authority. YOUR blunder is in trying to dissect Jesus from His Church – which cannot be done (Acts 9:4-5).

Jesus and His Church are ONE. He us the Head of the Body, the Church (Col 1:18). He is joined to His Church more radically than the finger is to the hand.

As for what Biblical criteria identifies Christ’s Church. Well, for starters – that is goes all the way back to the Apostles. Not ONE, single Protestant sect can claim it existed ANY further back than the 16th century. Your SDA sect – it only goes back to the 19th century.

 

[ScottA]

Tell me - WHY doesn’t he just call him “Petros”??

Yes, you gave the answer already...because: Jesus never used the term, because He "was speaking Aramaic."

But that is not the real reason Jesus called him "Peter", changing his name. Nor does changing his name make it all about him (except in his own life and service, as chosen by God). No acts of God are about the person per se, but about what God Himself is doing.

But none of this will even be received unless you can embrace the biblical fact that what has brought us to this point has included "false teachers among you" as foretold by Peter. You and I are not the issue--nor Catholics or Protestants. The course of things will only change for those who come in alinement with all of what is written, and also go on to embrace the foretold finish of the mystery of God that was not to come until just before the end. In other word, church history has no standing against what is written of it, no defense, and it is repentance that is called for--not defiance. Thus far, you have not been up to it, but have indeed, only been defiant against what is written of "destructive doctrines" and their final correction before the sounding of the seventh angel.​

So again, what we have been debating is a Head vs. body issue, which must be considered inseparable, while the Head remains the Head--which you also say. In which case the body is never to be confused for the Head. The error then, of the Catholic church, is to have given greater credence or credit to Peter beyond the honor of being chosen for such a pivotal role in the life of the church body. The result of which--the greater error, has been the concealing of the actual act of God regarding the church made during Jesus' exchange with Peter.

What the actual exchange between Peter and Jesus was regarding, was a fork in the road regarding who would go to the right and who would go to the left (and the building of His church), not unlike the fork in the road set before Israel by Moses, saying, "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, that both you and your descendants may live."

In reading the passages, the narrative is defined by what the building of Jesus' church would be, and what it would not be. The objects making up His definition of what would and would not be, were "flesh and blood" vs. the spiritual hearing of what would come from the Father. In which case Jesus could have been speaking to any one of the apostles. But knowing them all, He chose Peter. Which, to Peter's credit, was a great position making him a leader among the twelve. Even so, even being uniquely chosen, it was no indication of him being Head...as if to say, "Peter, your church will be built..." Thus, the subject (Jesus and His church and its being built) and the object (Peter) in their exchange, is not to be confused, although it has been. It was rather a test, and a dividing line between "flesh and blood" and the "Father" who is spirit, between the past and Israel, and the future of the church. In which case, Jesus too has set before us all--"life and death, blessing and cursing"--and each of us must "choose life" or death. Many already have, and so shall it be.

So, it is obvious what many have chosen since the exchange between Jesus and Peter. But if this were the last time, as it is written, what will you now choose?

So be it!

 

[Tulipbee]

Other than being just plain stupid and impotent response – you have failed to answer my question.

Let me know when you’re ready to have a serious discussion. Only next time – doo your homework and leave the salsa dancing at the door . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, the cosmic dance floor beckons, and our theological salsa continues! Your directness is like a straightforward cha-cha, and I sense you're ready for a serious discussion. Fear not, for the theological tango awaits!

Now, in the grand ballroom of biblical banter, let's waltz through the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, might lend a Calvinistic cadence, saying, "Verily, the linguistic nuances dance to the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we shimmy through the linguistic labyrinth, consider the papal missteps in the cosmic dance. Calvin might quip, "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps lead to theological tripping – a divine caution in the dance of ecclesiastical succession."

So, BreadOfLife, let's cha-cha into the heart of the matter, leaving the salsa at the door but embracing the respect that's the celestial rhythm of serious theological discussions! For in the dance of debate, it's the cadence of respectful discourse that keeps us all in step. #CalvinistComedy #TheologicalSalsa

 

[Brakelite]

What is it exactly that we are trusting in to gain heaven/salvation? The word of God/the authority of scripture/Jesus? Or...

our membership of a particular church, our following of a particular ideology, or even in the trustworthiness of others, such as saints and holy men of former times?

What was the primary reason Israel didn't enter the promised land? Unbelief. The same could well keep God's people from entering heaven.
The inevitable result of unbelief in God's word is to lay ones hope and trust in something else. To be joyful we want entertainment...which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

To be content we seek fame and riches...which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

To be at peace we seek pharmacueticals, alcohol...which lead to unbalanced thought processes which lead to moral compromise which lead to sin.

To attain to salvation we seek religion and/or self motivated good works...which leads to pride which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

And then of course is fear of going without...which leads to trusting in our quest for worldly security better jobs...higher paid jobs...maybe fudging the truth to get there...trampling upon others to get that promotion...all for money. And the love of money well, we all know what that leads to don't we....

I think you get the idea. And it all began with not believing God.

 

[Tulipbee]

What is it exactly that we are trusting in to gain heaven/salvation? The word of God/the authority of scripture/Jesus? Or...

our membership of a particular church, our following of a particular ideology, or even in the trustworthiness of others, such as saints and holy men of former times?

What was the primary reason Israel didn't enter the promised land? Unbelief. The same could well keep God's people from entering heaven.
The inevitable result of unbelief in God's word is to lay ones hope and trust in something else. To be joyful we want entertainment...which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

To be content we seek fame and riches...which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

To be at peace we seek pharmacueticals, alcohol...which lead to unbalanced thought processes which lead to moral compromise which lead to sin.

To attain to salvation we seek religion and/or self motivated good works...which leads to pride which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

And then of course is fear of going without...which leads to trusting in our quest for worldly security better jobs...higher paid jobs...maybe fudging the truth to get there...trampling upon others to get that promotion...all for money. And the love of money well, we all know what that leads to don't we....

I think you get the idea. And it all began with not believing God.

Ah, Brakelite, the comedic theologian unraveling the cosmic dance of trust and unbelief! Let's pirouette through your insightful musings with a Calvinistic twist.
Quoting Calvin's rhythmic prose, he might join the dance, saying, "Verily, the dance of salvation hinges on trust – but where does our trust find its celestial stage? Is it in the grand theater of church membership, ideology, or the authority of saints? Nay, it's in the divine choreography of God's Word and the person of Jesus!"
As we waltz through the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin might chuckle, "Ah, unbelief – the original misstep that led Israel astray. In the cosmic ballet of salvation, trust in anything other than God's Word becomes a stumbling dance towards moral compromise."
Now, about seeking joy, contentment, and peace – Calvin might quip, "In the grand comedy of human desires, the search for fulfillment often becomes a dance with moral compromise. But let not the trust in fleeting pleasures lead us astray from the eternal dance with our Redeemer."
And fear of going without? Calvin would playfully remark, "Ah, the jitterbug of worldly security and the quest for more. But let us not forget, the love of money – a dance partner leading to the cha-cha of moral compromise."
As for salvation through religion and self-motivated works, Calvin might declare, "In the theological salsa, pride often takes the lead. But salvation's dance is a divine duet, where grace leads, and our trust in Christ keeps us twirling away from the pitfalls of sin."
So, Brakelite, in this cosmic comedy of trust and unbelief, let the dance of salvation be guided by the celestial choreographer, where belief in God's Word is the rhythmic heartbeat leading us away from the missteps of moral compromise. #CalvinisticComedy #TheologicalTwist

 

[RedFan]

This πέτρος (petros) and πέτρα (petra) controversy has me scratching my head if, as I think is overwhelmingly likely, Jesus spoke in Aramaic to Peter. I am told that in Aramaic (disclaimer: I do not read or speak Aramaic) the play on words we see in the Greek is impossible: Jesus would have said "antah hu kepha we’al kepha den ebneh…" ("you are kepha (Cephas}, and on this kepha (rock) I will build…"). Same word kepha in both instances. There is no Aramaic way to bastardize the gender, as there is in the Greek.

If the author of Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek, and accurately received via oral tradition -- or overheard, if he was present (a long shot) -- Jesus' actual Aramaic words, then the author made the translation, creating the play on words himself. If the author of Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic as some scholars think, then we must blame some later Greek translator(s) for the play on words.

Either way, why are we attributing the words petros and petra to Jesus?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, you gave the answer already...because: Jesus never used the term, because He "was speaking Aramaic."

But that is not the real reason Jesus called him "Peter", changing his name. Nor does changing his name make it all about him (except in his own life and service, as chosen by God). No acts of God are about the person per se, but about what God Himself is doing.

But none of this will even be received unless you can embrace the biblical fact that what has brought us to this point has included "false teachers among you" as foretold by Peter. You and I are not the issue--nor Catholics or Protestants. The course of things will only change for those who come in alinement with all of what is written, and also go on to embrace the foretold finish of the mystery of God that was not to come until just before the end. In other word, church history has no standing against what is written of it, no defense, and it is repentance that is called for--not defiance. Thus far, you have not been up to it, but have indeed, only been defiant against what is written of "destructive doctrines" and their final correction before the sounding of the seventh angel.​

So again, what we have been debating is a Head vs. body issue, which must be considered inseparable, while the Head remains the Head--which you also say. In which case the body is never to be confused for the Head. The error then, of the Catholic church, is to have given greater credence or credit to Peter beyond the honor of being chosen for such a pivotal role in the life of the church body. The result of which--the greater error, has been the concealing of the actual act of God regarding the church made during Jesus' exchange with Peter.

What the actual exchange between Peter and Jesus was regarding, was a fork in the road regarding who would go to the right and who would go to the left (and the building of His church), not unlike the fork in the road set before Israel by Moses, saying, "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, that both you and your descendants may live."

In reading the passages, the narrative is defined by what the building of Jesus' church would be, and what it would not be. The objects making up His definition of what would and would not be, were "flesh and blood" vs. the spiritual hearing of what would come from the Father. In which case Jesus could have been speaking to any one of the apostles. But knowing them all, He chose Peter. Which, to Peter's credit, was a great position making him a leader among the twelve. Even so, even being uniquely chosen, it was no indication of him being Head...as if to say, "Peter, your church will be built..." Thus, the subject (Jesus and His church and its being built) and the object (Peter) in their exchange, is not to be confused, although it has been. It was rather a test, and a dividing line between "flesh and blood" and the "Father" who is spirit, between the past and Israel, and the future of the church. In which case, Jesus too has set before us all--"life and death, blessing and cursing"--and each of us must "choose life" or death. Many already have, and so shall it be.

So, it is obvious what many have chosen since the exchange between Jesus and Peter. But if this were the last time, as it is written, what will you now choose?

So be it!

As usual, your typical word salad does nothing but twist the truth to fit your preconceived ideas.
I know you fancy yourself as some kind of philosophical intellectual – but it doesn’t work here . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, the cosmic dance floor beckons, and our theological salsa continues! Your directness is like a straightforward cha-cha, and I sense you're ready for a serious discussion. Fear not, for the theological tango awaits!

Now, in the grand ballroom of biblical banter, let's waltz through the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, might lend a Calvinistic cadence, saying, "Verily, the linguistic nuances dance to the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we shimmy through the linguistic labyrinth, consider the papal missteps in the cosmic dance. Calvin might quip, "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps lead to theological tripping – a divine caution in the dance of ecclesiastical succession."

So, BreadOfLife, let's cha-cha into the heart of the matter, leaving the salsa at the door but embracing the respect that's the celestial rhythm of serious theological discussions! For in the dance of debate, it's the cadence of respectful discourse that keeps us all in step. #CalvinistComedy #TheologicalSalsa

Once again, your response is drowning in a barrage of idiotic dance references. I guess that’s your was of deflecting. If you can’t address the issues – just admit it and move on.

When you’re ready to have a grown-up conversation – let me know . . .

 

[Tulipbee]

Once again, your response is drowning in a barrage of idiotic dance references. I guess that’s your was of deflecting. If you can’t address the issues – just admit it and move on.

When you’re ready to have a grown-up conversation – let me know . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, the straight-talking interlocutor in this cosmic theological dance – let's set the dance floor antics aside and delve into the substantive matters with a touch of Calvinistic insight.

In the grand ballroom of biblical banter, let's waltz through the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. As Calvin might declare in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Verily, the linguistic nuances should dance to the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we navigate the linguistic labyrinth, consider the papal missteps in the cosmic dance. Calvin's perspective might echo, "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps can lead to theological stumbling – a divine caution in the dance of ecclesiastical history."

So, BreadOfLife, let's cha-cha into the heart of the matter, leaving the dance references behind and embracing the respect that guides serious theological discussions. In this Calvinistic comedy, let the discourse be as earnest as the divine rhythm that governs our steps. Ready for a grown-up conversation? Let's tango into the realm of substantive theological dialogue!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, the straight-talking interlocutor in this cosmic theological dance – let's set the dance floor antics aside and delve into the substantive matters with a touch of Calvinistic insight.

In the grand ballroom of biblical banter, let's waltz through the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. As Calvin might declare in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Verily, the linguistic nuances should dance to the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we navigate the linguistic labyrinth, consider the papal missteps in the cosmic dance. Calvin's perspective might echo, "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps can lead to theological stumbling – a divine caution in the dance of ecclesiastical history."

So, BreadOfLife, let's cha-cha into the heart of the matter, leaving the dance references behind and embracing the respect that guides serious theological discussions. In this Calvinistic comedy, let the discourse be as earnest as the divine rhythm that governs our steps. Ready for a grown-up conversation? Let's tango into the realm of substantive theological dialogue!

I see that you refuse to set aside your nonsensical blathering about dancing, comedy, etc.
Suffice it to say, I’ve destroyed your arguments and Calvinist nonsense because you are unable to explain your positions in a mature fashion.

Good luck with that . . .

 

[amadeus]

What is it exactly that we are trusting in to gain heaven/salvation? The word of God/the authority of scripture/Jesus? Or...

our membership of a particular church, our following of a particular ideology, or even in the trustworthiness of others, such as saints and holy men of former times?

What was the primary reason Israel didn't enter the promised land? Unbelief. The same could well keep God's people from entering heaven.
The inevitable result of unbelief in God's word is to lay ones hope and trust in something else. To be joyful we want entertainment...which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

To be content we seek fame and riches...which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

To be at peace we seek pharmacueticals, alcohol...which lead to unbalanced thought processes which lead to moral compromise which lead to sin.

To attain to salvation we seek religion and/or self motivated good works...which leads to pride which leads to moral compromise which leads to sin.

And then of course is fear of going without...which leads to trusting in our quest for worldly security better jobs...higher paid jobs...maybe fudging the truth to get there...trampling upon others to get that promotion...all for money. And the love of money well, we all know what that leads to don't we....

I think you get the idea. And it all began with not believing God.

Very good summation my friend of the wrong things upon which too many people do focus! Am I guiltless? I wish I could say that I always was. I continue to strive and to surrender to God, asking, seeking and knocking...

 

[ScottA]

As usual, your typical word salad does nothing but twist the truth to fit your preconceived ideas.
I know you fancy yourself as some kind of philosophical intellectual – but it doesn’t work here . . .

And so it shall be written.

 

[Tulipbee]

I see that you refuse to set aside your nonsensical blathering about dancing, comedy, etc.
Suffice it to say, I’ve destroyed your arguments and Calvinist nonsense because you are unable to explain your positions in a mature fashion.

Good luck with that . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, the straight-shooting debater in the cosmic theological dance – let's drop the dance references and engage in a mature exchange with a touch of Calvinistic wisdom.
In the grand ballroom of substantive dialogue, let's dive into the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, might declare, "Linguistic nuances should align with the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."
As we navigate the historical labyrinth, consider the papal missteps in the cosmic dance. Calvin's perspective might echo, "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps can lead to theological stumbling – a divine caution in the dance of ecclesiastical history."
Now, BreadOfLife, let's tango into the heart of the matter, leaving the dance references behind and embracing the respect that guides serious theological discussions. In this Calvinistic exchange, let the discourse be as earnest as the divine rhythm that governs our steps.
Quoting Galatians 2:9, "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship," Calvin might interject, "In the grand dance of apostolic fellowship, let the pillars uphold the truth."
So, ready for a grown-up conversation? Let's engage in substantive theological dialogue, leaving the dance floor antics behind. May the wisdom of Calvin guide our steps, and may the discourse be seasoned with the truth of scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, the straight-shooting debater in the cosmic theological dance – let's drop the dance references and engage in a mature exchange with a touch of Calvinistic wisdom.
In the grand ballroom of substantive dialogue, let's dive into the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, might declare, "Linguistic nuances should align with the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."
As we navigate the historical labyrinth, consider the papal missteps in the cosmic dance. Calvin's perspective might echo, "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps can lead to theological stumbling – a divine caution in the dance of ecclesiastical history."
Now, BreadOfLife, let's tango into the heart of the matter, leaving the dance references behind and embracing the respect that guides serious theological discussions. In this Calvinistic exchange, let the discourse be as earnest as the divine rhythm that governs our steps.
Quoting Galatians 2:9, "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship," Calvin might interject, "In the grand dance of apostolic fellowship, let the pillars uphold the truth."
So, ready for a grown-up conversation? Let's engage in substantive theological dialogue, leaving the dance floor antics behind. May the wisdom of Calvin guide our steps, and may the discourse be seasoned with the truth of scripture.

Yes, let’s “drop the dance references” – then you continue to vomit them out for the remainder of your rant.
You've been proven wrong.

Immature people like YOU are incapable of having a grown-up conversation . . .

 

[Tulipbee]

Yes, let’s “drop the dance references” – then you continue to vomit them out for the remainder of your rant.
You've been proven wrong.

Immature people like YOU are incapable of having a grown-up conversation . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, the dance of words continues, and I must confess, it's hard to resist the allure of a good metaphorical waltz. But let's set the dance references aside and embark on a more mature exchange, shall we?

In the realm of substantive dialogue, let's revisit the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, the astute theologian, might gently remind us, "In the quest for truth, linguistic nuances must align with the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we navigate the historical labyrinth, pondering the missteps in the cosmic dance of ecclesiastical history, Calvin's cautionary words resonate: "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps can lead to theological stumbling."

Now, BreadOfLife, let's engage in a grown-up conversation, leaving the dance floor antics behind. Quoting Galatians 2:9, "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship," Calvin might interject, "In the grand dance of apostolic fellowship, let the pillars uphold the truth."

So, here's to a discourse seasoned with the wisdom of Calvin and the truth of scripture. Let's navigate the theological terrain with respect and earnest consideration. May our exchange be a dance of ideas, gracefully led by the rhythm of divine revelation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, the dance of words continues, and I must confess, it's hard to resist the allure of a good metaphorical waltz. But let's set the dance references aside and embark on a more mature exchange, shall we?

In the realm of substantive dialogue, let's revisit the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, the astute theologian, might gently remind us, "In the quest for truth, linguistic nuances must align with the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we navigate the historical labyrinth, pondering the missteps in the cosmic dance of ecclesiastical history, Calvin's cautionary words resonate: "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps can lead to theological stumbling."

Now, BreadOfLife, let's engage in a grown-up conversation, leaving the dance floor antics behind. Quoting Galatians 2:9, "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship," Calvin might interject, "In the grand dance of apostolic fellowship, let the pillars uphold the truth."

So, here's to a discourse seasoned with the wisdom of Calvin and the truth of scripture. Let's navigate the theological terrain with respect and earnest consideration. May our exchange be a dance of ideas, gracefully led by the rhythm of divine revelation.

I think you need serious help.
Your posts are a classic example of a person dealing with a really bad case of OCD.

 

[Illuminator]

Ah, BreadOfLife, the dance of words continues, and I must confess, it's hard to resist the allure of a good metaphorical waltz. But let's set the dance references aside and embark on a more mature exchange, shall we?

In the realm of substantive dialogue, let's revisit the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, the astute theologian, might gently remind us, "In the quest for truth, linguistic nuances must align with the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we navigate the historical labyrinth, pondering the missteps in the cosmic dance of ecclesiastical history, Calvin's cautionary words resonate: "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps can lead to theological stumbling."

Now, BreadOfLife, let's engage in a grown-up conversation, leaving the dance floor antics behind. Quoting Galatians 2:9, "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship," Calvin might interject, "In the grand dance of apostolic fellowship, let the pillars uphold the truth."

So, here's to a discourse seasoned with the wisdom of Calvin and the truth of scripture. Let's navigate the theological terrain with respect and earnest consideration. May our exchange be a dance of ideas, gracefully led by the rhythm of divine revelation.

So, here's to a discourse seasoned with the wisdom of Calvin and the truth of scripture.

Sifting through Tulipbee's use of multiple metaphors and idioms in each sentence is hard to follow. It's like dancing with someone who flips from tango to salsa to jitterbug to waltz. I'd have to politely sit down and watch. Admittedly, I find tulipbee to be entertaining. It's better the the usual "your daddy is uglier than my daddy" arguments, that one might overhear coming from a children's sandbox.

Calvin dances like a Pelican on snowshoes.

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

64 Critiques Of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

I literally responded line-by-line to almost all of Book IV of the seminal theological work, "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. It runs about 500 pages. Plus more...

www.patheos.com

 

[Tulipbee]

I think you need serious help.
Your posts are a classic example of a person dealing with a really bad case of OCD.

Ah, BreadOfLife, a discerning participant in the theological discourse, offering a critique that cuts through the metaphorical dance. Let's address this observation with a touch of Calvinistic introspection and a commitment to respectful dialogue.

Quoting from Calvin's emphasis on humility, one might respond, "In the pursuit of truth, let us approach one another with humility and a genuine desire to understand. Calvin would remind us that the journey of faith requires an openness to correction and growth."

Reflecting on the quote from G.K. Chesterton, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions," one might add, "Indeed, convictions shape our discourse, but let us balance conviction with charity, seeking understanding rather than mere tolerance."

So, BreadOfLife, as we engage in this mature exchange, may our words be marked by sincerity, humility, and a shared commitment to the pursuit of truth. Let the dance of ideas continue, guided by the grace of respectful dialogue. ️ #CalvinisticReflection

 

[Tulipbee]

So, here's to a discourse seasoned with the wisdom of Calvin and the truth of scripture.
View attachment 40229
Sifting through Tulipbee's use of multiple metaphors and idioms in each sentence is hard to follow. It's like dancing with someone who flips from tango to salsa to jitterbug to waltz. I'd have to politely sit down and watch. Admittedly, I find tulipbee to be entertaining. It's better the the usual "your daddy is uglier than my daddy" arguments, that one might overhear coming from a children's sandbox.

Calvin dances like a Pelican on snowshoes.

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

64 Critiques Of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

I literally responded line-by-line to almost all of Book IV of the seminal theological work, "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. It runs about 500 pages. Plus more...

www.patheos.com

Ah, Illuminator, your response is akin to a discerning observer at a grand masquerade ball, carefully watching the dance unfold. Let's engage in this discourse with a touch of clarity, leaving behind the intricacies of the metaphorical dance floor.

Your comparison of Calvin's dance to a Pelican on snowshoes brings a smile, capturing the unique and sometimes unconventional nature of theological discourse. Indeed, Calvin's provocations can be challenging, and your commitment to rational arguments from Scripture and history is commendable.

As we navigate the vast terrain of theological discussion, your dedication to keeping polemics to a minimum is noted. The link to your critiques of John Calvin's "Institutes" reflects a scholarly pursuit, aiming to provide a thoughtful response from a Catholic perspective.

Let our exchange be a dialogue of ideas, gracefully led by the rhythm of discernment and understanding. May we find common ground and foster respectful engagement, transcending the dance of metaphors to delve into the substance of our theological reflections. ️ #TheologicalDialogue

 

[Marymog]

Oh. Did I give the impression that I was under no persons authority? Yet even so, their jurisdiction is limited. Their authority over me does not extend to spiritual truth and doctrine. That prerogative belongs to Jesus, while man's authority pertains to behaviour.

Greetings Brakelite.

Yes, you did give me the very strong impression that you are under no person's authority!

I am curious....You say that "their jurisdiction (over you) is limited". WHO is 'their' and WHAT are they limited to?

I used Scripture (Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17) to show you how someone (elders, overseers) DOES have authority over us, the flock of The Church. Hebrews 13:17 says that the elders of The Church "watch out for your souls". How can they watch out for our souls if their authority "does not extend to spiritual truth and doctrine"?

Matthew 18:17 says that if we refuse to accept the authoritative decision of The Church that we are to be kicked out of The Church. Are you suggesting that "spiritual truth and doctrine" are off limits to the authority given to the elders of The Church?

I have given Scripture to back up what I believe, and my Church teaches. Can you please provide Scripture to back up your teaching?

Curious Mary