Peter the Rock?

[Marymog]

As long as you mock, I am under no obligation to speak with you or answer you at all.

But I have answered you already. Should you not gravitate to what and whose you are? Is that not the fruit showing whose you are? Does that mean you should not do otherwise? No, but if you insist, so shall it be--and this too is right.

The definition of mocking is to treat one with contempt or ridicule. I don't have any contempt for you and I am not ridiculing you, Scottie. I am just flat out calling you out. I am revealing how what you teach is opposite of what Scripture teaches. I ask you questions that, if you were to honestly answer them, would reveal the dilemma you are in when you say things like "teachings of men" or suggest that YOU are being guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth.

No, you didn't answer me. You are not being honest. You are playing a word game. I know you won't answer and I have already given the reason why. Nice try Scottie.....

Mary

 

[ScottA]

Huh....

I'll take that as a question. Good--questions are good!

Just as referring to the Temple made of stone can be in or out of context, whether referring to it within the context of this world or alternatively to the context of the Temple in Heaven it only points to, so too the word of truth must always be rightly divided for understanding.

 

[Marymog]

I see the dilemma, but you apparently do not.

"Drop ins" of scripture phrases, etc. are the prerogative, providence, and sole dominion of God, and is otherwise without authority by any other use. Are there not counterfeits? Certainly, there are. But only the Spirit knows what is true.

Yup Scottie, only the Spirit knows what is true. Remember that when I tell you that what you wrote isn't true.

Here is your dilemma, Scottie. Scripture makes it clear that the Spirit revealed and reveals the Truth to some men. Sooooo to say that "only the Spirit knows what is true" is another word game. Men chosen by the Holy Spirit know what True is also. That truth is passed down to other men, just like Scripture says. I know you think that YOU are not a counterfeit and that YOU are one of those men the Holy Spirit has chosen. But nothing you have said convinces me of that....

 

[ScottA]

The definition of mocking is to treat one with contempt or ridicule. I don't have any contempt for you and I am not ridiculing you, Scottie. I am just flat out calling you out. I am revealing how what you teach is opposite of what Scripture teaches. I ask you questions that, if you were to honestly answer them, would reveal the dilemma you are in when you say things like "teachings of men" or suggest that YOU are being guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth.

No, you didn't answer me. You are not being honest. You are playing a word game. I know you won't answer and I have already given the reason why. Nice try Scottie.....

Mary

You not knowing what you do, is not to your credit; and your calling out, worse.

No, but you are showing your own lack of understanding "of what the Scripture teaches." And yes, I have revealed the dilemma, honestly. And no, the word game as you call it, is the confusion placed upon all language by God at Babel, that has eluded you, causing you to think it is me. But make no mistake--it would be better if you take heed--for the snare was and is intentional.

Isaiah 28:13​

But the word of the Lord was to them, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little,” That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught.​

 

[Marymog]

I'll take that as a question. Good--questions are good!

Just as referring to the Temple made of stone can be in or out of context, whether referring to it within the context of this world or alternatively to the context of the Temple in Heaven it only points to, so too the word of truth must always be rightly divided for understanding.

Uh huh.....Sure...sure!! And who do you trust to rightly divide the word of truth, Scott?

Curious

 

[ScottA]

Yup Scottie, only the Spirit knows what is true. Remember that when I tell you that what you wrote isn't true.

Here is your dilemma, Scottie. Scripture makes it clear that the Spirit revealed and reveals the Truth to some men. Sooooo to say that "only the Spirit knows what is true" is another word game. Men chosen by the Holy Spirit know what True is also. That truth is passed down to other men, just like Scripture says. I know you think that YOU are not a counterfeit and that YOU are one of those men the Holy Spirit has chosen. But nothing you have said convinces me of that....

"Backward"...just as it is written.

 

[ScottA]

Uh huh.....Sure...sure!! And who do you trust to rightly divide the word of truth, Scott?

Curious

It is not the person, but the Spirit in the person and the person in the Spirit, who rightly divides the word of truth.

 

[Marymog]

You not knowing what you do, is not to your credit; and your calling out, worse.

No, but you are showing your own lack of understanding "of what the Scripture teaches." And yes, I have revealed the dilemma, honestly. And no, the word game as you call it, is the confusion placed upon all language by God a Babel, that has eluded you, causing you to think it is me. But make no mistake--it would be better if you take heed--for the snare was and is intentional.

Isaiah 28:13​

But the word of the Lord was to them, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little,” That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught.​

Lol...Yup, silly ol' Marymog is showing a lack of understanding and wise ol' Scottie is going to teach me I mean after all, those Catholic men don't know nuttin'. THEY are not guided by the Holy Spirit. But Scottie is!!! Confusion has been placed on poor lil' marymog and the truth eludes me because of those Catholic men. I fell into a snare by listening to THOSE men...OH MY. Who is going to save me?

Well well, look who is riding up on his white horse and is here to save me. It's Scottie!! WAIT!! Noooooo, he isn't here to save me. He is here to quote Isaih 28 out of context and use it as a tool to degrade me. Oh my, I thought he was a Christian man who is guided by the Holy Spirit. Apparently, he isn't.

So, Scottie. I put my thoughts in a funny story in an effort to show you how your delusion of grandiose is not logical. How what you said to me is degrading me and you are using Scripture to do it.

Can you REALLY not see it? Will you even apologize?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

It is not the person, but the Spirit in the person and the person in the Spirit, who rightly divides the word of truth.

Nice dodge Scottie. I know....I knew....I will never get a straight answer from you....but I baked that into our conversations already so I ain't by no ways mad kiddo.

 

[Marymog]

I am not anti-Catholic. Don't know what gave you that idea . . .

I'm jaded.

I see NOTHING in my statement that suggests that 100% of the Catechism is a recapitulation of Scripture.

Why do you ask?

 

[RedFan]

I'm jaded.

I see NOTHING in my statement that suggests that 100% of the Catechism is a recapitulation of Scripture.

Why do you ask?

All the talk about dropping Scripture into this or that just had me wondering, that's all.

While I don't buy everything in it, I think the Catechism is based on more than Scripture, specifically tradition and reason. And that is appropriate, in my view. I am not a sola scriptura guy.

 

[ScottA]

Confusion has been placed on poor lil' marymog and the truth eludes me because of those Catholic men. I fell into a snare by listening to THOSE men...OH MY.

No, the truth does not elude you "because of those Catholic men", but because the truth from God is only given and received by the Spirit. Thus, if what you have you got "from those Catholic men", that's not good enough, it doesn't qualify without the Holy Spirit speaking. But limited to that three-way communication, as it is, you may not even know the actual truth until you are actually in the presence of God. Unfortunately.

As for the snare, it was and is intended for all, that only those who hold the seal of the Holy Spirit pass, having fallen "backward" and away from where they have gone away from God.

So, Scottie. I put my thoughts in a funny story in an effort to show you how your delusion of grandiose is not logical. How what you said to me is degrading me and you are using Scripture to do it.

Can you REALLY not see it? Will you even apologize?

Says the one doing all the mocking.

But, no, righteous correction is not given by a "degrading" spirit, but in blessing, as the Light shines into darkness.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus said he gave authority to Peter only

2nd off, Apostolic Succession is well documented in Scripture.

Do you really not see the contradiction in these 2 sentences? Since only Peter has authority, it was not able to be passed on.

Wrongler, you must be tired of being proven wrong all the time.

Projecting.

 

[RedFan]

ScottA, help me with something. When I am studying the Scriptures and come up with an understanding or interpretation of a passage that I believe is correct, should I expect the Spirit to tap me on the soul and tell me "You have rightly divided this, RedFan."?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, let us wade into the theological waters and explore the grave errors, as perceived in the Calvinist view, of the papal system's insistence on Peter as the exclusive "Rock."

1. Singular Authority vs. Collective Leadership:
   
   • Calvinism advocates for a shared leadership model among elders, avoiding the concentration of authority in one individual. The papal system's insistence on Peter as the exclusive "Rock" may be seen as deviating from the New Testament's portrayal of collective leadership among elders and apostles.

The Church’s leadership doesn’t ONLY consist of the Pope.
There are Bishops and Priests in every diocese in the world who ALL have Authority.

HOWEVER, the Bible tells us that Jesus appointed Peter to shepherd over His flock (John 21:15-19).

1. Sola Scriptura and Papal Tradition:
   
   • The Calvinist principle of sola scriptura emphasizes the Bible as the ultimate authority. The papal system, with its reliance on tradition and the Magisterium, may be viewed as departing from this foundational Calvinist doctrine, potentially introducing doctrines not explicitly grounded in Scripture.

The Bible doesn’t even make that claim about itself.

HOWEVER – the Bible does state that Christ’s Church is our final earthly Authority:

1. Priesthood of All Believers:
   
   • Calvinism accentuates the priesthood of all believers, diminishing the need for an intermediary between individuals and God. The papal system's introduction of a hierarchical priesthood and the sacrament of confession may be seen as contradicting this Calvinist emphasis on direct access to God through Christ.

As usual, most Protestants – and ALL Calvinists – throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the New Covenant.
Regardless of the fact that we are no longer under the Law of the Old Covenant – Christ’s Church borne through the model o0f Judaism.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
- The High Priest (Lev. 16, Haggai 1:12-14 S).
- The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood (Lev. 16).
- The rest of the people were a General priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:6).

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
- Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25)
- The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
- The General priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

1. Salvation by Grace vs. Works:
   
   • Calvinism underscores salvation by grace through divine election, irrespective of human merit. The papal system's inclusion of works, indulgences, and the concept of merit might be viewed as deviating from the Calvinist understanding of salvation.

Salvation is by grace through faith.

HOWEVER, the Bible describes “Faith” as as something that if FAR more involved that “Belief” (1 Cor. 13:1-13, Gal 5:6). James 2:19 tells us that even the demons believe.
True faith = Belief + Surrender/Obedience (works).

1. Scriptural Interpretation and Papal Infallibility:
   
   • Calvinism places a strong emphasis on careful and rigorous biblical interpretation. The concept of papal infallibility, as defined by the Catholic Church, may be seen as challenging the Calvinist commitment to a fallible human interpretation of Scripture.

In the spirit of respectful theological dialogue, let us explore these perspectives, recognizing that our shared journey of faith holds different lenses through which we perceive the profound truths of Scripture.

HOWEVER – the Bible tells us that Jesus said the following to Peter:

Matt. 16:19
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[ScottA]

ScottA, help me with something. When I am studying the Scriptures and come up with an understanding or interpretation of a passage that I believe is correct, should I expect the Spirit to tap me on the soul and tell me "You have rightly divided this, RedFan."?

In a manner of speaking, yes. That is, if He is in you and has been given the go ahead to reveal it to you, according to God's timing. In other words, just as the Son of Man did not know the day and the hour of His coming, but only the Father--every revelation is in the Father's hands and is only revealed according to His purpose. Thus, even now Christ in us, is likewise restrained (by "He who now restrains").

Even so, it is promised, that "in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets." These are those days.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife and Truthnightmare, welcome to the theological comedy club where we dance through the complexities of biblical interpretation with a touch of humor. Now, let's tango through the arguments surrounding the papal system, the keys, and the reliability of early Father's writings.

Papal system, the divine cha-cha: Picture this – the papal system is like a divine cha-cha, with the keys of authority being passed down through the centuries. The dance involves interpreting Matthew 16:18, where the distinction between "Petros" and "petra" becomes a theological dance step. It's a cha-cha that sometimes feels like a delicate balance between tradition and biblical interpretation, wouldn't you agree?

Early Father's writings, the cosmic comedy: Now, let's twirl through the cosmic comedy of relying on early Father's writings. It's like a comedic play with a diverse cast of characters, each contributing their unique spin on theological matters. However, the dancefloor of historical reliability might have a few unexpected slips, considering the varied perspectives of the early Fathers.

Truthnightmare, your breakdown of the Greek words is like a tap dance through linguistic nuances, and BreadOfLife, your emphasis on Protestant scholars adds an interesting beat to the dance. As we navigate through the theological dancefloor, let's appreciate the diversity of perspectives, finding humor in the cosmic dance of interpretations.

Now, shall we continue our theological dance through the intricate steps of Matthew 16:18, the papal system, and the reliability of early Father's writings? After all, in this cosmic comedy, the punchlines are biblical, and the dance moves are part of the divine choreography!

At this point – I’m convinced that all of your “cosmic comedy” and “cha-cha” dancing nonsense is just a way of deflecting from your failure to address the issues.

ONE more time . . .
Jesus never used the words “Petros” or “Petra”. As I already informed you – Jesus was speaking Aramaic in Matt 16. The word He used in verse 18 was “Kepha”, which means “Rock”.

No linguistic dancing here – just common sense . . .

 

[Marymog]

Do you really not see the contradiction in these 2 sentences? Since only Peter has authority, it was not able to be passed on.
(Jesus said he gave authority to Peter only) (2nd off, Apostolic Succession is well documented in Scripture)

Oh goodness.....Sure, I will help you!

As we have already established, when Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter he was talking to Peter and Peter only. Jesus said, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom...". He didn't say I AM giving you the keys right now...He was using future tense! After Jesus death, Peter inherited the keys. So Wrangler, who inherits the keys after Peter's death? The successor to Peter. Soooooo how do we know that there was a successor to Peter, Wrangler? Bible study time...I LOVE bible study:

Peter said, “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.’21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

So, now you can see there is no contradiction. Peter DID receive the keys of authority from Jesus AND there was an Apostolic Successor. He even has a name, Matthias.

Soooo is your theory that there was no successor named to replace Peter?


Curious Mary

 

[Wrangler]

So Wrangler, who inherits the keys after Peter's death?

False premise in your question. Sin and grace don’t get inherited. Proof no one inherited the key is future so-called popes did not prove by miracles like Peter their divine appointment via succession.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's all very nice, but those words that refer to the service of the various members of the body--even doing their service "in Christ" by "the power of God", does not make void the passage that there is but "One Mediator." So, no, you don't have to blame "non-Catholics" for not understanding.

Of course non-Catholics are to blame for not understanding this passage. This is a falsehood that has been passed down since the dawn of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

However, it is not inaccurate to blame Catholics for their wrongful assumptions of hierarchy within the body of Christ...as if we are not all equally and biblically stated as "clay." And unless you intend to assume to be the fulfilment of the great image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream with feet of iron and clay--it is not advisable to continue in a message of such hierarchy. "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Here is another verse that is continually misapplied by Protestants.

First of all – Church hierarchy isn’t about “exalting” oneself. It was Jesus who exalted the Church leaders (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16. John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23, John 21:16-19).

Paul also reminds us of the hierarchy:
1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.