The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 3 Quotes from Protestants

I would imagine that you should alrady know, our soteriology will differ as well. I find much fault with your post, your understanding of ecclesiology and soteriology being quite problematic.


Nope. We are the same as the Biblical Church. I don't see the words "Roman Catholicism" in scripture either, nor does it appear in early church writings. What the reformation was, was a return to Biblical Christianity, not Roman mythology.


Simply perspective. What I see is missionaries bringing the bondage of Rome and her false gospel.


God bless,

william

Touche! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Good one! But the problem still remains. There has to be a way for the covenantal head to fulfill the duties and responsibilities which go with that position.

This was one of the chief problems I encountered with the idea of a "spiritual church" as posited by the Reformers. Just HOW does Christ speak CLEARLY AND PERSPICUOUSLY to an earthly people if He is in Heaven and His voice is not heard?

And no, it is NOT the Bible.

Sorry. That won't wash and the number of Protestant denominations that abound with varying different interpretations of the scriptures, yet all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit is a moot and eloquent argument against that idea.

There MUST be a head who is SEEN and HEARD by the family he is leading.

Now....he may not be the best father, he may have his own sins to deal with, but in matters of morality and doctrine, he is to be listened to. Especially if he is being protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Kyle...my turn. You asked me a good question. Here's one for you.

WHY is it that you, as a Reformed person, can believe that the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to bring the unwilling sinner to faith, but He is not powreful enough to rule the mind of the one who sits in the Chair of St. Peter?

Isn't that a tad inconsistent? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

BTW -- thank you for your overall gracious tone in disagreement.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

First, this verse was not speaking to “the first one who would hold the office of covenantal head over the people of God -- St. Peter.” However, Rome’s claim to this raises many questions: (1) What of the “disciple Jesus loved?” –that wasn’t Peter? (2) nobody including Peter state anyplace that Peter is the Pope (note, 1 Pet 5:1-2 where Peter calls himself their “fellow elder,” not Pope) (3) Paul most certainly did not think Peter was in Rome in all his prison epistles as he is not mentioned, or if Peter was in Rome he abandoned Paul (2 Tim 4:16, naughty Pope) (4) Paul is not bashful here as he states he was in no way behind the chiefest Apostles (1 Cor 12:11), so if Peter is Pope, so must Paul be Pope, however please note that it was upon Paul that the care of all the churches was placed—2 Cor 11:28, and (5) in Acts 15, “Pope” Peter though he was at the Jerusalem Council was not even in charge <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> James was, thus (6) far from being Pope Peter, Peter was one of the ones actually “sent” to do work (as opposed to the one doing the sending) in Acts 8:14. Peter was an Apostle, Peter was an elder—but Peter was NOT the Pope!

The rock of which Christ spoke is that common confession made by all who a part of the Church—Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God! If you will note in Christ’s address He changes from direct address to the 3rd person (this rock). Thus, you have a clear distinction between Peter (petras) and the demonstrative pronoun (petra). Note that this promise is future and not present tense. The future is seen in Matt 18:18 where the promise was conferred upon all the disciples. Thus, Christ was speaking to all the Apostles in Matt 16.

Second the head of the New Covenant is Christ, not Peter. This is clearly given to us in Scripture (Heb 12:24). The head of the church is Christ (Eph 5:23; Col 1:18 and Peter agrees; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

Kim,

Even if he did to say that, it would be consistent with the Council of Trent. Why would you think it would be uncivil for him to express the belief that Protestants are unsaved? I would cartainly hope it would not seem uncivil to OrthodoxCatholic if we were to say we believe Catholicism is a false Gospel and cannot save. Although, we'd need to say WHY we believe thusly and explain the centrality of sola fide, sola gratia, Sola Scriptura, etc.

It is not at all uncivil for you to express that you believe that we papists have a "false gospel". It is only uncivil when it degenerates into personal attack.

Thank you

Brother Ed

Hardly, sir. It but shows the extent of the depravity of man. And why should we trust the Bishop of Rome, who must himself claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit?


Christ by the Spirit through the Scripture and the Sacraments (which are visible tokens of the Word!). I've said this before, have I not?


I believe the Holy Spirit is plenty powerful enough to rule the mind of the man who presides as Bishop of Rome. But it never was a matter of the Spirit's power, but of God's own word. There is no justification in the revealed word of God for the institution of the papal office.

I can't formulate a long reply as I am on my way out the door, but remember, Matthew 16 would be meaningless if there were no covenant. If we as believers live and operate in a covenantal paradigm of salvation, then our praxis here on earth must fit within that paradigm. And as I have tried to express before, there simply must be a head over the covenant family here on earth who can be SEEN, HEARD, and OBEYED regarding the teaching of doctrine and morals for the believers here on earth.

That Jesus is the covenantal Head over all the Church is without argument, but the Church is not united yet, is it? We are still separated by the barrier of physical death, so that no one can see or hear or follow Jesus by the senses of this physical earth. Therefor, He must have a representative, a "prime minister" who takes His place, speaks on His behalf, and leads His flock.

And as we see by the doctrinal and moral chaos and confusion therein, Protestantism is not that voice.

More later.

Going bowling.

Brother Ed

Best wishes to all on the forum.

Because scripture expressly claims the former, and is conspicuously silent on the latter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> It is a matter of purpose.


God bless,

william

All I did is ask him if that was what he meant.

Without scripture upholding your claims, we simply aren't going to accept them. Scripture no where sets forth any such authority for one man, nor any such position within Christs established Church. Therefore, I am under no obligation to believe it.


God bless,

william

OrthodoxCatholic,

Since you are unwilling to exegete ( I don't think there needs to be 150 pages), I will surmise that you can't adequately defend your postulations!

Here you are saying that in God's first plan, Adam failed and so God had to make another plan, which was to send His Son, to start all over again? Hmmmm where have I heard this before?

And then you say:

"Likewise, since Jesus is now in Heaven, there must be a covenantal (federal) head over the earthly and physical people of God in this life. That is the Holy Father"

Where in Scripture is this stated or even implied? Why can't we have the Word to guide us along with the Holy Spirit? Why must we have someone to touch, feel, and listen to on earth?

According to Church Fathers, all the apostles were given to same privileges as Peter, to preach the gospel and to call sinners to repentance. Though it was first given to Peter, because he was the one to first answer Christ,

" You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

The "rock", refers first to Christ, as it does throughout Scripture, and secondly to Peter's faith, announced in his reply to Jesus' question. The bishops and elders are taking over from the apostles to guide the church.

John 20:29 "Jesus said to him,"Thomas, because you have seen Me, You have believed, blessed are those who have not seen Me and yet have believed."

Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You sure have lots of little "keys" YOU found in Scripture that no one else seems to have seen! How's that?

In His Hands,

Ruth

This is not attested to in the Scripture ANYPLACE. As matter a fact there are plenty of times in Scripture where there is no "physical" covenant head "on the earth" administrating the covenant, though there is/was a covenant remnant. Amongst others the inter-testament period is a formidable example.

However, the argument above is not necessary as Christ is the HEAD of the present covenant. It is a BETTER covenant (Heb 8:6-10; 10:16; 12:24) with a PERFECT mediator (Heb 1:1-4; 8:6). Please note that Jesus is a physical human being, fully human, fully divine. He presently rules over His people from Heaven and at the Second Coming He will rule in the New Heavens and the New Earth. He presently administrates His covenant through His Word and Spirit, etc. He will not and can not be replaced. There is no where in Scripture where the Pope is made the covenant head and he may never be as he is not higher than Christ! In the O.C. one covenant head would die (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David each died) and then in God's providential plan was replaced by another, but in the N.C. this is not possible as Christ can't die for he "continueth ever, for he hath an unchangeable priesthood" (Heb 7:24).

There are some other arguments that we will probably get to later like the fundamental reformational principle of the priesthood of all believers, the position of elders in the church (who can be SEEN, HEARD, and OBEYED regarding the teaching of doctrine and morals for the believers here on earth), etc.

I am really curious why you would post these three statements(Didithius, Mr Walton and ..”another” author..?) on a “protestant” site and what, exactly, you hoped to accomplish. And secondly, why you would post the quote and not give any credit to the writer of this diatribe against protestantism so that we could all know from whom such statements may be quoted.
Since you didn’t give any credit to the writer...let me post a quote from your author so that all here may know this writers true colors :


Since you freely promote this catholic mystery writers views against protestantism, I would assume you also must agree with his quote above. And if you do, and I’m sure your must, did you not think that we would “protest” vehemently. And we have.....and have you accomplished your purpose....? Was it fruitful?

I’ll leave it to you to identify the mystery writer...if you desire.

Dave

Your objection is noted and, of course, completely false.

You believe in "faith alone" even though you do not find the direct wording "faith alone" in the Bible that context. In fact, the only place it is found actually opposes your idea -- where James says that "faith alone" is DEAD.

You neither find the word "Trinity" yet you accept the concept.

You accept 66 books of epistles and writings as as being of God even though there is no place in the scriptures which gives you a list of the epistles and writings of men which are to be considered canonical.

IF -- and I don't know this for sure -- you are a Presbyterian, you babtize your babies even though there is no place in the Bible which states that infants are to be baptized, a point that Baptists of all persuasions are all to happy to point out to Presbyterians and other sacramentalists.

No, sir, it is not the Bible you reject, for you are inconsistent in what you profess. It is the interpretation that the Catholic Faith gives to the PRINCIPLES TAUGHT THEREIN. You prefer your understanding to that of the Catholic Church.

It is really that cut and dried.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

That is exactly what I believe.


That has two problems. The primacy of Rome isn't found in scripture. The popish position isn't found in scripture. Therefore Roman interpretation is actually tradition since these principles cannot be from scripture.


God bless,

william