"bible Is The Basis Of All Doctrine" - T Or F?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 20 2004, 04:43 PM'] hey, I'm just following the example set forth likos...I don't seem to know when to take it literal or not...well, at least I did.

I know what it means...but its funny how Christ would call simon peter "rock" and then continue on to call him satan 5 verses later...

thats all. [/quote]
So the guy who claimed to be God must be a really bad judge of character then, correct?

[Dave]

So then just because Christ once called Peter Satan -- something that happened AFTER Jesus said He would build His Church on Peter -- should Christ have revoked what He'd done? Apparently He didn't say, "Just for that I'll build my Church on someone else!" No, it remained Peter's job to be that rock even after his denial of Christ 3 times.

[the lumberjack]

so when they were around the fire when Christ asked him if he loved Him, what did He call Peter AFTER His resurrection?

John 21:15-17

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

John calls him Simon Peter, or Peter...but Jesus is recorded as having called Peter Simon, son of Jonas...

I'm not denying that Peter had a LARGE part in the foundation of the church...but he was not THE foundation of the church.

[Dave]

Well, I hate to tell you, but your Bible verse doesn't prove your point. Jesus founded His Church on Peter, and in that passage He's telling Peter what his responsibilities as Vicar of Christ entail.

[the lumberjack]

and this is what you are taught.

The church was founded on Peter...

------

Peter founded the church, and He founded it on Christ.

1 Cor 3:10-11

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 [b]For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.[/b]

[Dave]

Nope, you got it backward. Jesus founded the Church, and he founded it on Peter!

Your mistake is thinking the pope's role takes away from Christ's role, which it does not.

[the lumberjack]

God bless you and continue to lead you Dave.

I will not try to convince you otherwise.

Christ first.

[Dave]

And may He do the same for you too, LJ.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 26 2004, 01:15 PM']so when they were around the fire when Christ asked him if he loved Him, what did He call Peter AFTER His resurrection?

John 21:15-17

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 

John calls him Simon Peter, or Peter...but Jesus is recorded as having called Peter Simon, son of Jonas...

I'm not denying that Peter had a LARGE part in the foundation of the church...but he was not THE foundation of the church.[/quote]
Hmmm. Too bad nobody informed all the other Apostles and early Christians that Peter wasn't the head of the Church. They would never have let him preside over that first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), if they'd had the benefit of your knowledge. And Paul would never have deferred to Peter or sought his approval for his ministry.

Saints Peter and Paul traveled together to Rome and founded the Church there. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (the Papa, the #1 Father, the Pope).

And I suppose that Linus, who was Pope from A.D. 67 to 76, only thought he was replacing Peter as the Bishop of Rome after Peter was crucified upside down by Nero in the Roman Circus.

And Clement, the fourth Bishop of Rome, from A.D. 88 to 97, only thought he had Peter's authority to write that snippy letter in 96 A.D., about the same time Revelation was being written, telling those rebellious Corinthians to shape up or he'd excommunicate them.

Early Christian history is unanimous about who was in charge of the Church. How could all of those people who lived and walked and talked with the Apostles have been so wrong?

Just think, Lumberjack, you could have changed the course of history if only you'd been there to set 'em all straight.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Likos

[Katholikos]

The Church was built upon the apostles (of whom Peter was the Chief Apostle) and prophets (of the Old Testament) -- [i]BEFORE THE NEW TESTAMENT EXISTED[/i].

[i]So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of [u]the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone[/u], in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom [u]you are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit[/u]. [/i]Ephesians 2:19-20.

[i]You (Simon) are Kepha (Aramaic: Rock, English: Peter) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my church . . . [/i]Mt 16:18.

The "household of God" is a common biblical name for the Church.

See also 1 Timothy 3:15, where the Church is called "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

JMJ Likos

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Dave' date='May 26 2004, 01:32 PM'] And may He do the same for you too, LJ. [/quote]
Amen brother.

Let us strive to bring sinners to Christ...some shall plant the seed, some shall water the seed, but the Lord will give the increase.

Christ first.

God bless.

[Dave]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 26 2004, 05:19 PM'] Amen brother.

Let us strive to bring sinners to Christ...some shall plant the seed, some shall water the seed, but the Lord will give the increase.

Christ first.

God bless. [/quote]
I'm glad there's something we agree on, LJ.

[Quietfire]

Ok....get ready.

On a hillside in Galilee, between the Resurrection and the Ascension, Our Lord had told the Apostles to teach all nations. They were to teach all that he had taught them, all doctrines, all laws. And he promised to be with them all days till time should end. Thus the Apostles, protected by Christ himself in their utternace of his teaching, were to have successors, likewise protected. That was Christ's plan that men should have truth upon earth.

It seems strange so many Christians think the Apostles fulfilled their commission by writing the New Testament, leaving behind them no successors, nor any need for successors, with the authority Our Lord had given themselves. It seems strange, for one reason, that it would mean only five of the Twelve had obeyed their Master - Matthew writing a gospel, John a gospel and three brief letters, Peter two letters, James and Jude on each.

It would seem strange for another reason - that the Church Christ founded would have been a teaching Church only for a half-century or so, in all the centuries since merely a library.

Circumstances change and someone must have authority to apply the teachings to the new circumstances; otherwise they would end up as frustrations rather than teachings. Even in the doctrines themselves there are depths which the believing mind can explore, with all the danger of error but all the rich possibilities of development. With every operation of the unstagnant mind of man upon the truth, the question must arise, "What did Christ mean?"

So it has proved. There is not a word uttered by Christ which has not met a great number of diverse interpretations, some of them intelligent, some immensely attractive, but contradicting each other. How are we to know? It is not enough to have Our Lord's words; the words themselves can be only a kind of talisman without the meaning. Without a teacher-to tell us, beyond the possibility of error, which of the various menings is Christ's - we should have no revelation but only an evergrowing pile of conundrums.

Either there is a teacher now teaching upon earth, guaranteed by Christ as the Apostles were, or ther is no possibility of knowing the truth which he saw to be so essential. Already, weel before his death, he had given men authority to teach with his authority-it was to the seventy-twodisciples, when he sent them out to carry his message, not to the Apostles only, that he said, "He that hears you, hears me." That, extended to the Church he founded for all ages, is his formula to ensure that we shall receive his truth with no admixture of error. There is no other.

This in brief, is the way of it. The successors of the Apostles are the Bishops. What they are agreed in teaching as the revelation of Christ upon faith and morals-that is, upon truths to be believed and laws to be obeyed-is infallible; God sees to it that it contains no error.

Infallibility is concerned with teaching only.
Observe that infallibility does not mean inspiration. If a question needed an answer which the Pope happened not to know, then infallibility would not enable him to give it. Putting three possibilities-they may give the right answer, the wrong answer, or no answer. Ashed a question upon the revelation of Christ, the pope has two possibilities. He is infallible and God will not let him teach error, for the Church is the People of God and must not be taught error as truth.

How'd that be?

Peace.

[Quietfire]

It is worth reminding ourselves that at the Last Supper Our Lord said, "It is better for you that I go." The reason he gave was that if he did not go the Holy Spirit would not come. In the light of this utterly clear statement, it is strange that so many of us do not notice that Jesus was handing over the actual running of the Church to the Holy Spirity. Once he had left the earth he gives no instruction to the men he has placed as officials on it (save only on a couple of occasion to St. Paul who for his apostleship needed a direct spoken contact with Christ). For the rest, the Holy Spirit is in charge of the Church.

Take as a starting point the question Our Lord, from the right hand of his Father in heaven, put to Saul on the road to Damascus. (Acts 9:1-8) Saul had been persecuting the Christians in Jerusalem fiercely (for he never did anything by halves, either as Saul the Pharisee or Paul the Apostle). He was on his way to Damascus to seize Christians there too when he was stricken blind and heard a voice saying: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Not "My Church", you observe, but [i]"Me."[/i]

Our Lord is asserting an [i]identity[/i] between his Church and himself.
Is it a real identity- that is, does he mean the words to be taken at their full value? Or is it merely a rhetorical device, a way of saying that the Church is his special property, so that if anyone persucutes it, it is [i]as if[/i] he persecuted him?

It would have been an odd moment for rhetoric; for Saul it was the moment of truth. He knew the identity to be real. Years later he could write to the Galatians (3:28) "You are all one person in Jesus Christ'"

I am the Vine, you are the branches (Jn15:5)



Peace.

Edited May 29, 2004 by Quietfire

[Dave]

Amen, Quietfire!