[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / ita / miku / polru / socpl / sonyeon / vichan ]

/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Free speech discussion
Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


| Rules | Log | The Gospel |

File: 6a7318433fa5cce⋯.png (230.37 KB, 1772x540, 443:135, papacy argument.png)

165903  No.1492

This is a response to pic related that gets posted often.

Simon really did have a name change to "Cephas", which translated is "Peter" between Aramaic and Greek. It means rock, and this was intentional symbolism related to the event of Matthew 16. There truly is a pun involved with "you are Peter (Petros, a rock) , and upon this rock (petra, large rock, bedrock) I will build my church" Matt 16:18.

The Catholic uses this passage to claim that Peter had exclusive authority over all church leadership matters, and that they're the only inheritors of such authority.

The "keys to the kingdom" allegedly give

>authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church

The power to "bind and loose" gives

>authority to absolve sins

>to pronounce doctrinal judgements

>to make disciplinary decisions in the Church

Catholic catechism, 553

Couple this with a series of strawmen about protestantism, and you have quite a narrative:

>protestants are subjectivist

>protestants reject church governance

>protestants reject that Christ established visible churches

All of which are explicitly rejected by every reformer, and in every generation for the last 502 years.

In reality, Christ's charge to Peter, as with every spiritual teaching, is broadly applicable to all Christians. Peter was told that the church will be built (upon his confession), and Peter was told "feed my sheep" thrice (John 21), but this responsibility didn't end with Peter. If it did, how could it be related to his role as bishop of Rome since he had not been there yet (if ever)? Peter was not a bishop at the time of John 21. Peter's immediate role was as a missionary to the circumcised after Christ's ascension. "Sheep" in the NT always refers to the disciples or believers in the church, and the shepherd is either Christ or a pastor. How then can we call Peter the chief of earthly shepherds based on John 21 when he's not even recognized as a shepherd there? "Feed MY sheep" says Jesus.

Look at Peter's own words in reference to the job of a shepherd:

>1 I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,

>2 shepherd the flock of God among you, (1 Pet. 5:1-2 NAS)

"Fellow elder" sympresbyteros, same presbyter

This catholic says "to whom did Paul go? To Peter" in Galatians 1 as an argument that Peter was chief. The book of Galatians, the angry epistle, teaches the exact opposite. Read Galatians chapter 2. Years later, Paul goes to elders in Jerusalem to have them confirm his gospel message, "for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain" (v.2). If Peter was the chief authority, why didn't he already know? Why did he go to these elders and not to Peter? Not only was Peter not the chief elder, he was in public error. Peter was preaching a false gospel of the judaizers, the same issue the churches in Galatia are facing, and the scripture records Paul's open rebuke of Peter.

Peter had no special authority over any other elder. The office of the Bishop of Rome in turn has never had special authority. I am totally uninterested in the claims they make to consolidate authority for themselves in the face of scripture, in the face of countless scandals, and worst of all in abandonment of the gospel. The Bible was carefully collected and canonized under the inspiration of the Spirit, due to wonderful saints who feared God, and in spite of Romanist power-grabs. Look no further than the suppression of Bible translation in the reformation era to see this is true.

What I'm asking for is a little critical thinking beyond blind trust in an institution because it's old. Too many catholic arguments are summed up in erroneous waves of the hand that essentially amount to the Christian equivalent of "who will support the elderly if the government doesn't?", and just like our confiscatory tax system you're losing something valuable when you buy into the catholic system: your agency.

314d86  No.1493

I was raised catholic and I think I'm starting to shift over to protestantism little by little. It's posts like these that I just can't shake, no matter how much I read catholic apologetics I find myself agreeing more with the protestants on matters of biblical interpretation. There's so many claims made by the catholic church that just aren't biblical, or at the very least are read into the text to support a power grab. It puts me in an awkward position because I've become a bit of a regular at my campus' catholic community now and I'd feel weird leaving the church right after coming back to it. My mom and her parents are catholic too, and I don't know how they'd react or if they even know theology enough to see where I'm coming from. Can I ask anyone who reads this to pray for me, that I might find out where God wants me to be?


f41c54  No.1494

>>1492

>Peter had no special authority over any other elder

That's wrong, he held the special authority of the extraordinary office of apostle

>>1493

>It puts me in an awkward position because I've become a bit of a regular at my campus' catholic community now and I'd feel weird leaving the church right after coming back to it. My mom and her parents are catholic too, and I don't know how they'd react or if they even know theology enough to see where I'm coming from

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.


314d86  No.1495

>>1494

But how do I know that verse applies specifically to my situation, like how do I know that the move I'm considering is right? Couldn't the same verse be used if a protestant was thinking about converting to catholicism?


20e66e  No.1496

>>1494

What authority does apostleship entail? What powers?

>>1495

You're framing it correctly by your question, because it entirely depends on who correctly articulates the gospel and is thereby following Jesus. If you were conflicted between different churches on secondary issues, it wouldn't be applicable. I think the point he's making is that family ties can't be contributing factors in a decision like this, but it's obviously still a sad thing to have family tension.

I recommend that you not hesitate. It's a refreshing feeling to be free of the cognitive dissonance, but more importantly participating in a false religion is disobedience before God.


314d86  No.1497

>>1496

I'm not too worried about the family factor, I'd gladly follow the Lord away from them if I needed to. It's just hard to know what's the truth, and I tend to overthink things a lot. I appreciate the help though.


3ce2ff  No.1500

The OP is almost there. Peter himself taught in 1Pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does not even do a good job of washing the body without soap, so how can it affect the soul? Yet Romanism, its daughters, and distant religious relatives cannot even get baptism right, which is only symbolic. That is where most "christians" have gone astray since the days the apostles passed, and they still go astray. No wonder they do not know they are Israelites. Knowledge of Israel Identity is the key to understanding the Book of Revelation and Bible prophecy. Even most identity christians have gone astray into the false fad of Hebrew roots.


3ce2ff  No.1502

One Anon asked about Ellen White. For all her errors she got one thing right. Amalgamation. Here is what she said:"Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men." —Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864.

Most "humans" are mongrelized and thus cannot receive God's Spirit. That includes browns, yellows, reds, and most whites. We are coming down to the wire in history, folks. As it was in the days of Noah (only 8 were saved) so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of man. Even so come quickly, Lord Jesus!


adaba5  No.1503

Jesuit vipers sting and torture many who could come to Christ. So tragic. Avoid their influence. When you know where you come from you can get free.


6e8a5a  No.1504

>>1492

I agree with you that Catholics misinterpret Matthew 16:18, but I don't think the petra/petros argument is a good one. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic the word would be the same here in both places (kipha / cephas), which is already a masculine word and so there is no pun involved. Matthew uses petros in the first case and petra in the second because petros is a masculine form of the word rock petra which is feminine, and Peter cannot be called a feminine name since he is a man.

This becomes clearer in the Syriac versions of Matthew, since Syriac is an Eastern Aramaic dialect. In the Syriac versions this verse reads:

Ap ena amar na lak, dat hu kipa, w'al hade kipa ebneih l'idti, wtar'e dashiul la nekhsnunah.

Also I [am] saying myself to you, that you are kipa ([a] rock), and on this kipa (rock) I will build my church, and the gates of Sheol not will prevail [against] her (i.e. the church).


0b5ab4  No.1506

>>1504

Syriac isn't the source language, koine greek is.

I'm not making any argument based on the connection between the rock and Peter, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't necessarily follow that Peter himself is the rock upon which the church was built.


6e8a5a  No.1511

>>1506

Matthew is translating from Aramaic to Greek, since Jesus didn't speak Greek but Aramaic. The petros/petra distinction doesn't exist in Aramaic and that is reflected in the Syriac translation of Matthew


7d840c  No.1512

>>1511

That's very interesting, thanks for clarifying for me. It would make sense that the exchange was in Aramaic, but I don't see reason to doubt that Jesus was trilingual with all the Biblical languages. If we affirm the verbal inspiration of scripture though, we can't see Matthew as merely a middleman, but God the Spirit selected each word with some intention.


7cf030  No.1807

>>1492

Check out Matt 18:18. Who is Christ speaking to?


169660  No.1808

>>1807

In verse 18, Jesus says "you" instead of "thou" in the KJV, which is used when talking to multiple people. Jesus is talking to all of the apostles when he says "you", not just the singular Peter (thou).


650796  No.1809

File: e89cb411ce8aba2⋯.jpg (684.46 KB, 809x3057, 809:3057, Screenshot_20190319-220831….jpg)

>>1808

True


7cf030  No.1811

File: 3daf9d614cf5d3c⋯.jpg (135.87 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 1551836005564.jpg)

>>1809

Then scripture, just two chapter later, tells us that the only thing special about Pete was that he was told this first; but ultimately they were all "equals".

This also doesnt even address the consequences of such "authority". What does this "authority" entail in terms of scripture? How does this differ from the catholic church?


97b998  No.1814

>>1511

You do not know what language Christ was speaking, and you especially don't know what specific Aramaic words Christ used, and a Syriac translation certainly isn't primary to the Greek text of the New Testament. God could've given us scripture in Aramaic if He wanted to, but He gave us this in Greek, and it is by that we must judge.

>>1496

>What authority does apostleship entail?

Absolute authority over the Church because it is through the apostles that revelation came. We know apostles held special authority because we see Paul, who was not an elder, exercise authority even over the elders.


650796  No.1816

>>1814

>Paul holds authority over the elders

Untrue! See Galatians 2.

Paul's authority is entirely derived in his accurate presentation of the gospel, which he submits to the elders in Jerusalem for confirmation. In the forward, chapter 1, he tells the Christians in Galatia to reject even HIMSELF if he comes back with a different gospel


169660  No.1817

>>1811

>Then scripture, just two chapter later, tells us that the only thing special about Pete was that he was told this first; but ultimately they were all "equals".

That isn't logically inconsistent. If I told my brother I was going to propose before anyone else, that'd make him special, but it doesn't mean that he's superior to everyone else just because he found out first.

>This also doesnt even address the consequences of such "authority". What does this "authority" entail in terms of scripture? How does this differ from the catholic church?

Well the Roman catholic church claims that only Peter was given this authority, which is why only his successors are legitimate. But what the text tells us is that all the apostles were given this authority, not just Peter.


7cf030  No.1820

>>1814

>over the church

Not just the church.

>>1817

Probably why his title was

>first among equals

And cry as catholics might, its demonstrated that all the apostles had such authority because of what they did. Apostolic authority is so much more than

>being in charge of a heirarchy of men with silly hats


523649  No.1825

>>1816

>Untrue!

I don't know what to say except that this reflects either ignorance of or resistance to the New Testament. You could not read any book with Paul and conclude from the text that Paul would be under the authority of common elders. He even saw fit to instruct the elders of the church in Ephesus to "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers", can you imagine a mere layperson speaking to their elders in such an authoritative tone?

>Paul's authority is entirely derived in his accurate presentation of the gospel

Oh so he's just a layman, no different from an average Christian knocking on doors to share the gospel. I shouldn't need to explain that Paul is more than a common evangelist. Common evangelists do not write scripture.

>which he submits to the elders in Jerusalem for confirmation

I hope you don't see Paul going before the elders of Jerusalem to be judged, like a heresy trial. He was confirming with the disciples themselves that he had the message right, "in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain". He was clarifying, not being placed under judgement.

>he tells the Christians in Galatia to reject even HIMSELF if he comes back with a different gospel

Yeah and also an angel if they had a different gospel. I must say, if somebody told me to reject an angel if they contradicted their words, and their only credentials was they did alot of soulwinning, I wouldn't be hearkening unto their words.


d26312  No.1826

File: 61ab18303c6fc1f⋯.png (200.35 KB, 623x895, 623:895, Screenshot from 2019-03-20….png)

>>1825

> can you imagine a mere layperson speaking to their elders in such an authoritative tone?

>Oh so he's just a layman

Papist line of thinking regarding the clergy. Any preacher/teacher is authoritative only so far as he is in line with scripture, just like a layman. The only difference is in the role they fill.

Paul demonstrates this principle, as I've illustrated. He did not walk around pronouncing judgments "thus saith the Lord" as if a prophet, only his epistles were written under the inspiration of the holy spirit.


d26312  No.1827

>>1826

read Spurgeon's opposition to "unmitigated popery" in ordination here: https://archive.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/popery.php


f41c54  No.1832

>>1826

>>1827

This reeks of the radical reformation. The idea that we reject what scripture commands when it seems to line up with Rome (which it does not in this case, since we do not preserve the notion of sacerdotal priests) is precisely the dangerous error the reformers sought to warn us against when they used the term fanatic. Scripture clearly shows that only those who have been validly ordained in the ministry of the word and sacrament may administer the word and sacrament to the people of God, 1 Timothy 4:13-14, Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 22:19.


d26312  No.1833

>>1832

1 Timothy 4:13-14

13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. 14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

>clearly shows that only those who have been validly ordained in the ministry of the word and sacrament may administer the word and sacrament to the people of God

Matt 28:19-20

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

>clearly shows that only those who have been validly ordained in the ministry of the word and sacrament may administer the word and sacrament to the people of God

Luke 22:19

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

>clearly shows that only those who have been validly ordained in the ministry of the word and sacrament may administer the word and sacrament to the people of God

No.

You're the one bringing your presuppositions


844d96  No.1834

>>1833

Baste and even redpilled


7cf030  No.1837

>>1833

Who administered the ordination of John prior to him baptising Christ? Why was Christ willing to be baptised by an un-ordained man?


d26312  No.1838

>>1837

Nobody, he didn't have ordination


523649  No.1848

>>1833

I guess scripture can't convince everyone


650796  No.1852

>>1848

You never provided your argument from these references, only cited them


c8d6b3  No.3672

Catholicism is a fraud


df8999  No.3675

>>3672

no u


650796  No.3685

File: d93f0252d0fe7a9⋯.png (6.4 KB, 220x230, 22:23, 08437b0d1c44bdb9dfe26a2e84….png)

>>3675

>>3672

Hmm yes indeed a classic debate


f74122  No.3708

In my understanding, there is no faith in God needed to get the Catholic sacraments.

You essentially get saved by getting pedo-baptized, confirmed later, by going confession and paying your tithe and indulgence.

All you need for that is to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church.

Am I correct, or did I miss something?


4709f8  No.3709

>>3708

no faith is needed if you're severely mentally handicapped or in 'invincible ignorance', otherwise it is necessary.


f74122  No.3710

>>3709

Why do I see so many Catholics without a connection to the living God?


c3d16b  No.3747

>>3708

This is called a strawman. Every sacramentalist believe faith is required for sacramental efficiacy.


1aa379  No.5865

>>1492

Based


24521b  No.5870

>>3710

They connect to the RCC instead




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / ita / miku / polru / socpl / sonyeon / vichan ]