Catholic believe pope is infallible
- Thread starter Jackson123
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They heard if from an evangelistic protestant. Rome relies on baptism to be in the "church" whereas Christ births them into the church by the Holy Spirit.
God calls every person to be saved. Some turn from God to their own righteousness and some gladly forsake their sin and cleave to Christ. John 3:19-21.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
God calls every person to be saved. Some turn from God to their own righteousness and some gladly forsake their sin and cleave to Christ. John 3:19-21.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
You can post all the scripture you want to post if it makes you feel good.
If it weren't for the Catholic Church you wouldn't HAVE a bible.
If it weren't for the early Christians who died crucified, burned, eaten by lions, fried in oil, quartered, and who knows what else, YOU wouldn't be here discussing this with me because there would be NO CHRISTIANITY.
You should stop HATING the Church that brought you the program you're watching and begin to study it and be thankful for it.
I think you missed some of the post up above.
I'll post it AGAIN for you, MAYBE YOU COULD ACTUALLY READ IT THIS TIME AROUND...
Stop posting scripture and learn some history.
And that goes for everyone on this forum who HATES the Catholic Church.
And I do remind everyone that I'm not Catholic. Funny isn't it?
I'd protect your Church too if it came under fire.
We should stick together. The REAL enemy is on their way...
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
These verses have been used by Roman Catholics to try to prove Scriptural authority for a pope and by Protestants to try to disprove Scriptural authority for a pope.
Both groups have been so intent on trying to prove something that is completely outside of the biblical context that they have basically massacred the original meaning of the text.
In doing so, they have so promoted their biased interpretations that most of us cannot see these verses without one of these biases. Since we all seem to approach these verses with preconceived ideas of what they mean, it can help to see what these verses are really saying by first looking at a hypothetical example such as the following:
Suppose Jesus, instead of giving Simon the name Peter, had given Simon the nickname Candlelight. Suppose Jesus then said, "You are Candlelight, and with this beacon I will light up the world." In other words, in and of himself, Simon is merely Candlelight, but once Jesus starts to use him, he will become a beacon to the world.
Now let's look again at verse 18.
Jesus is saying, You are Peter, a little rock, and upon this massive rock I will build my church.* In other words, of himself, Simon is just a little rock, but in Jesus' hands, he becomes a massive rock that Jesus will use on the Pentecost after His resurrection to start calling the church (notice that verse 20 of Matthew 16 explains that Peter and the other disciples were not to do this any earlier).
The idea is not that the church rests on Peter, but that it begins upon an act of Peter—his preaching the Gospel.
If it weren't for the Catholic Church you wouldn't HAVE a bible.
If it weren't for the early Christians who died crucified, burned, eaten by lions, fried in oil, quartered, and who knows what else, YOU wouldn't be here discussing this with me because there would be NO CHRISTIANITY.
You should stop HATING the Church that brought you the program you're watching and begin to study it and be thankful for it.
I think you missed some of the post up above.
I'll post it AGAIN for you, MAYBE YOU COULD ACTUALLY READ IT THIS TIME AROUND...
Stop posting scripture and learn some history.
And that goes for everyone on this forum who HATES the Catholic Church.
And I do remind everyone that I'm not Catholic. Funny isn't it?
I'd protect your Church too if it came under fire.
We should stick together. The REAL enemy is on their way...
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
These verses have been used by Roman Catholics to try to prove Scriptural authority for a pope and by Protestants to try to disprove Scriptural authority for a pope.
Both groups have been so intent on trying to prove something that is completely outside of the biblical context that they have basically massacred the original meaning of the text.
In doing so, they have so promoted their biased interpretations that most of us cannot see these verses without one of these biases. Since we all seem to approach these verses with preconceived ideas of what they mean, it can help to see what these verses are really saying by first looking at a hypothetical example such as the following:
Suppose Jesus, instead of giving Simon the name Peter, had given Simon the nickname Candlelight. Suppose Jesus then said, "You are Candlelight, and with this beacon I will light up the world." In other words, in and of himself, Simon is merely Candlelight, but once Jesus starts to use him, he will become a beacon to the world.
Now let's look again at verse 18.
Jesus is saying, You are Peter, a little rock, and upon this massive rock I will build my church.* In other words, of himself, Simon is just a little rock, but in Jesus' hands, he becomes a massive rock that Jesus will use on the Pentecost after His resurrection to start calling the church (notice that verse 20 of Matthew 16 explains that Peter and the other disciples were not to do this any earlier).
The idea is not that the church rests on Peter, but that it begins upon an act of Peter—his preaching the Gospel.
You have studied your catholic apologetic well but you cannot expect me to allow you to get away with the deceptive ideology of rome.
We have the bible because God preserved it for us. Rome is not responsible for our bible. Rome did act in it's own best interest the hide the bible from the laity. Rome translated the Hebrew and Greek into Latin so only they could read it.
The Jews preserved the OT scrolls and the NT scrolls were around long before rome.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
We have the bible because God preserved it for us. Rome is not responsible for our bible. Rome did act in it's own best interest the hide the bible from the laity. Rome translated the Hebrew and Greek into Latin so only they could read it.
The Jews preserved the OT scrolls and the NT scrolls were around long before rome.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The concept of original sin does not bother me, because Jesus never spoke about it. Also, I do not want to waste time watching man-made teachings about St Augustine and Original Sin.
Jesus and his followers(the apostles) never brought up "Original Sin" as an issue. If it was an issue, they would have urged people to cleanse themselves of the same. On the other hand, they did urge people to repent of their own willful sins. The message of John the Baptist and Jesus was for everyone to repent of THEIR sins, not of original sin due to Adam.
Since the apostles never spoke about any concept of original sin, they could not have baptized anyone (including infants) in connection with original sin. So for any church to baptize infants to cleanse them from original sin is erroneous.
You say that in the past, men did not understand that God is merciful and therefore he would not condemn an infant. Do they understand it now? Why then do churches still insist on infant baptism?
Please answer this question: What if someone was baptized as an infant, and later came to believe in Christ as a grown up? Is his baptism as an infant valid in the eyes of God?
Jesus and his followers(the apostles) never brought up "Original Sin" as an issue. If it was an issue, they would have urged people to cleanse themselves of the same. On the other hand, they did urge people to repent of their own willful sins. The message of John the Baptist and Jesus was for everyone to repent of THEIR sins, not of original sin due to Adam.
Since the apostles never spoke about any concept of original sin, they could not have baptized anyone (including infants) in connection with original sin. So for any church to baptize infants to cleanse them from original sin is erroneous.
You say that in the past, men did not understand that God is merciful and therefore he would not condemn an infant. Do they understand it now? Why then do churches still insist on infant baptism?
Please answer this question: What if someone was baptized as an infant, and later came to believe in Christ as a grown up? Is his baptism as an infant valid in the eyes of God?
He said, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church". If He didn't mean Peter specifically, He would have just said the He's going to build His church upon a rock and he would've omitted Peter's name. As you correctly stated Peter does mean rock. That's probably the reason that he ended up with that name in the first place. Of course, you're free to believe whatever you chose to believe.
The word Peter means rock. If Jesus had not meant Peter He would not have said his name and go on to say that "upon this rock I will build my church". It's in the bible and Jesus said it. If that verse was not meant to be clearly understood than it serves no purpose and should not be in the bible. You last sentence is incorrect but believe what you may.
Christ uses the term rock to identify all the lively stones that make up the spiritual house as the bride of Christ. Not the house of Peter or Abraham as the apostate Jews performed in the same way as Peter .Christ refered to that as one of the think not doctrines
Peter cannot be the foundation of faith . Three verse later I believe God knowing beforehand that men would walk by sight having their faith in respect to that seen (Peter) God created an evil to Peter who is shown as acting as one of the many antichrists that were already there under the influence of the antichrist (singular} Satan Christ did not sent Peter a strong delusion if he did he would of denied he paid the wage of Peters sin in full
Cathlic upside down theology ends at verse 19.the rest they make to no effect through the oral tradition of a law of the fathers in which Christ called a brood of vipers
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Mat 16:22
So much for the flesh of Peter's defence as the things of men .
to know whether Peter is foundation of faith, we need to know what is the definition of faith
Hebrew 11
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Is Peter the substance of things hope for?
Is Peter the evidence of things not seen?
what we hope? To be with Jesus?
The Holy Spirit draws and convicts people in different ways, so no testimony is the same. All have different testimonies of how they got saved, and even a different scripture that God used to speak to them. It could be anything. I heard of someone who got saved after reading the "begats" in Genesis. That's probably a first. But God used those detailed genealogies to lead him to faith in Jesus.
Doesn't matter what religion one is stuck in. God still gets through and people continue to get saved, but then once they know the truth they do end up leaving these religious systems. There are many testimonies of ex catholics, ex mormons, etc.
I once read the testimony of an ex catholic priest who picked up a bible one day and ended up reading Hebrews 10:11-14. God guided him to that scripture and used it to speak to him. He then realized what he was doing was wrong, that only through Jesus could he be saved. He then left the catholic church.
Hebrews 10:11-14: "And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified"
Doesn't matter what religion one is stuck in. God still gets through and people continue to get saved, but then once they know the truth they do end up leaving these religious systems. There are many testimonies of ex catholics, ex mormons, etc.
I once read the testimony of an ex catholic priest who picked up a bible one day and ended up reading Hebrews 10:11-14. God guided him to that scripture and used it to speak to him. He then realized what he was doing was wrong, that only through Jesus could he be saved. He then left the catholic church.
Hebrews 10:11-14: "And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified"