"non-denominational" churches

[Uncertaindrummer]

I think we should let Peter speak for himself on who HE said he was...1Peter 5:1 Therefore, I exhort you AS YOUR FELLOW ELDER etc ect...Did Peter not know he was the pope, did he have some kind of amnesia or what...Thats like me saying hello my name is Jackie and Im the hostest of the british airways. then a few years down the line someone has put me way up there as captain of some enterprize..I know bad example and too much star trek LOL!!!!!!. :banghead3

You continue to attack and not deal with the problems I have set before you. I will answer your errors in this post, but you have to start explaining as well.

Firs,t Peter addressing them as "fellow presbyters" does not mean he did not have authority over them. AS an example; The President of the United States says "My fellow citizens..." and is entirely factualy in saying so, and yet no one would make the claim that the President has no more power than me.

Anyway I would like some thoughts on this, here is what I have been reading...There is a speech by Bishop Strossmayer's presented in the Vatican Counsil in 1870 and a paper presented at this council by Arch bishop kenrick that demonstrates differently from what you are saying about Peter..Strossmayer's speach is taken from the 1913 cathoilic Encyclopedia online at new advent..St Cyril in his forth book on the trinity says " I believe that by the rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles..

I am not sure which speeh of Strossmayer you are reading, but there was fabricated speech made later by prottestants cliaimign to be his work, and it was not. However, Strossmayer DID oppose the infallible proncouncement of Papal Infallibility. However, once it was pronounced, he accepted it as authoritative.


Well I am out of time, unfortunately. Could Victor and SOGFPP finish this little rebuttal for me? Thanks.

If not, I will get on it tommorrow.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hey UD...

If Peter were the ultimate "authority", then why did Paul rebuke him to his face?

Still, this entire thread was started as a rant as to WHY some churches who call themselves "non-denominational" seem to be batted about with every wind of doctrine.

Maybe you should start another thread about "Peter was the first Pope even though he didn't know it" somewhere else?

I do feel that there are MANY churches out there who rely on "what's hot" religiously speeking to define their methods. I am not sure that this is entirely wrong, though it could easily go that way.

 

[Scott1]

If Peter were the ultimate "authority", then why did Paul rebuke him to his face?

Why ask a question you have no desire to listen to? Do you honestly think you've "discovered" the first convincing argument in the last 2,000 years?

Maybe you should start another thread about "Peter was the first Pope even though he didn't know it" somewhere else?

Maybe you should leave the moderating to Moderators.

When people learn a basic understanding of the history and origen of their Christian faith, the discussion about what a "denomination" really is becomes clear.

I feel the insistance of some Christians put blinders on and pray for some "faith based time machine" to bring them back to the "church of the bible" is devoid of reason... and filled with the circular logic of the "bible-only/non-denom/evangelical/fundamental/independant" churches of the last couple hundred years.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

If Peter were the ultimate "authority", then why did Paul rebuke him to his face?

You think Peter was the last Pope to be rebuked? Give me a break.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No Scott,

I asked a question and "listened" to you side step it. Instead of merely assigning motives you might take a crack at answering it.

As for the "convincing argument"; I have discovered nothing. That scripture has been here all along, though many would choose to ignore it and the repercussions of it.

As for moderating; a call to return to the original topic is not out of the ordinary for us peons and has been done in many threads without rebuke. At your behest though, I will NOT try to encourage people to go back on to topic ever again.

But it is fair enough that the first post was about "every wind of doctrine" which the Papacy clearly is. It has lasted far longer than most heresies, but it is a clear departure from the primitive church structure.

Why do you think man feels neccesary to re-invent the wheel that God created? This is tantamount to gilding a lilly. Not that the first century church was perfect. There was bigotry and sexism as well as legalism introduced. But the emphasis was always on love and not on church politics. It was on a relationship to God and not predicated on a corporate salvation or interpretation of scriptures.

UD: To me, "infallibility" means somewhere "above" the rebuke zone. Maybe I am misreading the implications here. But you are right, the infallibility of ANY man flies in the face of the scriptures and would be considered a deviation from the Gospel's message.

 

[Scott1]

If Peter were the ultimate "authority", then why did Paul rebuke him to his face?

I'll play along....

I never said Peter was the ultimate "authority"..... Christ is, was, and will always be..... He is the source of the power and promise given to the Bishop of Rome.

Left to his own resources, the one who by God's grace is permitted to be the bedrock is a stone on the path that makes the foot stumble.

You can play the "bible quote" game all you'd like.... I'll counter your Pauline rebuke with Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 ..... add in the old standby of Matt. 16:17-19 .... toss in a dash of Luke 22:31-32 ..... and end with my personal favorite "Petrine proof" 1 Cor 15:3-7.

As for the "convincing argument"; I have discovered nothing.

Agreed

That scripture has been here all along, though many would choose to ignore it and the repercussions of it.

All along, eh?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Matthew 16:16-19, Mark 8:29(paraphrased)

You are a little rock and upon this BIG ROCK I will build my church. However, here are the keys, so go preach during pentecost to get the ball rolling.

Not sure how you got the Papacy out of John 6, Luke 22:31-32 or I Cor 15: 3-7. That's a real twist!

But lets read further in Matthew and in John:

Matthew 16: 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

But this is "OK" for you as you see the Scriptures as being trumped by the Pope's whim. Or do you feel that this is not the case?

 

[Scott1]

But this is "OK" for you as you see the Scriptures as being trumped by the Pope's whim. Or do you feel that this is not the case?

Not even close.....

Matthew 16:16-19, Mark 8:29(paraphrased)
You are a little rock and upon this BIG ROCK I will build my church. However, here are the keys, so go preach during pentecost to get the ball rolling.

Jesus spoke Greek, right?
As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock."If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.

Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
www.catholic.com

But lets read further in Matthew and in John:
Matthew 16: 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Oy vey.... Luke 22: 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Twist?:biglaugh:

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

But this is "OK" for you as you see the Scriptures as being trumped by the Pope's whim. Or do you feel that this is not the case?

You clearly do not understand Catholicism or even reason. If Catholics claim that the Scriptures AND the Pope are infallible, obviously we would claim they are always in agreement.

And I have a question for you? Why do you beieve the Scriptures are infallible? What leads you to believe that? Because if it is something INSIDE the Bible (which there isn't--but for the sake of argument, let us say there is) then it does nothing because NO book can verify itself. Otherwise we would all be Muslims ;-)

If the verification comes from OUTSIDE the Bible, suddenly, you have to believe that NOT ONLY THE BIBLE is necessary for Faith, becasue you just let something ELSE determine the Bible's infallibility.

That is only ONE reason that the "Bible Alone" argument falls to pieces. There is also a lack of the Bible claiming to be suficient for Christian Faith, there is also a lack of an "inspired" table of contents, there is also a lack of agreement over what this supposedly "sufficient" Bible means in many places.

And yet you somehow think the idea of a Church established by Jesus Christ to sort out all of these problems is incredible? Sorry pal, but if if you can believe in the Bible's inerrancy and suffiency even with all of these problems, you can believe in ANYTHING.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course UD... because I do not understand YOU, I must not understand reason. Nice ad hominem. So you and Scott are saying that the Pope can be wrong and that he is OK with this?

I never said the scriptures are "infallible" or inerrant as the scriptures never make that claim. They are useful though and that has Biblical origins.

That the church was established on Pentecost there is no doubt in my mind. That it does not resemble the current Catholic church is also clear.

As for the "Bible alone", I don't make that claim either. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads us into an UNDERSTANDING of the scriptures. Surely you don't think that man can understand God on his own. Do you need scriptures for any of this? I would be more than happy to supply them.

BTW Scott... "turning back and strengthening your brothers" indicates the Papacy??? That my friend is a non sequiter. You don't have any scriptures that say "PETER IS THE FIRST POPE" or anything to that effect do you?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh yeah...

please produce another passage in Koine where both nouns for rock are used in the same sentence. Please... and it does not have to be Christian in origin. It was a pretty obvious play on words to me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

I never said the scriptures are "infallible" or inerrant as the scriptures never make that claim. They are useful though and that has Biblical origins.

If the Scriptures aren't infallible what are you arguing about? You have no reason to believe them and no reason to believe anything to do with Trinity, etc.

That the church was established on Pentecost there is no doubt in my mind. That it does not resemble the current Catholic church is also clear.

And yet all the historical and Biblical evidence contradicts you.

As for the "Bible alone", I don't make that claim either. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads us into an UNDERSTANDING of the scriptures. Surely you don't think that man can understand God on his own. Do you need scriptures for any of this? I would be more than happy to supply them.

Well this is a problem for you. If the Holy Spirit guides ALL who read the Scriptures into all truth the way you ar eimplying, the Holy Spirt is lying to millions of people. WE ARE NOT ALL RIGHT. So who is the Holy Spirit helping out here? You? Me? Niether of us? Both of us?

BTW Scott... "turning back and strengthening your brothers" indicates the Papacy??? That my friend is a non sequiter. You don't have any scriptures that say "PETER IS THE FIRST POPE" or anything to that effect do you?

There is also no passage that says "The Fatehr the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be called 'The Trinity'", and yet you believe in that.

Your arguments make no sense, and lead in circles.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Oh yeah...

please produce another passage in Koine where both nouns for rock are used in the same sentence. Please... and it does not have to be Christian in origin. It was a pretty obvious play on words to me. Your mileage may vary.

I do not even udnerstand this post but the Greek is IRRELEVANT. Jeses spoke in ARAMIC, so the sentence would read "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build My Church".

 

[Scuba Pete]

You have this in writing maybe?

 

[Scuba Pete]

You have no reason believe them

Yet another person trying to tell me WHAT I believe. Thanks for the input, but I'll wait for the memo from God.

And yet all the historical and Biblical evidence contradicts you.

You posted this with a straight face, I presume. I am waiting for both. First century only please!

Well this is a problem for you.

Not really. In order to get the next peice of information, you have to incorporate the truth first. Some are still "babes" needing spiritual milk, while some have moved on to vegetables and even meat. Do you think that the Spirit has NO ROLE in understanding the scriptures? This may clarify why you are having such a hard time with such simple concepts.

yet you believe in that.

And so back to the beginning where you are telling me that I believe in something that I have not laid claim to believe. Do you approach all discussions with a ton of innuendo and assumptions? Or is it that I am just the lucky one?

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

You have this in writing maybe?

Have what in writing? Are you just going to deny that Kepha is the word for "rock" in aramic?

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Yet another person trying to tell me WHAT I believe. Thanks for the input, but I'll wait for the memo from God.

Well you certainly attack a lot for not having any beliefs. Let us see... you do not believe in the Bible, the Church, or the infallibility of either.

You posted this with a straight face, I presume. I am waiting for both. First century only please!

Why only the first century? Because everythign in second century contradicts you? Try the Letter of Clement or Irenaus' works.

Not really. In order to get the next peice of information, you have to incorporate the truth first. Some are still "babes" needing spiritual milk, while some have moved on to vegetables and even meat. Do you think that the Spirit has NO ROLE in understanding the scriptures? This may clarify why you are having such a hard time with such simple concepts.

Actually, you are having a hard time with a simple concept. You think the Holy Spirit lets everyone know what is right and wrong, yet at the same time you ignore that fact that the Holy Spirirt seems to be leading tons of people in DIFFERENT directions.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well you certainly attack a lot

Nope, I have left the attacks for you. To date, I have not accused you of being without reason, not believing or believeing in a litany of things, as well as other innuendo about my various abilities to function as a human. However, it seems that my questions and points seem to be upsetting you. I apologise for that, but feel that your unchallenged opinions could do more harm if people thought that I agreed with you.

Why only the first century indeed? This would be a snapshot closest to the book of Acts, would it not? While apostasy came quickly, this would be the closest to the primitive church that we have available.

As per the Holy Spirit, I have asked a question. Could you please show me the courtesy of an answer as I have sought to answer your questions? Thanks in advance!

 

[Quiddity]

Why only the first century indeed? This would be a snapshot closest to the book of Acts, would it not? While apostasy came quickly, this would be the closest to the primitive church that we have available.

Yes it is a closer snapshot NetDoc. But as uncertaindrummer has noted that Protestants stay clear of much of history because they know its quite Catholic. Not only that but should we not at least read of other writers that teach similar doctrines as yours after the apostles?
Why don't we?
You see NetDoc your beliefs may sound nice on paper but they don't mesh with history.

Apostasy was around in the first century and is around now. Nothing new and I doubt it will go away anytime soon.

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

You see NetDoc your beliefs may sound nice on paper but they don't mesh with history.

Big words with nothing to back them up. You can assert all you want, but you have demonstrated nothing as of yet.

There is nothing missing in the New Testament in regards to the operation and goals of a church in modern times. We don't need the ecoutrements and entrapments of trying to reinvent the wheel here.