Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

quote:

---

But not the way that seems to be getting misunderstood here, as if this constitutes some kind of authority. Personal interpretations can be WRONG, I would certainly never make this some kind of foundational principle. We are to read the Bible for ourselves to be taught by it, but even having the Holy Spirit we also have to have the common sense to know that we're fallible and need to hear from pastors and teachers on the Bible.

---

The person most prone to that misunderstanding seems to be you. The correctness of personal interpretations isn't even the point. THee question is whether people are even allowed to have them and still be considered Protestant. With regard to the particular verses under discussion your answer is NO. My answer is YES, within reason. i cannot see any reason why a Protestant couldn't read Matthew 16:15-20 as meaning that Peter was to be first amongst the Apostles and lead the Church after Jesus left.

quote:

---

Again I think you have that first "principle" skewed in some way, so the idea of "additional principles" that are "equally foundational" has me quite dubious. The Bible was freed for the use of ordinary Christians and it was a great boon to all of us, but the principle I've been identifying with Protestantism above all is salvation through God's grace alone by our faith alone in Christ's atoning sacrifice alone. JAR RIDICULES THIS. HOW CAN ANYONE CALL HIMSELF A PROTESTANT WHO RIDICULES THIS FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE?

---

Matthew 16:15-20 isn't about that, is it ? And yet you insisted that anyone who did not adhere to the interpretation you preferred could not be a Protestant.Come on, tell me why the perfectly reasonable interpretation that I offer above is incompatible with being a Protestant - especially when it seems to be the most natural reading of the text.

quote:

---

Jar claiming that Luther was wrong to deny that Matthew 16 showed The Roman Church to be the true Church. Luther did deny that, Jar affirmed it. How strange to call a person who prefers the Catholic understanding of what is the true Church a Protestant. There are many ways to show if a person is a Protestant or not, the solas are one, anti-Protestant opinion is of course another. Logic, common sense ought to tell you that much.

---

That's not what we're arguing about.

quote:

---

How very odd of you. I tell you that Protestants don't deny authority but that expert opinion matters, then you make an issue of the fact that Protestant opinion would of course defer to Protestant opinion and object to antiChristian "scholarship" by unbelievers that undermines the Bible which we know to be God's word?

---

In other words you hate and lie about experts who come to conclusions contrary to your dogma.

quote:

---

Oh and "hate and slanders" because I reject the claims to scholarship of people who abuse sscholarship. Right, of course, get that nasty PC accusation in there. Yeah, I cop to that. I HATE HATE HATE that kind of lying subterfuge, and it's not slander if it's the truth and it is.

---

Of course it ISN'T true.

quote:

---

There are plenty of reasons why that isn't a correct interpretation but even if it were that isn't all Jar said.

---

I bet you can't come up with even one good, solid reason. And I'm not arguing about what jar said elsewhere, I'm arguing with your assertion that Protestants MUST interpret that passage the way you like.Want to actually deal with my point?

quote:

---

I did NOT say it has to be interpreted in one particular way, I said it isn't a Protestant interpretation if it is used to do what jar did with it, cause it to support the claims of Rome.

---

Not true, as I showed above. Message 350

quote:

---

Some interpret the rock to refer to Christ Himself, some to Peter's testimony and some do interpret it as referring to Peter but even when they do they don't suggest he had any kind of preeminence among the apostles in the characteristic he demonstrated by that testimony. He was first in some ways but not ABOVE the others in any ways.

---

I would think that being singled out especially, by being given a new name is a pretty good indication to the contrary.

quote:

---

Here's one commentary, JF&B for Mat 16:18 at BLB, that makes this point, showing that all the apostles received the same commissioning from Jesus even if Peter was the first to make the testimony:

---

But it doesn't address the issue of Peter having a favoured status among the Apostles.

quote:

---

I'm tired of how you keep shifting the argument. I don't know what YOU are arguing about but I've given my reasons quite consistently all along here. Sometimes the solas are the subject, sometimes it's the simple fact that jar agrees with a Catholic interpretaton of scripture.

---

But I'm not shifting the argument. I've been consistently pointing out your insistence on authority and tradition dictating interpretation of the Bible for some time.

quote:

---

I do hate the "experts" who lie about the supernatural basis of the Bible, I do indeed. They are the liars. The Bible is the supernatural word of God and they are unable to recognize that fact, being unbelievers, and too many Christians have bought into their lousy excuse for scholarship.

---

And a lot of them are believers. They just disagree with the beliefs you cling to. Obviously you don't really regard expertise as something to be recognised and taken into account.

quote:

---

I'm tired of this discussion, I'm tired of your nasty endlessly accusatory attitude and I hope I can call this post the end of it.

---

Yet what I am doing is both milder and more justified than your treatment of those who disagree with your dogmas.

It could be taken that way, but it could also mean that Peter was the name by which the reader would be expected to know him.Fortunately Mark 3:16 makes it clearer: (Luke 6:14 agrees. John 1:42 puts the naming earlier, but still credits Jesus)

Did you actually read that page, Faith ? I know it's too much to expect you to actually check it or even read the quoted text in context.Do you really disagree with all the cited text from the anathema ?

Surely you don't believe that just believing that you are Saved is enough to be Saved ? Or that it isn't necessary to try to avoid sinning, or that it's possible for even a Saved human to completely avoid sin ?

Coston defends the burning of "heretics"Is burning heretics to death OK with you Faith?

quote:

---

Yes, killing a king is traitorous and there was a plot to kill King James in 1605. None of that justifies are explains the divine right of kings stuff. It does not even justify his persecution of Catholics.

---

Don't forget that it was the Puritans who killed James' successor, called by some "Charles the Martyr". It was pretty clear that Coston would be somewhat biased in avour of the Stuart kings when I saw that mentioned.

I think that Faith has made it quite plain that anti-Catholic writings are automatically true. To her. Unless they aren't vicious enough, perhaps.

quote:

---

I don't recall posting anything "vicious" but hey, you here all know my mind so much better than I possibly could.

---

If your think that your posts are entirely in your mind then you have far bigger problems than us.Didn't you complain that you couldn't find any modern anti-Catholic sources that were extreme enough for you ? Preferring stuff from the 1920s and earlier, as I recall ?Anyway, do you have any reliable sources for these 19th Century allegations ?The institution formerly called the Inquisition still exists (it's not a big secret, I've known it for years), but it doesn't do much persecution of anyone outside the RC Church.Quoting Ian Paisley - a man linked to terrorism - hardly helps your case, either.Finally, the Tap blog seems less than reliable itself Sitchen, Maxwell, Icke...

quote:

---

No, I'm not for burning heretics.

---

Then maybe you should reevaluate Stephen Coston (who is fine with burning heretics), and the idea of King James' "blameless life", based on Coston's claims.

You were the one who said that James lived a blameless life. And your source is biased enough to regard burning heretics as justified- because James did it. Not someone I'd trust.

quote:

---

I am in awe of how ready you are to put the nastiest possible interpretation on anything I write.

---

Yes, Faith I know you get upset when people tell the truth about you.

quote:

---

The point was that the sources from about that time on have been tampered with and whitewashed, but you can still find the truth in older books. The point is TRUTH.

---

And how exactly do you know that the more extreme accusations of older sources are "TRUE" ? I mean come on. You fell for Chiniquy's claim that the Lincoln assassination was all about him. You are prepared to say that Foxe is always right, even if he claims that gnostic Cathars are good Protestant Christians.No, it isn't about truth. If it was you wouldn't fall for such things.