What is the Biblical view of hell?

[otseng]

The concept of Hell is one of the many unmarketable, embarrassingly unbelievable religious concepts that has been recently swept under the altar in the severely diluted quasi-belief system that passes for Christianity in certain circles.

In fact, I think this is why Christianity invented eternal punishment in hell. They started to realize that just plain dying wouldn't be compelling. So instead they invented the concept of "Everlasting Punishment" for those who refuse to comply.

Questions for debate:
What is the Biblical view of hell?
What concepts do we have of hell that are not in the Bible?

[PinSeeker]

Reducing the Church to an invisible body of believers only is illogical.

Nah, you only want it to be, because if you were to buy into what I'm saying, you would be turning your back on something you've been personally invested in for so long... which is understandable.

Rather, believing the Christ's Church, His bride, to be a visible institution of man -- in addition to being idolatry and wishful thinking -- is a very concrete form of self-justification, and elitist. It's just totally non-Scriptural.

[RightReason]

[Replying to PinSeeker]

But if one's facts are not actual facts, then where they take you will not be factual. False premises beget false conclusions.

Of course. But as Marco points out the same words can warrant multiple interpretations that certainly sound and appear logical. Heck, the JW’s have beautiful color pamphlets citing lots of Scripture and if one were to pick it up it would certainly seem/appear reasonable, but they stem from Charles Taze Russell’s take which starts with some false premises. So, what we want to avoid is comparing what the Jehovah Witness or Calvinists or Quakers have to say and listen to Christ’s authoritative Church. Calvin and Russell will say they are both using facts, so that doesn’t help. The facts that matter aren’t what either of them have to say, rather whether either of them has the right to say it. The facts that matter are only those that are proclaimed by Christ’s Church.

Now, if you want to know who/where is Christ’s Church you need to go back to the beginning. You need to follow the historical record back to Christ Himself and from there you will have your answer.

We’re human beings with physical bodies living in a physical realm an invisible church isn’t exactly practical. Human beings are body and souls. We have 5 senses. Our experiences come thru seeing, hearing, touching, tasting. All of these things are given to us by the Catholic Church. Even in confession we audibly hear Christ speaking thru His priests and hear the literal words, “I absolve you of your sins� As humans, we NEED that. Sure, I can confess my sins to God alone in my room at night, but what a difference to force ourselves to say them out loud and to actually hear back that we are forgiven. It is beautiful and healing – as if Our Lord knew exactly what we need.

PinSeeker] wrote:


But the Roman Catholic Church is not Jesus's Church.

Why not? Nothing else makes sense.

Well, I've said why not several times.

Refresh my memory. Could you tell me again (I must have missed it) your reasoning that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church established by Jesus Christ. Do you refute the history books? Do you refute Sacred Scripture? Do you refute public revelation of Jesus Christ’s words? I’m having a hard time remembering what it is specifically that you are refuting. Was it your theory that the Church is invisible? Because history itself, as well as the Bible shows otherwise. An actual church was established and (as a matter of public record shows) did take on a hierarchical structure and held an authoritative role which all the first Christians adhered to. Public record even shows it was in fact this church that gave us the Bible as we know it today. I’m assuming you accept this Bible given to you by your invisible non authoritative church, but I guess I would simply then ask, why?

we don't have to get into this, but Scripture is clear that Christ didn't come to save all, but only those whom the Father has given Him. His atonement was certainly sufficient for all, but God has mercy upon whom He has mercy, compassion upon whom He has compassion, according to His sovereign choice, as illustrated in Romans 9 in the persons of Jacob and Esau.

Oh, Pinseeker that is an incorrect interpretation and remember what we talked about earlier. Calvin doesn’t get to come and speak with authority regarding what he has no authority to speak on. I’m afraid Calvin missed the boat with his false predestination theory.

Scripture simply contradicts it:

This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to cometo the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:4


The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9


As Augustine, the great Father and Doctor of the Church, summarized so well, “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us� (CCC 1847).

God’s knowing how we will choose does not entail his willfully predetermining how we will choose. Here we see the worst part of Calvin’s “dreadful doctrine,� as he describes this teaching: it’s blasphemous. God, who is supposed to be all good, is ultimately responsible for those who go to hell, not the sinners themselves. A mere human mother desires that all of her children be saved. How much then would we expect from a divine creator?

Indeed, Scripture affirms that God desires the salvation of all mankind (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9), and that those who go to hell choose to exclude themselves from him and his heavenly kingdom (see, e.g., Matt. 7:13-14, 25:31-46; CCC 1033-37).

https://www.catholic.com/qa/augustine-h ... in-did-not
This is a great article if you are interested -- How John Calvin Made me a Catholic
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/0 ... -catholic/

As I said, Christ's catholic and apostolic church is visible in the sense that we know it exists, but invisible in that we don't know exactly who is/isn't (or will/won't be) in it. And the Christ's church, while consisting of physical people of course, is not physical but rather spiritual -- just like God's True Israel is not a physical country made up of ethnic Jews but spiritual and made up of all believers in Christ regardless of ethnicity.

Yes, like I explained before you are a little off. Yes, of course there is an invisible/spiritual element to the Church, but that does not mean that Christ did not establish an actual, visible, authoritative, Church that we can know as the one, true faith and we can know whether we are members of this Church or not. Of course, simply being a member or claiming to be a member doesn’t mean one will be saved. And not being a member does not necessarily mean one will not be saved. But make no mistake all salvation will come by way of the Church -- Christ established it that way.

you are asserting (incorrectly) that His One Church is physical and exclusive to people who are members of that one physical, earthly entity/organization.

No, no, no . . . I never said only Catholics can be saved. Saying Christ established an actual physical Church and that Church is the Catholic Church is not the same as saying all Catholics are saved and all non Catholics are damned. That is not what the Church teaches.

You might be able to get there without being a member of the Church. Of course, I’m not sure why someone who believes in Christ would not want to be a member of His established Church, especially when only in His Church can you be sure you are getting truth and only in His Church can you receive the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

RightReason wrote:


Sacred Scripture itself reveals this, as well as Sacred Tradition. We are told Jesus established His Church and the first Christians took their matters to the Church. We are told Jesus established His Church and that Church had a hierarchical structure, that Church had authority...

I wholeheartedly agree to this point. But then you're litany/argument turns physical:

Of course it does because it includes the facts/truth/history. Just like I said . . .


Quote:
"...that Church made final decisions, that Church gave us the Bible, that Church has an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession going back to Peter and ultimately Christ Himself, that Church has not caved or changed her teachings (even though every other Christian denomination has done so over the years – because Truth does not change). Only that Church has the Real Presence – the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Only that Church has the power to forgive sins which she does through the beautiful sacrament of confession. That Church has those like St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Joan of Arc, St. Therese of Lesieux, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Thomas More, along with over 10,000 other amazing human beings who lead extraordinary Holy lives while on earth all as members of the Church Triumphant in Christ’s Church and now are members of the Communion of Saints."

RightReason wrote:


PinSeeker] wrote:


We all have the keys to the kingdom... all us believers, anyway.

But that’s not what Jesus Himself said. And that makes no sense.

Yes He did. Yes, He said it directly to Peter, but indirectly to all of us; Peter was representative of all of us. And yes, it makes perfect sense.

How does/could it make sense? We see in Scripture itself in the very first days of the early church disagreements arose among them. So, they took their matters to the Church (something impossible if church is simply an invisible, non authoritative entity) The Church’s decision was final. Because even though we are all members of the Church by simply being believers, we do not all have authority to do what we think/want. It would be illogical to not recognize the Church was established to safeguard and interpret Sacred Scripture and to speak on all matters of teachings on faith and morals. And where we can go for guidance and knowing we are getting it right!

Otherwise, we end up with thousands of splinter groups all demonstrating the tragic broken body of Christ. Calvins’ can’t believe one thing if it is different from what Methodists believe or different from what Mormons believe or different from what Lutherans believe. If truth is truth and truth matters, then someone is wrong. If they are all teaching different things, they all can’t be right. That is illogical. And exactly what Christ wanted to prevent. With your theory, we have division, chaos, falsehoods and confusion. That isn’t of Christ.

to read that Peter is the Rock is to misread it terribly)

So, how do you know you are reading it correctly? I say it means something different than you. We both love our Lord. Which one of us is right? How can we know? Isn’t your notion of church a bit problematic?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 411 by PinSeeker]

Reducing the Church to an invisible body of believers only is illogical.

Nah, you only want it to be, because if you were to buy into what I'm saying, you would be turning your back on something you've been personally invested in for so long... which is understandable.

Rather, believing the Christ's Church, His bride, to be a visible institution of man -- in addition to being idolatry and wishful thinking -- is a very concrete form of self-justification, and elitist. It's just totally non-Scriptural.

Except that it isn’t. I already posted the Scripture that proves it, so you just replying, “Nah� doesn’t refute all the proof I posted. It doesn’t work that way.

Perhaps it is you who has been taught the anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda that likes to accuse the Church as ‘idolatrous ways of man’ without actually citing any examples, but simply repeating the popular empty rhetoric. It would strike me the height of arrogance to think we are all are own arbiters of truth. How new agey and “enlightened� of you to see Christ’s Church as a vague invisible communal gathering. Let’s all sing Kumbaya and hallucinate our way into the pearly gates.

[PinSeeker]

Except that it isn’t.

Yes it is.

! already posted the Scripture that proves it...

You already posted the Scripture that you think proves it (or that you want to believe proves it). I respect that you think that proves it, but it doesn't. For the reasons -- Scripturally grounded reasons -- I clearly stated.

...so you just replying, “Nah� doesn’t refute all the proof I posted. It doesn’t work that way.

Sure, but there was no reason to re-hash what I've done several times now, so a simple no was all that was needed. I'll do it again if necessary.

Peace, brother.

[RightReason]

[Replying to PinSeeker]

You already posted the Scripture that you think proves it (or that you want to believe proves it). I respect that you think that proves it, but it doesn't. For the reasons -- Scripturally grounded reasons -- I clearly stated.

Like what? Again, I must have missed it. When did you counter all of the following Scripture demonstrating the Church is visible and authoritative and Peter was designated as leader? How do you refute the following Scripture . . .


Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha� in Aramaic which literally means “rock.� This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock� was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 – for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

Matt. 16:18 – also, in quoting “on this rock,� the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee� which means on “this� rock; on “this same� rock; or on “this very� rock. “Tautee tee� is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee�) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros�). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith� is equated with “rock.�

John 21:15-17 – Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,� “tend my sheep,� “feed my sheep.� Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.


Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 – no one questions Peter’s authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail

2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 – God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.

Luke 12:41-42 – when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master’s household of God. “Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household..?�

Ezek. 37:24-25 – David shall be king over them forever and they will have one shepherd. Jesus is our King, and Peter is our earthly shepherd.

Jer. 33:17 – Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 – Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

Matt. 23:2 – this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses’ seat (“cathedra�) of authority which was preserved by succession.
Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith
John 16:12 – Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time.

Eph. 3:10 – the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church.
1 Thess. 5:21 – Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.

1 Tim. 3:15 – Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible.

1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us� (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.� But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error.

Matt. to Rev. – we must also note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

Matt. 5:14 – Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 – Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).� There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing� are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

John 10:16 – Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

John 17:21 – Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us.


Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 – again, the Church does not mean “invisible� unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.


Eph. 5:25 – the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 – Jesus uses the word “ecclesia� only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 – Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi�) and the bishops (“episkopoi�) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 – Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi�) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 – Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi�) who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 – Christ’s Church also has deacons (“diakonoi�). Thus, Jesus Christ’s Church has a hierarchy of authority – bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

1 Timothy 3:15
If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-biblical-church/


There is much more Scripture too that you would have to explain, but I will leave it at that.

Sure, but there was no reason to re-hash what I've done several times now, so a simple no was all that was needed. I'll do it again if necessary.

Please. The Scripture I have posted demonstrates the Christ established a Church, put Peter in charge, intended it to be an actual physical, visible church that has a hierarchical structure and is a place we can go to know we are getting it right. It is all there in the Bible. It’s also all there in the historical record of the first Christians. For someone to claim hundreds or sometimes even thousands of years after Christ walked this earth that He didn’t establish an actual visible authoritative earthly church takes quite a bit of denial of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and history itself.

Also, you never answered my previous query . . .

PinSeeker:

Quote:
to read that Peter is the Rock is to misread it terribly)

So, how do you know you are reading it correctly? I say it means something different than you. We both love our Lord. Which one of us is right? How can we know? Isn’t your notion of church a bit problematic?

[PinSeeker]

Please. The Scripture I have posted demonstrates the Christ established a Church, put Peter in charge, intended it to be an actual physical, visible church that has a hierarchical structure and is a place we can go to know we are getting it right. It is all there in the Bible.

And I would say that all the Scripture you have posted (in addition to all the Scripture I have posted) demonstrates that Christ did indeed establish a Church -- upon Himself as the Rock, as He is referred to in many, many passages of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments (also the cornerstone, Ephesians 2). We don't see the Rock in person, so it's obviously spiritual in nature and thus not visible. And THAT is the only place we can go to in order to get it right: God's infallible, inerrant Word -- even Himself, Who is the Word made flesh. It's all there in the Bible.

It’s also all there in the historical record of the first Christians.

I agree. Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles nor any of the other early members of the church held Peter in any higher esteem or in any position of higher authority than themselves; their One True Authority was Christ Jesus. And likewise, Peter claimed for himself no higher esteem or position of higher authority than anyone else; he himself proclaimed the One True Authority was Christ Jesus.

For someone to claim hundreds or sometimes even thousands of years after Christ walked this earth that He didn’t establish an actual visible authoritative earthly church takes quite a bit of denial of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and history itself.

I respect your opinion.

Also, you never answered my previous query...

LOL! I have no idea what your previous query even was.

So, how do you know you are reading it correctly? I say it means something different than you. We both love our Lord. Which one of us is right? How can we know?

We rely on the Spirit of Truth.

Or maybe I should say, I rely on the Spirit of Truth. God Himself, in the form of the Holy Spirit.

You, on the other hand, apparently rely -- correct me if I am wrong on this -- on the Catholic... fathers?... The Pope(s)?... Anyway, mere men, who I guess you elevate to equality (or at least something very close to it) with God.

At any rate, One of us is (or possibly both of us are) badly mistaken.

Isn’t your notion of church a bit problematic?

Nope. Not at all. I would ask that of you, based on the immediately above.

Grace and peace to you, RR.

[RightReason]

[Replying to PinSeeker]

And I would say that all the Scripture you have posted (in addition to all the Scripture I have posted) demonstrates that Christ did indeed establish a Church -- upon Himself as the Rock

Like I posted that interpretation makes no sense if one studies the wording, the language used, the word order, the obvious intended pun (Did you miss that? Peter means rock and not a name typically given to a human being, so we have our Lord renaming Simon Peter which means rock and then saying, Thou art rock and upon this rock I build my church. LOL. Our Lord is quite clever!). Also, the verse shows Jesus as the builder – not the building. Anyway, if properly read, your interpretation simply doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense to why Jesus then a couple of sentences later would give Peter the keys to the kingdom. In the past, when keys have been given it has always meant appointed leadership and authority, so your wishful thinking to want it to mean we have all been given the keys simply doesn’t make sense. And why would Jesus then go on to say, “He who hears you, hears me�? If Jesus wasn’t passing authority on? He would have just said, “He who hears me, yada, yada, yada . . . But He didn’t say that, did He? Also, why would He have said, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�? How in the world does that not imply authority? As you can see your interpretation requires quite a bit of explanation that you don’t seem to be able to provide.

We don't see the Rock in person, so it's obviously spiritual in nature and thus not visible. And THAT is the only place we can go to in order to get it right

You realize that makes no sense, right? Do you hear God’s audible voice telling you you are getting it right? I ask, because there have been Saints who have been so blessed, but I don’t really think that is the norm. In the Old Testament we read that God did not talk to everyone as individuals. He used Moses to communicate to His people. They were expected to listen to Moses. Moses was the one given the power to part the Red Sea, among other things. Can you imagine if all God’s children said, “We aren’t going to listen to Moses. We will only listen to God if He speaks to us directly� “We don’t need Moses to give us the Ten Commandments – we can just talk to God ourselves and He will reveal these things to us! We don’t accept the authority of Moses. We are just as smart and deserving as he is. How do we know Moses is getting it right anyway?!�

RightReason wrote:


It’s also all there in the historical record of the first Christians.

I agree. Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles nor any of the other early members of the church held Peter in any higher esteem or in any position of higher authority than themselves

That is historically and scripturally inaccurate. As you can see from the following Scripture the other members did in fact recognize Peter’s authority . . .


There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him� (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy


Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Luke 8:45 – when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 – Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 – Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 – Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 – John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

John 21:15-17 – Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,� “tend my sheep,� “feed my sheep.� Sheep means all people, even the apostles.


Acts 1:15 – Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.


Acts 2:14 – Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 – Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 – Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 – Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 10:5 – Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.


Acts 15:7-12 – Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 – only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 – then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…�

2 Peter 3:16 – Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.


https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-primacy-of-peter/

So, how do you know you are reading it correctly? I say it means something different than you. We both love our Lord. Which one of us is right? How can we know?

We rely on the Spirit of Truth.

Riiiiiight . . . and can a person ever be deceived or think they are hearing the Spirit of Truth but in fact it is really their own desires/assumptions/preconceptions/feelings/emotions? Do you think that is something that could possibly happen?

Or maybe I should say, I rely on the Spirit of Truth. God Himself, in the form of the Holy Spirit.

You, on the other hand, apparently rely -- correct me if I am wrong on this -- on the Catholic... fathers?... The Pope(s)?... Anyway, mere men, who I guess you elevate to equality (or at least something very close to it) with God.

I will correct you. I rely on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Church). I rely on Christ’s Church because Christ Himself told us to . . . “He who hears you, hears me� Scripture tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. But I guess you are essentially relying on yourself (a man).

RightReason wrote:


Isn’t your notion of church a bit problematic?

Nope. Not at all.

Soooo . . . if you aren’t hearing an audible voice directly from God Himself, how can you be sure you are getting it right? Because you feel you are right? Because you have convinced yourself you are right? Because you want to be right? What do you say to some other sincere truth seeking Christian who believes something completely differently than you? Logically speaking, you both can’t be right. Are they mistaken? Are you? How can you know? You really don’t find that problematic?

Will you atleast agree it would be really great if Jesus established a visible earthly Church where we could go to know if we were getting it right?

[PinSeeker]

Will you at least agree it would be really great if Jesus established a visible earthly Church where we could go to know if we were getting it right?

Well, I will say two things:

1. He did -- as I have said several times -- establish a universal church. We agree on that fact; we disagree on the nature of it and who (or Who) is the head of it.

2. We should never rely on man, or any institution of man, and that includes you, me, John Calvin, any Catholic theologian, any preacher or pope, or even Paul, or Peter, or any other character in the Bible besides God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit.

As believers, we can always rely on and go to Jesus, Who has never and will never change (Hebrews 13:8) and as such is the only real Rock (Psalm 18:31) and thus is the blessed Rock and God of our salvation (Psalm 18:46)... And we can do this both now in spirit and in person in eternity. As I said before, the word 'this' in verses 17 and 18 of Matthew 16 both refer to Peter's confession -- that Jesus is "Christ, the Son of the living God" -- and so thus to Jesus Himself and not Peter, in verse 16. Peter obviously understood this, because he says it himself in 1 Peter 2 when he quotes Isaiah 28:16 ("Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed"), Psalm 118 ("The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone"), and Isaiah 8 ("Then He shall become a sanctuary; but to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, and a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem") in referring to Christ as the Rock, the Cornerstone. He would never do this if he thought Christ was referring to him (Peter) as the rock on which He would build His Church in Matthew 16:18. To read it otherwise is a terrible misunderstanding, and Peter himself would say that (not to mention Jesus...).

Like the writer of the great hymn (How Firm A Foundation) says,

• "What more can He say than to you He has said? To you, whom for refuge to Jesus have fled..."

And the writer of another great hymn (Rock of Ages) says,

• "Rock of ages cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee. Let the water and the blood, from Thy riven side which flowed, be of sin the double cure. Cleanse me from its guilt and power."

Grace and peace to you.

...can a person ever be deceived or think they are hearing the Spirit of Truth but in fact it is really their own desires/assumptions/preconceptions/feelings/emotions? Do you think that is something that could possibly happen?

Absolutely. I think it's you. You think it's me. Let's just leave it at that, shall we? I think it wise that we both gracefully withdraw from this... well, what is now very repetitive... back and forth. Again, grace and peace to you.

[RightReason]

[Replying to PinSeeker]

2. We should never rely on man, or any institution of man, and that includes you, me, John Calvin, any Catholic theologian, any preacher or pope, or even Paul, or Peter, or any other character in the Bible besides God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit.

But that’s not what God said. Should the Israelites have not listened to Moses? Should no one have listened to Noah? God chooses to speak via certain men. So, what you are saying is getting it wrong. You wouldn’t even know half as much as you do about God if you were determined not to rely on His Church for that.

As I said before, the word 'this' in verses 17 and 18 of Matthew 16 both refer to Peter's confession

Nope. The whole Peter’s confession argument doesn’t work.

*********

God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation� of the church.

Here’s why the popular Protestant interpretation doesn’t work.

First, let’s examine the Scriptural passage in context (Matthew 16:13-19):

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?� And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.� He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?� Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.�

In the span of just three of those verses, Jesus addresses Peter personally ten times. Yet under the Protestant interpretation, we’re supposed to believe that this passage wasn’t meant to apply to Peter personally. It’s allegedly addressed to any Christian making such a profession like the one that Peter makes: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.�
There are a couple glaring problems with this theory. First, we hear Martha making this exact declaration in John 11:27, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.� And you know what Christ doesn’t do? Change her name to Petra, and promise to build the Church upon her. Nor do we see any of the other Christians in the New Testament renamed Peter. The only person in Scripture ever referred to as “Peter� is the Apostle Simon. This looks a lot like Jesus meant to build the Church upon Peter, and not just anyone willing to declare Him the Messiah.

But okay, we don’t know whether Martha or Peter’s confession of faith came first. So maybe Jesus addresses Matthew 16:18 to Peter because Peter got there first?

Well, this raises the other, even more-glaring problem: Peter didn’t get there first. John 1:32-49 eliminates any room for the Protestant interpretation of the “Upon This Rock� passage. Here it is:

And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.�


The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!� The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?� And they said to him, “Rabbi� (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?� He said to them, “Come and see.� They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah� (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas� (which means Peter).


The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. And he found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.� Now Philip was from Beth-sa′ida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathan′a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.� Nathan′a-el said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?� Philip said to him, “Come and see.� Jesus saw Nathan′a-el coming to him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!� Nathan′a-el said to him, “How do you know me?� Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.� Nathan′a-el answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!�

This passage is fantastic. We hear a series of proclamations of the faith:

John the Baptist proclaims Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:34) and the Lamb of God (John 1:36).

The Apostle Andrew, Simon’s brother, proclaims Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ (John 1:41).

The Apostle Philip proclaims Jesus as “him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,� which is to say, the Messiah (John 1:45).

The Apostle Nathaniel proclaims Jesus as “the Son of God� and “the King of Israel� (John 1:49).

In fact, the only person named in this passage who doesn’t profess faith in Christ is Simon Peter. He’s not recorded as saying anything. And yet right in the midst of this flurry of Messianic proclamations, Jesus does something astounding. He turns to Simon, and as if He has been waiting for him, says “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas.� It’s remarkable that Jesus should do this: He calls Simon by name, including his family name (so to speak). He does the exact same thing in Matthew 16:18. This is as personal as it gets. And as St. John notes, Cephas is the Aramaic word for rock, and is translated into Greek as Petros, and into English as “Peter.�

So John 1 basically shows us that: (1) everyone but Simon proclaimed that Jesus is the Messiah; (2) Jesus then announced that Simon, Son of John, was the one He would choose as the Rock; and (3) Protestants are left spending five hundred years trying to explain why this passage doesn’t mean that Simon is really the Rock, or is personally the Rock, etc.

Bear in mind, this event happens at the very start of Jesus’ public ministry, long before the events of Matthew 16. This eliminates any chance that Simon is named Peter because he’s the first to declare Jesus the Christ. Jesus was being declared as Messiah before Peter had even met Him. Instead, Jesus has made it abundantly clear that He, the Sovereign God, specifically chose Peter as the Rock.

Peter is hand-picked from among the crowd, even when he is surrounded by men who seem like they would be better candidates. It is another reminder that “the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart� (1 Samuel 16:7). And Peter alone is renamed. We may all be rocks (Peter calls us “living stones� in 1 Peter 2:5) but Jesus (the “Living Stone� in the fullest sense, 1 Peter 2:4) chose one from among of us, the Apostle Peter, to be the Rock upon which He built the Church.

http://shamelesspopery.com/is-the-rock- ... -of-faith/

RightReason wrote:


...can a person ever be deceived or think they are hearing the Spirit of Truth but in fact it is really their own desires/assumptions/preconceptions/feelings/emotions? Do you think that is something that could possibly happen?

Absolutely. I think it's you. You think it's me. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

If you like, of course I would then submit your theory regarding Christ’s Church is problematic – as it basically means a person could never be sure. It means there is nothing to test what we think against, even though we were told to test everything. If Christ’s Church isn’t visible, earthly, authoritative, holy, or catholic then there is no way to test something. We are merely left being our own little gods swayed by our own desires/assumptions/preconceptions/feelings/emotions/limitations, etc. Seems to me like exactly what Jesus would have liked to prevent, understanding human nature and all. He did mention how He wante one united church. Scripture even showed how immediately following the Jesus' ascension into heaven, there arose differences among His followers. And Scripture tells us how these people took their matter to the Church and had the Church settle the matter and they accepted the Church's authority in doing so. The Church had the final say -- the first Christians knew and respected this.

[PinSeeker]

Should the Israelites have not listened to Moses? Should no one have listened to Noah?

They were prophets, RR, and as such, related God's words to His people (that's what prophets did; that's why God gave prophets to His people). Thus, the reliance of the people was really on God, and not Moses. God spoke through the prophets in those days, but in these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2).

God chooses to speak via certain men. So, what you are saying is getting it wrong.

God chose to speak via certain men in the age of the prophets, before Jesus came. Malachi was the last (the age of the prophets came to a close), and since then there have been no prophets, because it's not necessary. So yes, what I am saying is getting it absolutely right. Peter, along with Paul and the rest of the twelve, were apostles, not prophets, and as such were the first preachers and teachers and evangelists. That was a special time in and of itself, because the Church was just getting started; the age of the apostles is also passed now, though there is a continuing need for preachers and teachers and evangelists and missionaries. Thanks be to God for continuing to gift people in those areas and provide for His people.

The whole Peter’s confession argument doesn’t work.

LOL! For you. I know.

...the popular Protestant interpretation doesn’t work.

LOL! For Catholic folks. I know.

Let's drop it, RR. Grace and peace to you.