Featured Should catholics saved By Grace Of God Forsake the RCC, and depart now?

67 AD when Peter was martyred and left Linus in charge.

 

In your original post you completely ignored the whole context by only providing ONE of these TWO texts and then building your whole argument upon that ONE text as the expense of the SECOND text and thus at the expense of the whole context.

It makes all the difference in the world! First, it destroyed your whole line of argument. Second, If these were members of the Church at Jerusalem which came up to Antioch, and in that debate established the credibility of their doctrine upon their mother church which was the mother church of all New Testament churches when in fact that was not true that explains completely why the church at Antioch chose to send authorized representatives to the congregation at Jerusalem to confirm their testimony and why such a letter was issued.

The dogmaticism was not founded upon PETER'S SUPREMACY.

The dogmaticism was not founded upon JAMES' SUPREMACY.

The dogmaticism was founded upon the authority of SCRIPTURE and APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY (New Testament prophets) confirmed by the HOly Spirit through the church at Jerusaelm - the "WHOLE" church!

1. The use of "whole" church repudiates your UNIVERSAL church theory and "church" council theory.

2. The fact of SCRIPTURE and PROPHETIC testimony of apostles under the leadership of the Holy Spirit confirmed by the "whole" church refutes your dogma theory

 

You are intentionally avoiding his question and the issue he has raised.

Peter was not Pope in Jerusalem as James was in charge.

Peter was not in Rome because he was in Jerusalem.

This effectively destroys the whole Papal doctrine assumption.

 

Oh no you don't! You selectively chose ONE USE of "the faith" as used in the book of Romans to avoid the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT and distort it! You will not get away with this absolute perversion of Romans 4:6-12.

1. The faith is used for the Apostolic doctrine and practice delivered to Rome
2. The faith is used to define the limited extent of certainty in the weak in "faith" - Rom. 14:
3. The faith is used to define the character of faith as a fruit - Rom. 12
4. The faith is used to define the character of justifying faith - Rom. 4:21 which is totally contradictive to the Roman Catholic interpretation of faith.

"faith" used in Romans 4 is precisely defined in Romans 4:21 and it does not refer to any of the other three uses at all.

 

You are begining to sound much like a man years ago I witnessed the gospel to who didn't want to hear it. I was baptist at the time and so I was explaining to him that he needed to repent and believe on Jesus who saves him from his sins and he would be born again as a new creature in God. He often ridiculed christians. And at this point we were in a control center - Air Force underground bunker - he was a big man lifted weights a lot built like Arnold Schwartzenager, and he said he didn't need God. I told him that he was dead in his sins and needed Jesus Christ to be born again and to be saved. He actually stuck his fingers in his ears stomped around the room like a child screaming..."I will not listen...I will not listen...I will not listen!!!!" I was amazed but then I remembered the verse "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." and shook my head. After all I tried to teach him.

I'm glad you admit it

The whole church includes all christians all over the world which is why Apostolic letter from their council was for more than just Jerusalem or Antioch. The Church is universal.

 

No I didn't. He said verbatum

and I answered it.

 

Give us a break! This is a rediculous analogy. If I had used this as analogy for your response you would be screaming this was a personal attack by insinuation!!

I have always admitted that! I have never denied that the Apostles spoke and wrote under inspiration. However, I sincerely hope you are not insinuating that I am admitting to a PERPETUATED VERBAL AUTHORITY because if that is what you are insinuating you have totally misinterpreted my language! The only PERPETUATION of apostolic teaching is the New Testament - period.

There is no way under heaven the words "whole church" in this context can mean that by any stretch of imagination! You talk about perverting context that takes the cake. None of the churches in Asia minor were present (Acts 14:22-23) as Paul takes this letter to them in chapter 16. No church wrote this letter but the local church at Jerusalem.

 

You seem to be questioning the veracity and even the integrity of my post. Do you think I am dishonest in my posting? I have been to Pennsylvania. I have driven through the state, and visited many of the churches there. One doesn't have to drive very far to find a Baptist church.

But here, there is a stretch of road, and more than one, where for 180 miles or more there are no Baptist churches. Dedicated Christians will drive that far to go to a Baptist church. The answer is not as simple as you put it. It is not a matter of preference as you say. There aren't any Baptist churches in the area. Why do you insinuate that I am lying? Have you been here? Do you even know where we live, anything about western Canada? Stop living in ignorance and posting in ignorance!

 

Question to you. Why is Peter always listed first in every listing of the 12 apostles in the New Testament? Why did Jesus emphasise giving Peter

You base your understanding of a pretextual understanding of this passage rather than what the passage actually says.

 

You guys need to do some church planting!!

 

Come and be a missionary. Land wise it is the second largest nation in the world.

 

flimsy arguments. The greek word in the passage

is soi and its singular to Peter thus when read.

It is clear he is addressing Peter singularily and that the keys are singularily in this passage given to Peter.

 

Matthew 16:18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

πετρος

πετρα

There is the verse above. Jesus says: "you are Peter, petros, (rock or small rock), and upon this petra (foundation rock) I will build my church.

Over and over again in Scripture is Christ referred to as the chief cornerstone, the rock, whereas Peter is not. This verse does not refer to him as that either. It simply is a play on words. The "petra", the foundation, is more likely to refer to the testimony of Peter, that Christ is the Messiah, for Christ is the foundation of the church, not Peter.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 

Nowhere does scripture claim to be the SOLE authority - nowhere. Case closed!

WM

 

True - Christ is the chief corner stone. Further, Christ said he would build HIS church - it's not Peter's church. Yet none of that can invalidate that Jesus built his Church upon Peter. You're simply out in left field on that one.

WM

 

There are two different words used. Don't rely on the English. He didn't say he would build it on Peter.

 

The Context:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In context, Matthew 16:13-20 is about Jesus, AND it describes how Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him [PETER] full authority on Earth in anticipation of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In other words, Peter will be Jesus’ representative (look at the significance of a King giving the keys to someone in Jewish culture.) Remember this - “feed my sheep” , “tend my flock”?

Let's disect the scripture...
1. Jesus blesses Simon Bar-Jonah
2. Jesus tell Simon Bar-Jonah that God the Father has revealed Christ’s identity to him [Simon]
3. Jesus tells Simon Bar-Jonah that he is the Rock [Peter] (significant name change)
4. Jesus [now using Simon’s new name ROCK] tells Peter [Rock] that he [Jesus] would build his Church upon him [Peter – Rock]
5. Jesus promises [Peter - Rock] that the gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church]
6. Jesus gives Peter [Rock] the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. (More cultural significance there, Mal)
7. Jesus tells Peter [Rock] that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in heaven. (The power to forgive sin)

THE primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:
"And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ['Peter' is Greek for 'rock'] 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).

"I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter's name is always first. Sometimes it's just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter's name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.


Now let's see what other Protestants think...
ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

 

Not in the Aramaic in which they were speaking. It's Kepha.

WM