Featured What Did jesus mean" Upon This Rock, I Will Build my Church?"

So do the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and every other Christian cult. The problem is not the words used but the meaning each inserts into those words.

Rome does not teach justification by faith as taught by Paul in Romans 3:24-5:2 or as in Galations 1-5. Nor does Rome teach justifying faith as defined by Paul in Romans 4:16-5:2.

So, you can quote the VERBAGE all day long but it is not the VERBAGE that determines doctrine but the DEFINITION or INTERPRETATION that determines the MEANING of that verbage.

 

Matt 16:18 means Jesus started a visible church called the catholic church

The only place the bible says

Faith alone

James 2:24
Douay-Rheims 1601
24*Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

The bible never says bible alone
1 Timothy 3:15
Douay-Rheims 1601
15*But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

No Faith alone scriptures?

See Ephesians 2: 8-10, in the context of Ch. 1-4.

See also: the Book of Romans is filled with the human condition and the Sovereign Grace of God and the inability of man to save himself from his depravity.
"...not of works--lest anyone should boast."

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Again, no Pope Peter and No Roman Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18

 

James is dealing with a different condition of man than Paul and a different audiance than Paul and from a different perspective.

1. Paul's audiance is "before God" while James is before men "shew me...shew you...see"

2. Paul's subject is "the ungodly" while James is "one of you"

3. Paul's is a theological perpective while James is pragmatic.

Contextually defined "one of you" is a person who has come before the assembly and PROFESSED to be a regenerated and justified man and accepted by the assembly for membership based upon submission to baptism (James 1:18; 2:1-9). This is the kind of person that James is considering contextually as "one of you." James is dealing with faith from a post-conversion profession where faith is pragmatically working by love.


Hence, a profession of faith without works in this kind of person would not merely call his PUBLIC profession of faith into question but his regenerative experience because regeneration is being "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" (Eph.. 2:10). Thus in this kind of person faith without works is a visible evidence of a person still spiritually dead and thus a false PUBLIC profession of faith before the assembly.

However, in contrast, Paul is speaking of "the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) prior to making any public confession before men but solely at the point of faith "before God" (Rom. 4:1) previous to any submission to any ordinance of God (Rom. 4:9-12). Paul is considering the character and object of justifying faith while James is considering the public pragmatic evidence of justifying faith ("shew me....shew you...see how" both in the person that is "one of them" and in the public illustrations of Abraham and Rahab.

More significant, James is dealing with faith that is COMPLETELY WITHOUT WORKS as illustrated in the person refusing to provide for the needy and as illustrated by demons.

Paul is dealing with the nature of justifying faith whereas James is dealing with the public evidence of justifying faith which is works.

 

Bibliciist

Are you speaking infallible as Peter did in acts 15:7

Or we're you appointed by the apostles as in acts 1


How come there are baptist hold outs in the middle east or Asia out of the reach of Rome from the 1st century

There is catholic and orthodox in the middle east

 

As has been pointed out before: There are Catholics, and very doubt ones in third world countries, that of set festival days, offer chickens and sometimes goats to a statue of Mary in honor of Mary. I personally see nothing wrong with this as the RCC commits idolatry in so many other ways anyway. But the other Catholics on the board disown them as Catholics right away.

In the same fashion we don't consider Westboro Baptist, a Baptist Church for all the beliefs that it holds to and the practices it engages in. We would put it outside the Baptist camp, though it attaches the name Baptist on it. Not every one who calls himself Christian is a Christian. Not everyone who calls himself Baptist is a Baptist.

 

Just deal with the evidence if you can?

 

So according to baptist History

1- the baptist church started in the middle east at 33ad
2- went underground for 1500 years
3- can out of hiding in Germany and England after Martin Luther and Henry 8
4- then came to further "truths" in the southeast USA recently

It never developed in the Asia, or Africa, or the middle east

 

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

He said He will build his church. He started then with his apostles. It came to fruition on the Day of Pentecost when 3,000 souls were added unto it. On that day the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem was born, and biblical Baptist churches having been multiplying ever since.

 

Funny -- but just as credible as RCC claims.

 

How so?

The descriptive noun "Baptist" is Biblical isn't it - Mt. 3:1?

If you submitted to a Catholic Priest for baptism wouldn't you be considered a Catholic?
If you submitted to a Presbyterian Elder for baptism wouldn't you be considered a Catholic?

Who did Christ submit to for baptism? John The Baptist?

If you built a congregation out of materials prepared by "The Baptist" would not that make it a "Baptist" church? - Lk. 1:17 with Lk. 7:28-29 and Acts 1:21-22.

If that church preached the same "Baptist" gospel as recorded in John 3:36 wouldn't that be a "Baptist" in soteriology?

I would say there is far more scripture to at least INFER the church that Jesus built had "Baptist" origins and practices - Acts 1:21-22; Acts 10:37

 

I don't think it is funny. I believe it.
As far as the RCC is concerned, they did not come into existence until the fourth century. Their claim to Peter in Rome is bogus.
The churches of the NT are what Baptist churches today base their beliefs on, and therefore we believe we are like them doctrinally and in ecclesiastical organization. The RCC cannot say that with their huge money-making organization behind them.

 

Then you believe in a fallicy that cannot be proven via the historical record. Just sayin...

Hmmm... let's look a little closer at those claims...

Below, Irenaus gives a listing of the succession from Peter explicitly stating the Church of Rome as the most ancient and preeminent.

Irenaus Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

-- Later, Augustine confirms this line of succession. --

Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).
2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

The last time I looked, 180 AD comes way before the fourth century. There you have evidence from the historical record showing that you are flat wrong on all of your claims

Uh oh....

The do, they can, and as shown above, they are able to back it up. You guys are so funny...

WM

 

You are correct that the true churches of Christ are not to be found in the record of apostates except a trail of their blood.

However, they are to be found not only in the inspired record but in the predictive prophetic record as their predictive characteristics are placed in contrast with the predicted apostate characteristics of Rome.

 

When you can't defend the indefensible, just claim recorded history to be a "record of apostates" and then implicitly site the fictional "trail of blood". Very nice. You do not convince, but you are still funny.

WM

 

Well, I am glad I bring some humor into your life. However, time will tell if my evaluation of Rome's selective history is the record of apostates wont it?

 

First there it is doubtful that I have error in my doctrine, especially when it concerns ecclesiology which includes the historical record of the "churches."
Second, I don't have a "fallacy."
And third I definitely, absolutely, 100% sure that I don't have a "fallicy." :laugh:

By this time one out of two things had happened, and you haven't given the context of the quote. He either is speaking of those already in error such as gnostics and other groups that are meeting "in unauthorized assemblies" An assembly is a church. Or, less likely, considering the date, it would be the RCC speaking of Biblical churches.

It is good that these writings are not inspired due to the mistakes written in them. The writings are contradictory one to another and in each other.
1. All of the various churches: the one at Jerusalem, the church at Rome, the church at Antioch, the church at Ephesus, all seven churches that are mentioned in Rev.2,3, they are all "universally known." They were all known universally, that is known by the known world of that time.
2. Irenaus is mistaken in some of his history. There is ample proof that Peter was never in Rome, except possibly in the last year or two of his life, and that as a martyr ready to be put to death. He was never in any place of leadership in Rome. That can easily be demonstrated.
3. I think Irenaus believed in many off-the-wall doctrines, one of which may have been that Christ lived to the age of 80, didn't he? I don't believe he is a very trustworthy witness as to history.

He is entitled to his opinion, whether or not it is Scriptural. His opinion may not be right, but the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and they are that which is right, true, and of God.

Paul wrote to the church at Rome before Peter was ever there, and before he had been there. The church had already been established, and it wasn't established by an apostle. Paul doesn't address Peter, not in a greeting, nor in his farewell. He would have if he were in Rome, but Peter was not in Rome. Peter was a non-entity as far as Rome was concerned.

On the other hand what does Paul say:
Romans 16:3-5 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

It is very probable that Priscilla and Aquilla either started or were instrumental in starting the church at Rome. The church was in their house when in its infancy. They were co-workers with Paul, who had laid down their lives for Paul, and for "all the churches of the Gentiles." Notice how the word "church" here is used in the plural. Look at this same passage in another translation, a very literal one.

Romans 16:3-5 Salute Priscilla and Aquilas, my fellow-workmen in Christ Jesus-- who for my life their own neck did lay down, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the nations-- and the assembly at their house; salute Epaenetus, my beloved, who is first-fruit of Achaia to Christ. (Young's Literal Translation)
--A church is an assembly.

As I said, his history is not accurate. In fact it sounds like fiction. Paul lived in his own hired house, a prisoner. Not long after that he was beheaded. Peter was martyred. Every one of the apostles were martyred except John who was an exile to the Isle of Patmos. Others were sent far and wide as missionaries. As early as 52 A.D. Thomas and Barnabas arrived in India as missionaries there, and were also martyred there in 72 A.D. For the "apostles to be conversant with them", the generations of leaders that you mentioned is ludicrous. They left the scene fairly quickly except for John who lingered on in exile to the end of the first century. What chance of direct apostolic teaching did these people have? How about none!

It wasn't Rome; it was Paul who wrote the letter, and Paul did go to Rome. So the history is just being skewed a bit isn't it? Paul wrote a total of 4 letters to the Corinthians, two of which became part of the canon of Scriptures.

If you look on Michael Wrenn website, you will find that he is the legitimate heir being that archbishop of the Celtic Anabaptist Church which also traces its roots right back to Peter pretty much using the same lines that you do. Why should I believe you any more than I believe him?

I put my trust in the Word of God, which says that the local church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the RCC.

 

And if you read my website and report truthfully about my beliefs, you would write why I put those lines there and what my beliefs are about "apostolic succession". Monarchical bishops can be traced only back to the late second century, not back to the apostles. There were only two orders of ministry in the NT and the earliest churches -- deacons, and the other order that all of the following are synonyms for: bishop/elder/presbyter/pastor.

Those of you who are going to great lengths to refute RC claims concerning polity and ministry need to only state the truth of my last sentence in the preceding paragraph.

John Wesley, upon reading Lord King on the primitive church, came to this conclusion and called the doctrine of apostolic succession going back to the apostles a fable. Therefore, a bishop in Methodism is an office, not a third order of ministry.

I know that neither Catholics, Protestants, nor Baptists can figure me out because I don't fit neatly into a category. But at least you could report my views correctly.