# Matt. 16:17-19, the Pope



## rembrandt

I have been looking at this passage a while now, and I have concluded that Peter was the first Pope. But he was the only Pope. Their was no personal succession except that given to the Church at large.

I say this because it does appear that the keys were given [i:4ffd6130f7]especially[/i:4ffd6130f7] to him. He was the first to open the gospel of the NT kingdom on Pentecost etc..
(note: I only used the term &quot;Pope&quot; because it was convienient and throws alot of traditional protestant interpretation off. I believe that every other &quot;Pope&quot; is an antichrist. And that ANY Pope given in the sence of the Roman Church is the antichrist, including Peter.)

Problem with that? Why do you hold to traditional Protestant interpretation?

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-22-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:ea54a67714][i:ea54a67714]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ea54a67714]
I have been looking at this passage a while now, and I have concluded that Peter was the first Pope. But he was the only Pope. Their was no personal succession except that given to the Church at large.

I say this because it does appear that the keys were given [i:ea54a67714]especially[/i:ea54a67714] to him. He was the first to open the gospel of the NT kingdom on Pentecost etc..
(note: I only used the term &quot;Pope&quot; because it was convienient and throws alot of traditional protestant interpretation off. I believe that every other &quot;Pope&quot; is an antichrist. And that ANY Pope given in the since by the Roman Church is the antichrist, including Peter.)

Problem with that? Why do you hold to traditional Protestant interpretation?

Rembrandt [/quote:ea54a67714]

Read Galatians 2.


----------



## rembrandt

note: of course I don't think that we should call Peter a &quot;Pope.&quot; I was only using that as a catch phrase. Don't shoot me! I make a distinction between the early and later Catholic Church, and the early Church used the term until things got out of hand...

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:78c793baf5]Read Galatians 2.[/quote:78c793baf5]

I never said he was infallible in personal practice and execution of his task. Only that there was given to him a special privilege. How long that lasted, I do not know. I just cannot seem to buy into other interpretations of that verse that do all they can not to place emphasis on Peter.

Reminder: I was not being serious about him being THE Pope. And I don't mean it in the way of modern Romans.

Rembrandt


----------



## andreas

&lt;&lt;&lt;I have been looking at this passage a while now, and I have concluded that Peter was the first Pope. But he was the only Pope. Their was no personal succession except that given to the Church at large.&gt;&gt;&gt;

&quot; He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
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&quot;. Matt.16:15-18


Who is the Rock?Peter or Christ?

The Lord is my rock and my fortess 2 Sam.22:2

My God is the rock of my refuge Psalm 94:22

Lead me to the rock that is higher tha i Psa.61:2

O Lord my rock Psa.28:1

For other foundation no one can lay,but that which has been laid,which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor.3:11

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

Give the glory to Christ,and not to Peter,to Christ the true rock.
andreas.


----------



## sastark

Paul,

Take a minute or two and read this short article on Matt 16:

http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html

Now, if you are trying to say that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, perhaps, though we ought to study more church history to find out exactly about that.

Please also understand, that the office of &quot;Pope&quot; as it is today took several centuries to develop. There was not an all-of-a-sudden head of the Roman church (in fact, there wasn't a &quot;Roman&quot; church until centuries after Peter).

Also, to answer one of your questions, I do hold to the traditional Reformed view of the papacy being the man of sin.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:86c7ad1c5e]Now, if you are trying to say that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, perhaps, though we ought to study more church history to find out exactly about that. 

Please also understand, that the office of &quot;Pope&quot; as it is today took several centuries to develop. There was not an all-of-a-sudden head of the Roman church (in fact, there wasn't a &quot;Roman&quot; church until centuries after Peter).[/quote:86c7ad1c5e]

Oh, I know. All I am saying is that I believe that the keys were especially given to Peter (for how long I do not know) along with the church atlarge.

I will read the article.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:5b4ee033bc][i:5b4ee033bc]Originally posted by andreas[/i:5b4ee033bc]
&lt;&lt;&lt;I have been looking at this passage a while now, and I have concluded that Peter was the first Pope. But he was the only Pope. Their was no personal succession except that given to the Church at large.&gt;&gt;&gt;

&quot; He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
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&quot;. Matt.16:15-18


Who is the Rock?Peter or Christ?

The Lord is my rock and my fortess 2 Sam.22:2

My God is the rock of my refuge Psalm 94:22

Lead me to the rock that is higher tha i Psa.61:2

O Lord my rock Psa.28:1

For other foundation no one can lay,but that which has been laid,which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor.3:11

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

Give the glory to Christ,and not to Peter,to Christ the true rock.
andreas. [/quote:5b4ee033bc]

First of all, calling someone a rock doesn't deglorify Christ, or else he wouldn't have named Peter &quot;rock&quot; (not refering to the Matt. 16 passage here).

In Eph. 2:20 the phrase &quot;built on the foundation&quot; is given to the apostles and prophets. Certainly Jesus is the chief stone. But it does not deglorify to say that the church is built on an object other than Jesus. Because saying that it is built on the apostles and prophets assumes that it is built on Jesus first and foremost.


----------



## sastark

[quote:ed4531c827][i:ed4531c827]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ed4531c827]

Oh, I know. All I am saying is that I believe that the keys were especially given to Peter (for how long I do not know) along with the church atlarge.

I will read the article. [/quote:ed4531c827]

Well, if the keys were given to Peter specifically, he had them by himself for all of two chapters in Matthew. 

See Matt. 18:18. Jesus, here talking to his disciples (not just Peter), says: &quot;Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.&quot;

That's the same wording as in Matt. 16. So, even if Peter was given the keys, specifically (which I don't think is correct), they were soon enough given to all the disciples.

Thoughts?


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:2ce217d773][i:2ce217d773]Originally posted by sastark[/i:2ce217d773]
[quote:2ce217d773][i:2ce217d773]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:2ce217d773]

Oh, I know. All I am saying is that I believe that the keys were especially given to Peter (for how long I do not know) along with the church atlarge.

I will read the article. [/quote:2ce217d773]

Well, if the keys were given to Peter specifically, he had them by himself for all of two chapters in Matthew. 

See Matt. 18:18. Jesus, here talking to his disciples (not just Peter), says: &quot;Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.&quot;

That's the same wording as in Matt. 16. So, even if Peter was given the keys, specifically (which I don't think is correct), they were soon enough given to all the disciples.

Thoughts? [/quote:2ce217d773]

You changed my word [i:2ce217d773]especially[/i:2ce217d773] into [i:2ce217d773]specifically[/i:2ce217d773]. I think all the disciples had the keys. I just can't get around the plain fact of Peter's dignitary role in the Gospels and in him opening the gospel of the kingdom in Acts. I'm not saying that Peter had more power than the others, just that he was given an extraordinary task in being the leader of leaders (so to speak)...

Rembrandt


----------



## Ianterrell

Good point Paul.


----------



## andreas

&lt;&lt;&lt;But it does not deglorify to say that the church is built on an object other than Jesus&gt;&gt;&gt;
What is the significance of Matthew16:18?The context is Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah,and it is upon this truth,that Jesus will build his church,further more the gates of hell will not prevail against that church, as it stands upon that foundation.You are assuming that Peter is given authority,which in God's sight does not actually exist.
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:e485b3fcc9]You are assuming that Peter is given authority,which in God's sight does not actually exist.[/quote:e485b3fcc9]

Church authority does not exist in God's sight? Peter is given authority (especially him). Did you not read that he has power to bind and loose along with the other disciples? 

[quote:e485b3fcc9]as it stands upon that foundation[/quote:e485b3fcc9]

What foundation? Eph. 2:20, &quot;built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets.&quot; Of course Christ is the chief cornerstone, but there are many places in Scripture where men are said to be &quot;stones&quot; (or something of the nature). 

In light of this, what is wrong with saying that &quot;upon this rock&quot; is referring to the testimony of the Church (or the Church itself rather), in which the Apostles held up the truthfulness of Christ and restrained the wicked from adulterating the gospel?

Now I will ask, what/who do you suppose is the 'ground and pillar of truth'?

Rembrandt


----------



## andreas

The statement of Jesus follows immediately after Peter's confessin of Jesus as Christ.It is upon the confession, that Jesus is the Messiah, that the church will be build by Christ.Afterall it is His body and He is the head.Peter has no authority to build the body of Christ.Only Chist has the authority.
&quot;For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,which is Jesus Christ.&quot; 1 Corr. 3:11
andreas.

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by andreas]


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:9f56439033]Peter has no authority to build the body of Christ.Only Chist has the authority.[/quote:9f56439033]

Christ gave the apostles authority. Do you really not think this? 

[quote:9f56439033]&quot;For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,which is Jesus Christ.&quot; 1 Corr. 3:11[/quote:9f56439033]

Is that why it was &quot;built on the foundation of [i:9f56439033]apostles and prophets[/i:9f56439033] (Eph. 2:20)?&quot; Of course they built on Jesus Christ. All I am saying is that the apostles and prophets aslo built the foundation. How could you not believe that? 

Answer this question: [quote:9f56439033]Now I will ask, what/who do you suppose is the 'ground and pillar of truth'?[/quote:9f56439033]

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## andreas

There is only one foundation and that is Jesus.Notice the apostle does not say foundations.We , and the apostles are but stones placed on the secure foundation which is Christ.Without a secure foundation you can not have a solid building.
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:7b7755e21c][i:7b7755e21c]Originally posted by andreas[/i:7b7755e21c]
There is only one foundation and that is Jesus.Notice the apostle does not say foundations.We , and the apostles are but stones placed on the secure foundation which is Christ.Without a secure foundation you can not have a solid building.
andreas. [/quote:7b7755e21c]

Yes. And the Apostles continued to lay Jesus' foundation once he ascended. He intrusted them with the gospel (the new revelation of the gospel). The apostles allowed people into heaven and kept people out as they established the church. They were given ALL the authority of Jesus Christ as his [i:7b7755e21c]apostles[/i:7b7755e21c] (i.e. representative messengers, lawyers). Church government is Christ actively reigning in his church on earth.

You still didn't answer my question: [quote:7b7755e21c]Now I will ask, what/who do you suppose is the 'ground and pillar of truth'?[/quote:7b7755e21c]

Rembrandt


----------



## andreas

&lt;&lt;&lt;Now I will ask, what/who do you suppose is the 'ground and pillar of truth'?&gt;&gt;&gt;

I presume you are a Roman Catholic and you are trying to say that the church is the mother of truth.
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:58f4f3ad1e][i:58f4f3ad1e]Originally posted by andreas[/i:58f4f3ad1e]
&lt;&lt;&lt;Now I will ask, what/who do you suppose is the 'ground and pillar of truth'?&gt;&gt;&gt;

I presume you are a Roman Catholic and you are trying to say that the church is the mother of truth.
andreas. [/quote:58f4f3ad1e]

NKJV 1 Tim. 3:15, &quot;the church of the living God, the [b:58f4f3ad1e][i:58f4f3ad1e]pillar and ground of truth[/i:58f4f3ad1e][/b:58f4f3ad1e].&quot;

NIV, &quot;the church of the living God, the [b:58f4f3ad1e][i:58f4f3ad1e]pilllar and foundation of truth[/i:58f4f3ad1e][/b:58f4f3ad1e].&quot; 

That is not only a Roman Catholic belief. Did you know that according to the WCF, the church has power to forgive sins?

Rembrandt


----------



## andreas

&lt;&lt;&lt;That is not only a Roman Catholic belief. Did you know that according to the WCF, the church has power to forgive sins? &gt;&gt;&gt;

'And she shall bring forth a son and thou shall call his name Jesus,for he shall save his people from their sins.&quot; Matt.1:21

&quot;For this is my blood of the new testament,which is shed for many for the remission of sins&quot;.Matt 26:28

&quot;But that you may know that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins&quot; Mark 2:10

I can not see anything here about little booths and Roman Catholic priests sitting in them forgiving sins.

&quot;Without sheding of blood there is no remissin&quot;Heb.9:22.

Whose blood are we taking about?Man's or God's blood?

&quot;But with the precious blood of Christ,as of lamb without blemish and without spot&quot;.1 Peter 1:19

No man can forgive sins,God only can.

andreas.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:4ea5d729c4][i:4ea5d729c4]Originally posted by andreas[/i:4ea5d729c4]
&lt;&lt;&lt;That is not only a Roman Catholic belief. Did you know that according to the WCF, the church has power to forgive sins? &gt;&gt;&gt;

'And she shall bring forth a son and thou shall call his name Jesus,for he shall save his people from their sins.&quot; Matt.1:21

&quot;For this is my blood of the new testament,which is shed for many for the remission of sins&quot;.Matt 26:28

&quot;But that you may know that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins&quot; Mark 2:10

I can not see anything here about little booths and Roman Catholic priests sitting in them forgiving sins.

&quot;Without sheding of blood there is no remissin&quot;Heb.9:22.

Whose blood are we taking about?Man's or God's blood?

&quot;But with the precious blood of Christ,as of lamb without blemish and without spot&quot;.1 Peter 1:19

No man can forgive sins,God only can.

andreas.
 [/quote:4ea5d729c4]

Yes, it is definitely by the blood of Jesus that we are forgiven. The Church has power to retain or remit sins through Church discipline and pronouncing God's judgments. I am just learning this myself from the thread on &quot;authority of the Church&quot; in the theology forum.

This is what the WCF says: 30.1. [quote:4ea5d729c4]The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. 30.2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require. [/quote:4ea5d729c4]

Here are the proof texts: [quote:4ea5d729c4]Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:17-18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.[/quote:4ea5d729c4]

If you do not accept this, you reject Luther, Calvin, and all historic Reformed Churches! 

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt

Read this before you respond: http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/


----------



## andreas

&lt;&lt;&lt;NKJV 1 Tim. 3:15, &quot;the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.&quot; &gt;&gt;&gt;

Christ is the foundation of the church,1 Corr.3:11,which is the product of the truth,Acts 2:41,47,hence the church can not be the foundation of truth.A pillar supports the truth,&quot;thy word is truth&quot; John 17:17,but the pillar itself rests on the solid foundation which is Christ.
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:f6a93586c6]hence the church can not be the foundation of truth.[/quote:f6a93586c6]

But it says its the FOUNDATION! You are in direct disagreement with Scripture. You did not respond to my above post at all. There is no way to get around it. 

Please do not respond again if you don't agree with Scripture.

Rembrandt


----------



## andreas

&lt;&lt;&lt;Please do not respond again if you don't agree with Scripture. &gt;&gt;&gt;

You believe that forgiveness is granted through the priest's absolution, to all those who confess their sins to the priest, who then makes satisfaction for them.Christ send his desciples to proclaim the gospell,and whoever repents and believes is forgiven on the merits of the sacrifice of Christ,while whoever rejects Christ is lost.We have to ask ourselves whether we are judges or messengers.If we are messengers then we proclaim forgiveness through faith in Christ.On the other hand if we are judges then we are invested with judiciary powers to pass sentence as Rome teaches.If you study 2 Corr.5:18-20,it is clear that we are messengers,ambassadors for Christ.Paul did not act as a judge.He performed his ministry of reconciliation through Christ and His cross.He did not act as a judge giving judicial sentences. Acts 13:38,39,tells us clearly that a christian minister acts through the preaching of the word and not by sitting on the judge's seat.Similarly in Luke 24:46-48, we see that sins are remitted in His name.Peter also clearly states that forgiveness is through the preaching of the gospel, Acts10:42,and he says nothing about confession to himself or to a priest as a means of obtainig forgiveness.You preach Jesus and His cross as the only means of forgiveness.1 John 2:12.
We confess our sins to God ,not to some priest.1 John 1:9. Psalm 32:5 says,i will confess my transgressins to the Lord,and Jesus has told us to pray to the Father for forgiveness. Luke 11:2-4.Nowhere in the bible does it say to confess to a priest,and the secret confessins of Rome were only introduced in the seventh century.We should ask God for forgiveness for it is His law that we break and commit sin.Catholics prescribe all sorts of penances,such as prayer,fasting,and almsgiving,however such forms are not supported by the scriptures,as we are only cleansed by the blood,and not by some human penance.
As for your comments that i reject Calvin and the reformers,that is what you say,not i.
What do the scriptures say?Rom 4:3.
andreas.


----------



## fredtgreco

First, Joel Garver is not trustworthy.

Second, the Church has always seen the power of the Church to bind and remit sins as a function of church discipline. That means that the Church recognizes and expresses what is already true in reality in heaven. That is why &quot;wherever two or three are gathered in my name I am in the midst of them&quot; is about church discipline, not a prayer meeting.

Don't take advice from Garver.

{Edited for tone}

[Edited on 5-30-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## rembrandt

andreas, you have written too much for me to attempt to respond. Look over these verses again that you ignored: 
[quote:230d3f2da3]Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:17-18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.[/quote:230d3f2da3]

These are the proof texts the WCF uses. If you do not agree that this doctrine is so, you do not agree with the Reformers. 

Treat these verses and [i:230d3f2da3]then[/i:230d3f2da3] respond.

Read the link again, under &quot;confession of sin.&quot; Note: I do not endorse the writter of this article blog thing, I only think this piece is helpful.

Fred, exactly who is he and why do you say that? I don't know anything about him. I only thought the piece on 'confession' was helpful.

Paul


----------



## andreas

If the church is the pillar of truth then it can not err doctrinally.which, in the case of the Roman catholic church, is far from the truth:
Canon Law On Forbidding to Marry

The following canons are quoted from the CODEX IURIS CANONICI, the current Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, copyright 1983, by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City-

Can. 277 - &sect; 1. Cleric are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and therefore are obliged to observe celibacy, which is a special gift of God, by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and can more freely dedicate themselves to the service of God and mankind.

Can 1037 - An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate is not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless in a prescribed rite he has assumed publicly before God and the Church the obligation of celibacy or professed perpetual vows in a religious institute.

Can 1087 - Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage.

Can 1088 - Persons who are bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage.

So contrary to Paul's instructions, the Catholic priest has been forbidden to marry by Canon Law! What does the word say about this?

&quot;Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, ...1 Timothy4:1-3.

So how can anyone call the Catholic church the pillar of truth?
andreas.


----------



## andreas

Ephesians 2:20, describes the church as &quot;built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.&quot; Obviously and closely related is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says, &quot;Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.&quot; 

The church of Rome takes this rock to be Peter himself and the Popes as the successors of Peter. In fact, Jesus is saying that He is not going to build His church on Peter himself (he was not big enough to be the foundation of the church) but upon Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. That is a firm and unconquerable foundation. 

In that light Ephesians 2:20 must also be interpreted as referring to apostolic teaching and doctrine, to the inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. They are the church's foundation. 

Built upon the teaching and doctrine of the Apostles the church is built upon Christ! He then is the chief cornerstone &quot;in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord&quot; Ephesians 2:21 
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:ebfdc5adfd]So how can anyone call the Catholic church the pillar of truth?[/quote:ebfdc5adfd]

1 Tim. 3:15, &quot;the church of the living God, the [b:ebfdc5adfd]pillar[/b:ebfdc5adfd] and foundation of the truth.&quot; 

Hello??


----------



## rembrandt

&quot;Catholic Church&quot; means universal Church. I am not saying that the [i:e973b16363]Roman[/i:e973b16363] Catholic church is the pillar of truth, but the universal Catholic Church as a whole.


----------



## andreas

I will get back to you on the specific verses you mentioned.
andreas.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Peter calls himself an apostle,

&quot;Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...&quot; (1 Peter 1:1)

and he calls himself an elder,

&quot;I who am a fellow elder...&quot; (1 Peter 5:1)


I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:51bf572da4][i:51bf572da4]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:51bf572da4]
Peter calls himself an apostle,

&quot;Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...&quot; (1 Peter 1:1)

and he calls himself an elder,

&quot;I who am a fellow elder...&quot; (1 Peter 5:1)


I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself. [/quote:51bf572da4]

Peter was a leader of leaders. He was the first to open the gospel of the Kingdom on Pentecost. He was given especial attention my Jesus. He was the only disciple to walk on water. etc. etc. etc. He wasn't perfect, but he had an extra-ordinary calling.

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:25625e6c2c][i:25625e6c2c]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:25625e6c2c]
[quote:25625e6c2c][i:25625e6c2c]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:25625e6c2c]
Peter calls himself an apostle,

&quot;Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...&quot; (1 Peter 1:1)

and he calls himself an elder,

&quot;I who am a fellow elder...&quot; (1 Peter 5:1)


I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself. [/quote:25625e6c2c]

Peter was a leader of leaders. He was the first to open the gospel of the Kingdom on Pentecost. He was given especial attention my Jesus. He was the only disciple to walk on water. etc. etc. etc. He wasn't perfect, but he had an extra-ordinary calling.

Paul [/quote:25625e6c2c]

Ok,

But why then did Peter not chair or lead the Council of Jerusalem? Did that make James the first Pope?

Why do we cease to hear basically anything about Peter after Acts 15, instead with all the focus on Paul? Where does Paul get the right to rebuke Peter [b:25625e6c2c]publicly[/b:25625e6c2c] in Galatians 2?

Wasn't John the only disciple at the cross? Wasn't John the one to whom our Lord committed his mother?

All of these things prove difference and emphasis, none a &quot;pope.&quot;

Finally, Peter can not be more than what Patrick has said, else the Biblical view on ecclesiology is wrong.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:6d6b72ce0e]But why then did Peter not chair or lead the Council of Jerusalem? Did that make James the first Pope? 

Why do we cease to hear basically anything about Peter after Acts 15, instead with all the focus on Paul? Where does Paul get the right to rebuke Peter publicly in Galatians 2?[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]

All I said was that the keys were given to the Church and [i:6d6b72ce0e]especially Peter[/i:6d6b72ce0e]. I don't know how long the &quot;especially&quot; lasted. It could have been until he opened the Kingdom at Pentecost. I don't know.

[quote:6d6b72ce0e]Wasn't John the only disciple at the cross? Wasn't John the one to whom our Lord committed his mother?[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]

Yes, I was also going to point out the pre-eminence of John, to show that some of the apostles were clearly more favored by our Lord than others. Just because Jesus had a close personal friendship with John, it doesn't mean that he was the leader of the band. 

[quote:6d6b72ce0e]All of these things prove difference and emphasis, none a &quot;pope.&quot;[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]

I agree. I said in my first post that I was joking about him being a &quot;pope.&quot; So, you do admit a &quot;difference and emphasis.&quot;

[quote:6d6b72ce0e]Finally, Peter can not be more than what Patrick has said, else the Biblical view on ecclesiology is wrong.[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]

I never said he was more than an apostle, only a very extra-ordinary apostle with an extra-ordinary privilege. 

Paul

[Edited on 5-30-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:399039ad1a]First, Joel Garver is not trustworthy.
{edited for tone}[/quote:399039ad1a]

Who is the fellow, and why do you say that? I only read one thing by him that I thought was helpful.

[Edited on 5-30-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:35e6f4aed9][i:35e6f4aed9]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:35e6f4aed9]
[quote:35e6f4aed9]First, Joel Garver is not trustworthy.
{edited for tone}
[/quote:35e6f4aed9]

Who is the fellow, and why do you say that? I only read one thing by him that I thought was helpful. [/quote:35e6f4aed9]

Ok, I'm in the midst of Sabbath study, so here is a quick comment without an incredible amount of interaction:




[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver is a supporter of the New Perspective
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver is a supporter of Norman Shepherd and his theology
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver believes that his &quot;new&quot; take on covenant theology &quot;solves&quot; all sorts of ecclesiatical problems
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver is a paedocommunist
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver believes in baptism regeneration
[/list:35e6f4aed9]

Here are just a few links:
On Baptismal regeneration
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/wcf.htm

On his support for Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) :
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/ACE.html


A quote on God's ability to &quot;unforgive&quot; sins (from his [u:35e6f4aed9]Apostasy: Introducing the Issues[/u:35e6f4aed9] which was online but the link I have is bad)

[quote:35e6f4aed9]&quot;Apparently, then, God forgives the sins of covenant members so long as they persevere within the covenant by faith, working in love. But if they apostatize in ingratitude and hatred, then their sins will no longer be forgiven and they will fall under God's condemnation.&quot;[/quote:35e6f4aed9]

Here's an interesting observation on Garver's (bad) influence on Wilson:

[quote:35e6f4aed9]
Finally, much of this book is derived from a fairly uncritical use secondary sources and does not evidence much wrestling with the primary sources of the Reformed tradition itself. Every time he quotes from Calvin, it is from a secondary source. In fact, most of his important arguments are derived from four sources: Peter Leithart, Joel Garver, Randy Booth, and especially, Lewis Schenck, whose book The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant was recently republished by P&amp;R Publishing. 

Schenck is especially interesting; as a former minister in the PCUS, Schenck was trained with the best neo-orthodox education money could buy in those days (Davidson, Union Seminary in Virginia). His book is dedicated to vindicating Horace Bushnell's view of Christian nurture by rescuing Calvin from the 19th century Calvinists. But in my view, his appeals to Calvin (along with others made more recently, such as those by Mark Horne and Rich Lusk) are pretty selective and flawed. In brief, Calvin must be read as a whole in all his defenses against the Anabaptists in order to discern properly his view of baptism; it doesn't appear that Schenck (with Horne and Lusk) do that. Still, Wilson using Schenck makes some interesting bedfellows.

I wonder, though, for someone who is claiming to walk in the "old paths in the right ways," why Wilson hasn't done the heavy lifting of looking at Calvin directly, pondering other Reformed folks from that first Reformation generation, considering the debate among the Westminster divines on WCF 28, and investigating early American Presbyterian usage of baptism? If one is going to put their views out there, and claim that his Reformed brothers are not "Reformed enough," it would be good actually to have looked at the material himself, rather than relying solely on friends who write articles and books.

From: http://www.lucaslexicon.blogspot.com/
[/quote:35e6f4aed9]


----------



## andreas

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;andreas, you have written too much for me to attempt to respond. Look over these verses again that you ignored: 

quote:

Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:17-18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;


The keys of the kingdom refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ.You can not get into the kingdom without Christ.Proclaiming salvation in Christ is the duty of all true christians.The authority to bind and loose,is the commission to proclaim the gospel, which liberates those who believe it and binds those who reject it.Furthermore, the words of Mattew 16,18,and John 20,were not only spoken to the apostles but also to those believers that were with them.We are to preach repentance,but nothing here about hearing confessions and granting forgiveness of sins.It is the word of God that has the power,not the mere man that proclaims it, let alone forgive sins. All three quotations are misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic church in order to support her tribunal upon earth.All of us have the duty to preach the gospel,and those who believe are freed from the old serpent ,while those who reject it remain his slaves.
&quot;if the son makes you free you shall be free indeed&quot;.John 8:36
andreas.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:6b7e40ca89]All three quotations are misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic church[/quote:6b7e40ca89]

If you are going to make that statement, you must also say that Luther, Calvin, the Reformed Churches and Creeds were wrong. And you must also admit that you do not hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith on this one. Rome uses all kinds of proof texts for various doctrines that Protestants also use. The problem comes when Rome institutes foreign things such as the sacrament of penance etc.

You completely ignore even the modern Protestant interpretation of these verses, that they are referring to Church discipline and not just preaching the gospel. 

[quote:6b7e40ca89]We are to preach repentance,but nothing here about hearing confessions and granting forgiveness of sins.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]

Oh really? [quote:6b7e40ca89]John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]

The Church has a ministry of forgiveness and a ministry of withholding blessing from the unrepentant. God is working through the Church during Church discipline. This is not the mere doing of men.

[quote:6b7e40ca89]WCF 30.2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]

Paul


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:e373e82471]Evangelical scholar D. A. Carson writes, "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter" (Carson 1986, 368).[/quote:e373e82471]

My interpretation that Peter is the 'rock' spoken of in this passage is very Evangelical.


----------



## rembrandt

andreas, is it wrong to call anyone "pillar(s) of the church" who is not Jesus Christ?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:bce937a80e][i:bce937a80e]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bce937a80e]
[quote:bce937a80e]Evangelical scholar D. A. Carson writes, "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter" (Carson 1986, 368).[/quote:bce937a80e]

My interpretation that Peter is the 'rock' spoken of in this passage is very Evangelical. [/quote:bce937a80e]

I must admit that this is somewhat typical of Carson, who speaks in bold strokes and thrusts aside the past. He also is a good evangelical, and that causes otehrs to make the mistake of hearing him uncritically.

So should we agree with Carson, or:

Ryle
[quote:bce937a80e]
The Lord Jesus Christ tells us, "Upon this rock will I build My Church." This is the Foundation upon which the Church is built. What did the Lord Jesus Christ mean, when He spoke of this foundation? Did He mean the apostle Peter, to whom He was speaking? I think assuredly not. I can see no reason, if He meant Peter, why He did not say, "Upon thee will I build My Church." If He had meant Peter, He would surely have said, "I will build My Church on thee," as plainly as He said, "To thee will I give the keys." No, it was not the person of the apostle Peter, but the good confession which the apostle had just made! It was not Peter, the erring, unstable man, but the mighty truth which the Father had revealed to Peter. It was the truth concerning Jesus Christ Himself which was the rock. It was Christ's mediatorship, and Christ's Messiahship. It was the blessed truth that Jesus was the promised Saviour, the true Surety, the real Intercessor between God and man. This was the rock, and this the foundation, upon which the Church of Christ was to be built.
Ryle, J.C. [i:bce937a80e]Holiness : It's Nature, Hinderances, Difficulties and Roots, 214.[/i:bce937a80e][/quote:bce937a80e]

And A Brakel:
[quote:bce937a80e]
Objection #1:
"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" (Matt. 16:18). They say that Christ here makes an extraordinary promise to Peter upon his glorious confession, this promise being that Christ would build His church upon him. Peter therefore of necessity must be the chief of all the apostles and the head of the church.
Answer:
(1) The promise here made to Peter by Christ is that He indeed was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that He would therefore not build his church upon a sandy foundation, but rather upon Himself as the immovable Petra, that is, rock. He would make this foundation so solid and immovable, that all the subtlety and power of Satan would not be able to prevail against her, and that therefore Peter also had no reason to fear, but would also certainly be kept and established. Upon this he could reflect with comfort after he had denied Him thrice; and not only he, but also all the other apostles who were present, as well as all who cherish the preservation of themselves and of the church. He should therefore not be offended when he would observe that Christ died on the cross, and when he would encounter many adversities in his office as apostle. This is the literal meaning of these words. It is thus evident that there is no reference whatsoever to the supreme headship of Peter.
(2) Petros (Peter) and Petra are clearly distinguished here, just as these two words are distinct in their original meaning. Petros refers to a stone, a pebble, or a brick. Petra refers to rock layer, or a rocky mountain formation upon which one would build a house. Such houses are so immovable and strong that they can withstand storms, torrential rains, and floods, which is not true of those which are merely built upon sand (cf. Matt. 7:24-27). The Lord Jesus here refers to Peter as Petra, making an allusion to his name as the Lord Jesus generally did in His parables which are recorded in the gospels. From Petros He proceeds to Himself, calling Himself Petra, having previously been promised by that name. "I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste" (Isa. 28:16). "The stone which the builders refused" (Psa. 118:22). 
In the New Testament these texts are applied to Christ. It is therefore also stated concerning Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:4, "For they drank of that spiritual Rock ( Petra) that followed them: and that Rock ( Petra) was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4). Christ is likewise called Petra in Romans 9:33, where we read, "...rock ( Petra) of offence" (cf. 1 Pet. 2:7).
(a) Christ is called Petra in God's Word, however, and this name Petra is never attributed to Peter.
(b) The endings of the words petros and petra are different. The one noun is masculine, and the other feminine.
(c) The conjunction which is placed between the two words indicates that the subsequent word petra has a different meaning from the previous word petros. It is therefore not stated that the church will be built upon Peter, an apostle, but upon Christ, the spiritual Petra.
(3) What is stated concerning this petra cannot be said of Peter; namely, that the church would be built upon him, and that therefore, being built upon this petra, the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Is the church built upon a man? Is she immovable because of a man? Is everyone called to put his trust in a man, and to make flesh his arm and strength? A curse is pronounced upon such in Jeremiah 17:5. Those who, having hearts of stone, wish to put their trust in a pope-in a man whose heart is as hard as a rock-will with him not escape the curse. "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD" (Jer. 17:7). Christ is the foundation, the only foundation upon which the church is built. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). This was the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. They were not the foundation themselves, but they laid this foundation by preaching Christ, "Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:20-21). The apostles, and thus also James, Cephas, and John, were eminent supporters of this congregation which was built upon Christ. For this reason they are called "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). Therefore Peter is not the petra, that is, the foundation upon which the church is built, but it is the Lord Jesus Christ who endures forever, is omnipotent, and preserves Peter and the church from apostasy, causing her to remain unmovable against all the attacks of the devil. The name "Cephas," as Peter is called in Galatians 2:9, is not a derivative of the Greek Word &amp;#922;&amp;#949;&amp;#966;&amp;#945;&amp;#955;&amp;#942; ( kephal&amp;#305;= head), but rather of the Syrian word &amp;#1499;&amp;#1488;&amp;#1508;&amp;#1488; ( kepha= stone), which was the language Christ and the apostles used, as was generally true of all the Jews at that time.
a Brakel, Wilhelmus. [i:bce937a80e]The Christian's Reasonable Service, Volumes 1 and 2 : In Which Divine Truths Concerning the Covenant of Grace Are Expounded, Defended Against Opposing Parties, and Their Practice Advocated as Well as The Administration of This Covenant in the Old and New Testaments[/i:bce937a80e], II.112.[/quote:bce937a80e]

John Owen:
[quote:bce937a80e]
The disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ having made that great confession of him, in distinction and opposition unto them, who accounted him only as a prophet, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"(Matt. 16:14, 16), he does, on the occasion thereof, give out unto them that great charter of the church's stability and continuance, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," verse 18. He is himself the rock upon which his church is built, as God is called the rock of his people, on the account of his eternal power and immutability (Deut. 32:4, 18, 31, Isa. 26:4); and himself the spiritual rock which gave out supplies of mercy and assistance to the people in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4).
The relation of the professing church unto this rock consists in the faith of this confession, that he is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." This our Lord Jesus Christ has promised to secure against all attempts; yet so as plainly to declare, that there should be great and severe opposition made thereunto For whereas the prevalence of the gates of hell in an enmity unto this confession is denied, a great and vigorous attempt to prevail therein is no less certainly foretold. Neither has it otherwise fallen out. In all ages, from the first solemn foundation of the church of the New Testament, it has, one way or other, been fiercely attempted by the "gates of hell." For some time after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, the principal endeavors of Satan, and men acting under him, or acted by him, were pointed against the very foundation of the church, as laid in the expression before mentioned. Almost all the errors and heresies wherewith for three or four centuries of years it was perplexed, were principally against the person of Christ himself; and, consequently, the nature and being of the holy and blessed Trinity. But being disappointed in his design herein, through the watchful care of the Lord Christ over his promise, in the following ages Satan turned his craft and violence against sundry parts of the superstructure, and, by the assistance of the Papacy, cast them into confusion, nothing, as it were, remaining firm, stable, and in order, but only this one confession, which in a particular manner the Lord Christ has taken upon himself to secure.
Owen, John. [i:bce937a80e]The Glory of the Trinity[/i:bce937a80e]: Taken from the Works of John Owen, Volume 2 (Preface).[/quote:bce937a80e]

Matthew Henry:


> The interests of the church in general, that they shall not sink, or be run down; underneath the church is that rock of ages on which it is built, and against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, Mt. 16:18. (Henry, Matthew. on Dt 33:26)
> 
> First, Some by this rock understand Peter himself as an apostle, the chief, though not the prince, of the twelve, senior among them, but not superior over them. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, Eph. 2:20. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundations of the new Jerusalem, Rev. 21:14. Now Peter being that apostle by whose hand the first stones of the church were laid, both in Jewish converts (Acts 2), and in the Gentile converts (Acts 10), he might in some sense be said to be the rock on which it was built. Cephas was one that seemed to be a pillar, Gal. 2:9. But it sounds very harsh, to call a man that only lays the first stone of a building, which is a transient act, the foundation on which it is built, which is an abiding thing. Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all question.
> Secondly, Others, by this rock, understand Christ; &quot;Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I will build my church.'' Perhaps he laid his hand on his breast, as when he said, Destroy this temple (Jn. 2:19), when he spoke of the temple of his body. Then he took occasion from the temple, where he was, so to speak of himself, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of that; so here he took occasion from Peter, to speak of himself as the Rock, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of Peter. But this must be explained by those many scriptures which speak of Christ as the only Foundation of the church; see 1 Co. 3:11; 1 Pt. 2:6. Christ is both its Founder and its Foundation; he draws souls, and draws them to himself; to him they are united, and on him they rest and have a constant dependence.
> Thirdly, Others by this rock understand this confession which Peter made of Christ, and this comes all to one with understanding it of Christ himself. It was a good confession which Peter witnessed, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; the rest concurred with him in it. &quot;Now,'' saith Christ, &quot;this is that great truth upon which I will build my church.'' 1. Take away this truth itself, and the universal church falls to the ground. If Christ be not the Son of God, Christianity is a cheat, and the church is a mere chimera; our preaching is vain, your faith is vain, and you are yet in your sins, 1 Co. 15:14-17. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. 2. Take away the faith and confession of this truth from any particular church, and it ceases to be a part of Christ's church, and relapses to the state and character of infidelity. This is articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesia-that article, with the admission or the denial of which the church either rises or falls; &quot;the main hinge on which the door of salvation turns;'' those who let go this, do not hold the foundation; and though they may call themselves Christians, they give themselves the lie; for the church is a sacred society, incorporated upon the certainty and assurance of this great truth; and great it is, and has prevailed. (on Mt. 16:18)
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful here.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 5-31-2004 by fredtgreco]
Click to expand...


----------



## rembrandt

It doesn't seem like any of them, except maybe Henry, gave much thought to the fact in Eph. 2:20 the apostles and prophets are said to be an [i:d1f471006a]actual foundation themselves[/i:d1f471006a]. There is nothing wrong with calling people &quot;stones&quot; (1 Pet. 2:5), &quot;foundations,&quot; or &quot;pillars,&quot; as long as we understand that we don't stand by ourselves, but by the chief and corner stone, Jesus Christ. There are alot of different foundations (pillars, walls, cement on top of other cement) to houses, but it only has one undergirding foundation upon which the other supporters (or foundations) of the &quot;spiritual house&quot; rests.

It seems like alot of the interpretations above are outgrowths of not wanting to call man a &quot;foundation&quot; in any sence.

Paul

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## andreas

Ryle,Owen,and Henry, put it much nicer than my feeble attempts to prove that the rock is, the confession Peter made,in other words, Jesus.
andreas


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:da6378b135][i:da6378b135]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:da6378b135]
andreas, is it wrong to call anyone "pillar(s) of the church" who is not Jesus Christ? [/quote:da6378b135]


----------



## pastorway

Rembrandt, 

you are completely missing what the keys of the kingdom are, and Peter is not the rock.......

The church cannot forgive (absolve) sins, only God forgives sins.

And your position on this matter and on the issue of the authority of the church is Roman, not Protestant, Reformed, or orthodox.

Check these out before continuing this discussion:

Upon This Rock

Jesus, Peter, and the Keys

Documentation of the Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18

The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18

Phillip


----------

