Matthew 16:18 controversy

[Zaccheus]

tgGodsway,

Agreed that the Holy Spirit was already at work through the five-fold ministry Gifts taught in Ephesians 4:11. He was at work setting up Evangelist, Pastors and teachers around the world.

Agreed.

But this knowledge was slow moving, especially because of Rome

Prove it. What sources prove that Rome obstructed the spread of the Gospel?

who wanted the sole ability to interpret scripture and be in charge of all local bodies.

Who possessed the authority, given by God Himself, to teach the correct interpretation and correct those who taught wrongly.
Perhaps you will retort “prove it”. Fair enough; but I have already repeatedly pointed out the proof that convinces me.
“You are Rock, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

But no one was, or is, exempt from falling into error, regardless of whatever kind of succession they had. We are all successors to those who have gone before us and must “abide” in Christ in order to be led into all the truth found in scripture. Rome is not exempt from this.

This is true. It just does not disprove what I keep saying. You and I, tgGodsway and Zaccheus, are not immune to error and temptation. Neither are the men who lead the Church. But the Church itself has the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

 

[tgGodsway]

You may want to rethink this. Eliakim was the grandson of the master to Hezekiah: house in the line of Judah. I don’t get it.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Unless there is real bible evidence that Peter’s role would change from an Apostle to the gentiles to a special Bishop who would decree doctrine all by himself, at Rome ,all during the exact time the bible tells us he functioned as an Apostle, then I can accept such ideas.

Please re-read po18guy’s most excellent post #33 from 2 days ago. It’s laid out pretty clearly.

 

[Zaccheus]

(I snipped some parts)

tgGodsway

But all human beings are sinners with human frailty, bias, prejudice, and the inability to see certain things until, or unless others come along side to show them. This is true but it is not thorough.

True. Even the Pope is not free of these faults.

But what is the measuring stick to truth? God’s holy word is. Anything I say, or anything you say must be scrutinized by what the Apostle’s doctrine intended to mean.

Good. We’re in agreement that we must trust Gods Word. We only disagree on how to go about discerning the meaning of God’s Word.

Can this be accomplished? yes but it requires due-diligence to “rightly divided the word of truth” and the on going abiding in the Spirit of Christ: These two elements working hand in hand can accomplish it as long as we do not get the attitude that we have arrived. Paul said, Let no man think he stands, lest he fall.

Good. But not all of us can do that. Many are the weak and sinful who need the Word to be rightly divided for us. Christ in His love provided the means. He gave that authority to the Church.

When someone on this site tells me their view on a matter, I must compare it to what I find in scripture. If I do not know scripture, I become at a disadvantage and a candidate for error and false doctrine. If I know scripture, I can compare their “view” with that which has been settled, but only to the degree that I have put my own due-diligence to understand scripture.

Why must you and I do this alone? Why did not Christ provide a trustworthy source to teach us, and a reliable way to identify that source? I believe He did.

St. John told us that we do not need anyone to teach us because we have “an anointing.”

Please cite this passage so I can check it.

If the pope decrees a matter, it is considered a “revelation” since Rome believes God is still speaking in the earth today beyond the 1st… Century Church.
If what he decreed is not taught by the Apostle’s doctrine, or contradicts holy scripture, Rome says it is still God speaking.

No. The Pope is still able to make mistakes and the rest of us know that. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility is much more limited than that.
Check paragraphs five and six.
“Papal Infallibility” is a subset of the Divine protection enjoyed by the Church.

Paul said “if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached, let them be accursed.” Gal. 1

Yes. But we are not arguing about the content of the Gospels. We are in disagreement over how to correctly interpret the Scripture–how to rightly divide Scripture.

 

[exnihilo]

Unless there is real bible evidence that Peter’s role would change from an Apostle to the gentiles to a special Bishop who would decree doctrine all by himself, at Rome ,all during the exact time the bible tells us he functioned as an Apostle, then I can accept such ideas.

Peter wasn’t just a special bishop. He was the Prince of the Apostles. The bishops are the successors to the Apostles. The man who takes the office of bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. That is simply what he is.

Do you believe bishops have authority? If you don’t then it doesn’t really matter if the Bishop of Rome has special authority if you deny all authority of any bishop.

 

[exnihilo]

The scope of what Rome decided about Peter goes beyond the text.

How exactly? If Peter the Apostle instructed you concerning the Faith were you bound to follow him? It seems to me obviously you were. All the Catholic Church says is that this office, as head of the Church, lives on.

I could just as easily say the text nowhere says the office will cease to exist.

 

[AugustTherese]

Wow, you must have worked hard in that, or maybe cut and pasted it. Look I suppose.anyone can find something Jesus did with a disciple, such as John was the only disciples who sat on Jesus lap. But none of it concludes what you say Matt, 16:18concludes. Yes, Peter left a huge impact agreed. Yes, he became a rock for the kingdom of God. The name change signifies a change in disposition much like Jacob was changed to Israel. But these metaphors are all over the gospel. We are salt, we are light, we are a branch etc. The scope of what Rome decided about Peter goes beyond the text.

Did you wittingly omit the fact that Peter alone was given the keys to the Kingdom of God?

 

[po18guy]

If you wish to spread your opinions here, you had better be more respectful of your hosts, as well as of the Catholic Church - who provided you with the scriptures. Your incessant use of “Rome” as a pejorative term will get you banned.

Christians are known by their love. where’s the love? You are posting hate. Please consider reading John 15:9-17 as well as 1 John 3 over and over until you soften your heart.

 

[po18guy]

Very sadly, there is something about bible alone (ego alone) that appeals very strongly to one’s lower instincts. Thus all who disagree are wrong, if not evil.

 

[AugustTherese]

Very sadly, there is something about bible alone (ego alone) that appeals very strongly to one’s lower instincts. Thus all who disagree are wrong, if not evil.

Even more sadly, Bible-alone Christians do not really practice ‘sola scriptura’; they follow their personal interpretation of Scripture and claim their interpretation is what the Bible is saying.

 

[po18guy]

Please address the following BIBLICAL proofs for the primacy of Peter. Sadly, you are hamstrung by your self-imprisonment in man’s doctrine of bible alone as revelation - something that neither our Lord nor the bible ever teaches.

1. Peter is named 195 times in the NT. The closest is John “whom Jesus loved” at just 29 times. All of the rest even less. Peter is always named first, Judas last. Here is a partial list of unique aspects of Peter:
2. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven.
3. Jesus declared Peter to the the rock.
4. Jesus made Peter shepherd (Feed my sheep).
5. Jesus told Peter only to strengthen his brothers
6. Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter.
7. Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
8. Jesus told Peter to “Follow me” at the sea of Tiberias.
9. Jesus called only Peter to Him across the water.
10. Jesus predicted Peter’s three-fold denial.
11. Jesus predicted Peter’s repentance and three-fold affirmation.
12. Jesus prophesied only Peter’s death.
13. Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times.
14. Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane.
15. Peter is always listed first.
16. Peter alone received the revelation of Jesus as Messiah.
17. Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration.
18. Peter pointed out the withered fig tree.
19. Peter entered the empty tomb first - John deferring to him.
20. Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas.
21. Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost.
22. Peter was released from prison by the Angel.
23. Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council.
24. Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Saphira.
25. Peter’s shadow healed.
26. Peter declared the sin of Simony.
27. Peter explained the salvation of the Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem.
28. The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter.
29. The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them.
30. At the empty tomb, the Angel said, “Go tell His disciples, and Peter.”
31. Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple.
32. The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter.
33. Peter’s words silence the first council in Jerusalem.
34. Peter alone received the revelation of the end of the world (elements melting).
35. Peter alone received the revelation of Christ’s descent to hell/sheol.
36. Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain.
37. Peter’s words lead to the conversion of 3,000 at Pentecost.

Be happy to list the verses if you demand them. I can find more references to Peter as prime. Your soul is worth the effort.

 

[po18guy]

In Genesis 3, Eve and Adam (ladies first!) were convinced to privately interpret the words of God. How’d that work out for them?

 

[AugustTherese]

Want to become like God? Read the Bible without the guidance of the Church and Her Sacred Tradition. God really didn’t say you would be cut off. Rather, your eyes will be open.

 

[tgGodsway]

Well if you are still talking about Matthew 16:18, the text says nothing about any office to do anything. This is my point. Christ will build His Church upon the revelation that He is the Christ, this is the Rock of truth Peter had uttered and can now enjoy because he will be able to unlock this kingdom truth for others. Jesus commissioned and acknowledged Peter to do this and then commanded them all to not disclose this divine truth, in verse 20.

But just because Peter said this, did not mean only Peter is involved in the process or that Peter’s office is changing from Apostle to Bishop. This notion is not suggested anywhere in the passage. It is a stretch to imply it without qualifying words in the immediate text. It becomes an invention not based on bible truth but political will from Rome.

What makes it worse is that there is no supportive passage to confirm or validate this so-called papal ministry. No one in the Apostolic circle acknowledged or supported, or even acted like they knew anything about the idea. But Rome did not care anything about that.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Want to become like God?.. God really didn’t say you would be cut off. Rather, your eyes will be open.

Isn’t that what the serpent said to Eve? Hmmm.

 

[tgGodsway]

Here’s exactly how it went beyond the text. I have no problem heeding the teachings of St. Peter. As a matter of fact I thoroughly enjoy 1st. and 2nd. Peter and wish the Holy Spirit would have spoken more through Peter’s teachings.

Secondly, I do my best to obey the instructions given in those epistles because it is the Word of God. I recognize and respect the fact that God used him as an apostle, and unlike some people who do not see him in the light of St. Paul, I see Peter as Paul’s equal in every way.

But I am talking more about the invention of the papacy itself. It all seems to be rooted in Matthew 16:18. or is it rooted in Rome itself? This is where the problem lies.

If there is such an office with all of its special (decree making abilities) and having the sole authority on earth over all local Churches, this truth should have, and must be, celebrated by all of the New Testament writers. But in reality I cannot find this office in Peter’s epistles much less any of the apostolic circle.

This should be troubling to those who understand that truth comes by checks and balances and not just through one verse. I can confidently conclude that the papacy system of government reaches more than what the office of Bishop does, and it’s claims do not have the SUM of Thy Word is Truth… Psalms 119:160 NASV

 

[tgGodsway]

Shall I do a word search to find all of the other places in the New Testament where the kingdom of God is given through other Apostles? to everyone? I can start with the book of Acts.

This metaphor (Keys to the Kingdom) is not repeated anywhere in the New Testament with the exception of an addition to bind and lose two chapters later. Repetition validates. Repetition confirms. Secondly, a metaphor needs an interpretation. On what bases do we conclude that the keys to the kingdom means Papacy? What theological dots reveal this truth?

You should know AugustTherese, to validate bible doctrine is kind of like passing it through congress. Let two or three witness establish it. and confirm.

If you want to the entire Roman Catholic Church on hang on this one theological thread with no other scriptural voices to validate it, (or acknowledge it!) you go ahead. I’m good.

Got to go for now, God’s blessings to you and your family.

 

[po18guy]

The bible states that scripture is twisted by the ignorant and unstable. This was and is done by those who depart from the Apostolic Church.

Are you exempt from the teaching of the bible?

Jesus is meek and humble. Where is your humility?

 

[exnihilo]

Well if you are still talking about Matthew 16:18, the text says nothing about any office to do anything. This is my point. Christ will build His Church upon the revelation that He is the Christ, this is the Rock of truth Peter had uttered and can now enjoy because he will be able to unlock this kingdom truth for others.

Jesus changes Peter’s name. He then says he will build his church on what? The rock. The rock could be the confession of faith. But it makes more sense that it is Peter, who Jesus just so named.

The next sentence says I will give to Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. You say the keys are some sort of knowledge. The Catholic Church says it is jurisdiction. The most straightforward reading is jurisdiction as the term is a phrase for just that. How do you justify spiritualizing the Keys? I mean you could be right, but on what authority do you rightly interpret Holy Scripture? Why should I take your interpretation, or anyone else’s, over the Catholic Church which at least claims to be maintaining the Faith as handed on from the Apostles.

But just because Peter said this, did not mean only Peter is involved in the process or that Peter’s office is changing from Apostle to Bishop. This notion is not suggested anywhere in the passage. It is a stretch to imply it without qualifying words in the immediate text.

Jesus says to Peter I give to you (Peter) the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. How much more direct must Jesus have been? Must he have followed it up with ‘and by this I mean a juridical authority over all the Apostles and their successors the Bishops’? Holy Scripture isn’t written like a legal contract.

If there is such an office with all of its special (decree making abilities) and having the sole authority on earth over all local Churches, this truth should have, and must be, celebrated by all of the New Testament writers. But in reality I cannot find this office in Peter’s epistles much less any of the apostolic circle.

You might be starting with a bad assumption. You likely assume that the Epistles are a comprehensive explanation of the Faith. They clearly aren’t. They are all written to people who have already been taught the Faith. Thus it is reasonable to assume they had been instructed on many points of the Faith. There would be no need to go over everything again. The Epistles are not a complete work but individual letters.

This metaphor (Keys to the Kingdom) is not repeated anywhere in the New Testament with the exception of an addition to bind and lose two chapters later. Repetition validates. Repetition confirms.

How many times must Jesus say something before it becomes true? Think about the Bread of Life discourse. Jesus did say over and over that my flesh is real food which you must eat. And yet many turned away and even today many don’t accept this. So would repetition really matter if you have a firm belief that prohibits a particular understanding?

 

[po18guy]

tg, take your time trying to refute the Church which Christ founded. Consult with pastor, if you have one. Be prepared for disappointment. You have completely ignored history and have forced your template of anti-Catholic personal desire/beliefs over history and Christ’s Church. For this reason, you are never at peace and are full of contention and conflict.

Where is the humility? Where is the love?