Which Church??

[Randy_Carson]

How many say the keys were only for Peter and one successor at a time ?

These do.

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

Martin Luther

**“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) **

W.F. Albright

“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

William Barclay

We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by setting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom…

Oscar Cullman

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

 

[benhur]

Ben-

You have seen from my postings that scholars from many different Protestant denominations have concluded that in Mt. 16:18, Peter is the rock.

We can talk about God, Jesus, the apostles ALL being rock and foundation stones in various verses, but Jesus promised to build His one church on one rock, Peter.

Be specific…what type of church do you attend? Is it affiliated with any particular denomination?

Non denominational is covered under Vat 2 and are part of the salvific church.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

You must like the phrase, Topper, as you’ve repeated it 4 or 5 times now.

I think I have charged Melanchthon with a bald-faced lie (actually several) more than 4 to 5 times now, and those accusations have not been countered with anything of any substance. If you have anything factual to refute that charge, well, this would be the place to post it. If on the other hand, you would prefer to just object in a very non-specific way, well, that works for me too. Your choice.

My certainty is based on the fact that Articles I through XXI of the CA reflect the truth of the Gospel, and the teaching of the historic Church Catholic.

What “fact” Jon? IF you are ‘certain’ there must be some kind of actual ‘evidence’ or some sort of compelling argument that would make you actually ‘certain’ rather than just ‘pretty darned sure’. What I am interested in is, specifically and exactly (of course), WHY you are certain. If you can’t provide that, then………………maybe you shouldn’t be so ‘certain’, just ‘pretty darned sure’.

Jon, you KNOW that Lutheranism does not agree with the ‘teaching of the historic Church Catholic’, that is, UNLESS you are willing to completely redefine the term ‘Catholic’, with a capitol ‘C’ rather than a small ‘c’. That capitol “C” would indicate to almost 100% of the Christians in the world the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church. The capitalization of that ‘C” is, as far as I can tell, the ‘work’ of ONLY a very small group of individual Lutherans. I have never seen anything official from any Lutheran body which claims that it is ‘Catholic’.

You might be willing to ‘redefine’ what it means to be ‘Catholic’ but the Church from which that term has been misappropriated might not be so willing to be ‘diluted’ by your ‘self-inclusion’. Neither Luther nor Lutheranism had or have the Right to redefine whatever suits you. Luther was famous for his redefinitions, which by the way are absolute proof that his beliefs were NOT the teaching of the ‘historic Church Catholic.’ If in fact he was not trying to mislead, he would have ‘allowed’ to stand the historic definitions so crucial to the understanding of our faith.

“At the heart of the church doctrine that came out of Luther’s Reformation was the axiom he enunciated in 1517: ‘The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.’ As it stood, the axiom echoed the language of theologians East and West throughout the centuries, none of whom would have questioned it. Yet all the decisive terms in this axiom – such words as ‘church’, ‘gospel’, and ‘grace’ – came to mean something in the sixteenth century that many of these theologians would not quite have been able to recognize or acknowledge. Luther himself admitted as much when, in explaining it, he observed that ‘the gospel of God (as he had learned to understand it) is something that is not very well known to a large part of the church’ and something that he had not learned from the scholastic theologians.” Pelikan, “Reformation of Church and Dogma”, (1300-1700). (Written when Pelikan was still a Lutheran)

(In Luther’s quest for Salvation by Faith Alone) –** “One word stuck in his way, the word ‘righteousness’ in Romans **1:17 – ‘For the righteousness (iustitia) of God is revealed from faith to faith, for the just (or righteous) shall live by faith.’ ‘I hated this term ‘the righteousness of God,’ for by the use and custom of all the Doctors, **I had been taught to understand ‘righteousness’ philosophically as they say, the formal or else the active righteousness by which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous.” **Marius, pg. 192

In also discussing Luther’s ‘arrival’ at Salvation by Faith Alone, Protestant Theologian Paul Tillich states:

**“It is Luther who derives a new concept of conscience from the experience of justification through faith; neither Paul nor Augustine did so.” **Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. 145

“**For now, the Leipzig Debate prompted him to redefine his definition of the church more precisely.” **(Lutheran Theologian) Markus Wriedt, “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 99

So – Luther redefined several critical terms such as ‘church’, ‘conscience’, ‘justification’, ‘grace’, ‘gospel’, and ‘priesthood’ to name just a few. I would suggest that after 1500 years, maybe Christianity had already figured out the correct definition of terms, and didn’t really ‘need’ someone to redefine them ALL.

And I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise.

Jon, I have noticed that as I get (even) older and (even more) crotchety, I care less and less what people believe UNLESS they can tell WHY they believe what they believe. When people explain that WHY, I pay attention. When they simply make pronouncements (opinions) and state them as if they were facts, I tend to be less than impressed.

I would suggest that anyone who has read very much of what I write here, understands specifically and exactly WHY I hold the opinions and positions that I do. I think that my positions tend to be a little better substantiated than much of what people post here. If you want to oppose my positions and opinions, those oppositions should include some actual substance, or an argument based on logic and reason and maybe possibly also from actual FACTUAL history. Simply stating that you don’t agree with my opinion, without offering ANYTHING of any substance, is – well – not all that compelling.

 

[eazyduzit]

No. I am prepared to say if I am wrong, it is not by much, for we all agree Peter and the apostles are our "rocks, foundation, living stones’’ per scripture(Peter/Revelations). It is the fashion in which he is the rock that we would then disagree on.

Yes, great question, and let me add that the reason Jesus must be the rock on which the Church is built and no man, is that He is the only one who is an immoveable point, eternally stable without a hint of wavering. EVERYTHING else is shifting sand, but any one building on Him will be stable and secure.

Now, the reason the CC must choose Peter is not because he is seen as such a massive bulwark of stability, but because of the claimed connection which, in turn, is the source for all authority claims in this church.

There are two apposing motivations operating here so it is useless to think we could ever agree.

 

[Topper17]

Yes. He in a rather cowardly way, went to Augsburg, participated in colloquies with Eck and others under the eye of civic leaders, discussed the issues you say were left out.

Jon, you have the list of things that he ‘cowardly’ left out and you have learned, from my posts, the opinions of about a dozen Scholars, including Lutherans. Your opinion doesn’t seem to fit the evidence all that well.

Everyday. I think it is my obligation as a Lutheran to evaluate prayerfully, if being in division with the Bishop of Rome, the western patriarch, is justified. That continues to be my daily contemplation. As it stands, the issue of universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope remains an teaching I cannot yet agree to. And the ecumenical dialogue has yet to reconcile the division.

Ok Jon, but that would mean that you would be willing to listen to arguments and it would also indicate that you would be willing to consider the historical facts that Lutheranism is built on a foundation which is ‘something less than stable’. Yet, I don’t see all of the facts about Augsburg as having had any impact on your ‘confidence’ in your Confession.

What Jon is the role of the actual facts in your considerations regarding the Church?

I would suggest that you leave that up to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. And I shall leave it up to our leadership.

This is exactly the position that EC has taken, and as you well know, the “Dialogue” has YET to take up the issue of Papal Infallibility, in what Jon – 50 years? I guess that they are trying to ‘stay positive’, which means that they are ignoring the facts, which means that we are NOT going to be united. Maybe they are more interested in APPEARING to be ‘ecumenical’ than making any significant progress. As for me, I would prefer that they actually did some of the really tough work that is involved with accomplishing ANYTHING hard. I would bet thought that everyone on both sides are really nice people.

I think the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome teaches vasts amount of truth. I continue to pray for the reconciliation that you have declared impossible. But in all honesty, your declaration holds no weight.

There is NO WAY that Lutheranism will be allowed as some sort of ordinate within the Church as long as they will not reject those official charges of the pope as the antichrist and all of those anti-Catholic statements in your Confession. I don’t think that would be asking too much. Yet in the past, you have said that you think that there could be some sort of official reunification without an official rejecting of those statements on the part of Lutheranism. That is of course “optimistic”, but is also extremely unrealistic. There is also the issue that Lutheranism will NEVER reject ANY of the Lutheran Confession. To do so would be to admit FAR TOO MUCH.

How long have you been here, actually? And let me ask this; how many times have you contributed the truthful teachings of the Catholic Church for me to consider?

Then perhaps, Topper, there is something amiss in your perspective of Lutheranism.
Topper, you’ve provided no argument in favor of the Catholic Church. None! Virtually never! No facts, no evidence, in favor of the Catholic Church. Where is the Catholic Church in your arguments? A number of months back, on a different thread, I had to tell you what the I.C. was.

You are really smart, well read, Topper. I have to hand it to you; you have built up an impressive amount of background knowledge about Luther and Lutheranism, that serves your purpose well. Even if I were to accept your POV on Luther and Lutheranism in its entirety, even if I rejected Lutheranism, nothing you’ve said opens a door to Catholicism.

You know Jon, I am really happy that we are getting along well enough for you to offer me advice about how to ‘do’ apologetics. Given that advice, I have some to offer you also.

When someone asks you a question, just simply answer it, as openly and in as straightforward a manner as possible. That would have a wonderfully positive impact on our discussions. As an example, I have asked you (again) at least about a dozen times about who the ‘adherents’ are. The fact that I cannot get an answer is actually nothing more than an admission of the WORST.

As you know, I am not the only one with this frustration:

……….please don’t skirt the issue by saying that you would go out of your way to avoid controversial subjects which I know is your preference.

Jon, the reason that I make a lot of the comments that I make is because I KNOW that there is no response that you can possibly make that will not reveal FAR MORE about Luther and Lutheranism than you want revealed. If I am wrong and there are actually reasonable and plausible answers and responses that can be offered, then, by all means, please provide them. On the other hand, the fact that you refuse to deal openly with these comments and questions only serves to prove my point.

As an example, I have asked you at least a dozen times who the ‘adherents’ are in you Confessional document? IF there was an answer that could be provided that is NOT extremely offensive towards individual living Catholics, well……………I’m sure that answer would have been provided by now.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[joe371]

Benhur

Good question and quest. Gumperism would say apostolic is as apostolic does.

Your answer to the following: How can I locate the church in the world today, founded by Jesus, as opposed to a church founded by another person?

I think so .Those are names and events much further down the road in History]i.e.

If it is accurate to say that the apostles did not belong to the Catholic Church, then which church in the world today, did they belong? We know it’s still here because the bible discusses the perpetuity of Jesus’ church, keeping in mind that the premise is: neither the Catholic Church nor the Protestant Churches qualify.

 

[joe371]

benhur;

I am using the word as I believe Jesus did. The word has a different meaning today. There is One Body. It is not Buddhist, nor Hindu, nor Muslim. It is “christian”, folk who have been "called out "(ecclesia).

Where in scripture does scripture tell us that word has a different meaning today?

Also, based on what you have said, I can only interpret Jesus’ church, as every church, regardless of denomination. If that is true, then at least I finally understand your perspective. Phew, finally…In other word, Jesus’ church started out as one, and as time progressed more and more churches founded by other people were grafted in so to speak?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Topper, you’ve provided no argument in favor of the Catholic Church. None! Virtually never! No facts, no evidence, in favor of the Catholic Church. Where is the Catholic Church in your arguments? [trimmed] Even if I were to accept your POV on Luther and Lutheranism in its entirety, even if I rejected Lutheranism, nothing you’ve said opens a door to Catholicism.

Not only is the Catholic Church absent from Topper’s arguments, but it is also absent in the posts from the vast majority of regular Catholic posters in the Non-Catholic forum section as of late. That was glaringly obvious in a Primacy thread I had a couple of months ago. I changed the religion field a couple of times on purpose to see what the reaction would be, and what do you know… sink and draw bait immediately… really sad.

You are without a doubt a class act and an incredible christian, you are a living model of what it means to maintain a Christian attitude when under attack. I truly admire this quality of yours.

Remember to report before replying when defending yourself or others. I have learned that the hard way…

God Bless you brother.

 

[eazyduzit]

ben-

Those are great questions, and we should address them one by one.

But first, are you prepared to say that you believe that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus is the Builder and Peter is the rock?

Indeed, a question of primary importance, but as I break it down, you will see that it is hopeless to think we can ever agree, since we are coming at it in order to serve two opposing goals.

For me, only Jesus can be the rock since He claims to be the only solid point of reference that can never move, shift, or vasilate. His word has been established in heaven for ever.
I see that the very point of the passage is to put the focus on Jesus. Everything must flow from the answer to “Who do you say that I am”.

Now for some reason the CC wishes to shift the focus of stability to Peter. Why? Because it needs to do this to establish an exclusive authority claim for itself. This is huge because now the CC has carte blanc to establish anything it wants and no one can question. How great is that?

My motivation is that the focus must always be Jesus. He is the reason for everything. He is the purpose and the center of everything the Father does. To shift any of the glory away from Him,would be an unthinkable position.

 

[Chong]

You’re from China? Is there any need for the Church to operate in a cautious way there?

Why would Peter put his successor’s name in writing when the courier could be searched and the letter confiscated by the Romans?

Was there any need for Peter to say anything about the keys since all of the early Church would have been taught orally and not from a Bible? And would it have been an example of humility if he had? Take a look…

1 Peter 5:1 – Peter a “fellow elder”

Many non-Catholics try to minimize the authority of the Catholic Papacy by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

However, could it be possible that the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Peter’s desire was that some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that he of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Would this have inspired them to practice humility, also?

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.

I agree with you on this one. The spirit of the apostles Peter included is of Humility. Jesus is our perfect example in humility.

 

[Techno2000]

Now for some reason the CC wishes to shift the focus of stability to Peter. Why? Because it needs to do this to establish an exclusive authority claim for itself. This is huge because now the CC has carte blanc to establish anything it wants and no one can question. How great is that?
.

Right, Jesus rathers thousands of little protestant popes running around out there for better stability.

 

[Chong]

Chong, this is incorrect, and I have already quoted 25 Bible Scholars who disagree with you. You have not responded to that material, yet.

Petros and Petra–Much Ado About Nothing

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false.** In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]). **

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

In Matt 7:24, Jesus used the word ‘rock’ in a real situation. I wonder if the word used is petra or cephas. This is just because the book of Matthew was not originally written in Greek
In Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ… Paul wrote in Greek; is the word used to refer to the ‘rock’ Cephas or petra?
With these we can track the usage and meanings of the phrase in relation to Simon Peter as the rock.

 

[Chong]

You have chosen to place yourself ‘under’ only those persons who generally agree with your interpretation of Scripture, because of their general agreement with your interpretation of Scripture, just as St. Paul described when he said that in the last days people would “accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” (2 Tim 4:3) But that is no submission at all, because if I submit to a person on the basis of his agreement with me, in actuality the one to whom I am submitting is me. Just because you agree with someone’s interpretation of Scripture, and you voluntarily join his group, this does not mean that he has any divine authority over you whatsoever; it is just a way of hiding from oneself that one has taken the highest interpretive authority to oneself, by setting up for oneself humanly appointed ‘elders/bishops,’ and feigning submission to God by ‘submitting’ to them. Otherwise, if joining a group on the basis of one’s agreement with that group’s interpretation of Scripture entailed that the leaders of that group had divine authority, then it would be rebellion against God to leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, even if you had come to believe by your own study of Scripture that their interpretation of Scripture is false.

The persons you have accumulated to yourself as ‘teachers’ are not the elders/bishops God has placed over you. The Catholic bishop of your diocese is the divinely-established shepherd to whom you rightfully owe obedience, not just any person who happens to hold your interpretation of Scripture, and is able to raise enough money to build a building with a sign out front that says ‘church.’

Moreover, you don’t really believe that the leader of the Protestant congregation you presently attend has the authority to bind your conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture, because if you did believe that, you would have undermined the ‘right’ of Protestants (such as Luther and Calvin) to follow their own conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture and to rebel against the Catholic bishops of the sixteenth century under whose authority they had been divinely placed at their baptism. You can’t acknowledge there to be any human person who has the divine authority to bind your conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture, without thereby undermining the whole existence of Protestantism and thus your current religious position as a Protestant. As soon as you acknowledge that some human person other than yourself has the authority to bind your conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture, you’ve just sawed off the branch on which Protestantism sits.

In the OT, Deut 6:6: And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 9: And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

The words of God were to be a guiding principle at every point.

In the NT, the Words of Jesus are very important. Today the scriptures are available, they are the guiding principle. The bishops may teach, but the guiding principle is the Word of God.

 

[Chong]

Babylon is Rome

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox).

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).

Eusebius Pamphilius, in History of the Church, composed between the years 300 and 325 AD, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon” (2, 15, 4).

Chong, I have provided you with quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who admit that Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18.

Do you still deny this?

Let’s assume that its figurative, because there was an actual place called Babylon.
The obvious reason to liken Rome with Babylon would be either center of governance, Idolatry, or captivity. These would be more specific to Jews.
The Roman Empire was made up of different races, cultures, languages etc. Peter was not writing to believers in Jerusalem who understood ‘Babylon’ that way, but to believers who were spread out in cosmopolitan cities and regions. Except in Revelation where Babylon is also used figuratively, we see Paul using the word Rome. Nowhere does even Luke in the book of Acts refer to Rome as Babylon.

The readers of Peter’s letter were of the same region where the seven churches of Revelation are based. If Peter’s audience understood Babylon to refer to Rome figuratively, then the 7 churches interpreted Rev. 17 the same.

I’m yet to get your post on “quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who admit that Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18.” I’ll look for it.

 

[Chong]

This is very Catholic.

And if your church really believed that we can’t do anything to deserve the free GIFT of salvation, it would baptize babies.

Catholicism believes so deeply that salvation is a free GIFT that it even offers it to babies, who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve this gift. Nothing at all.

And yet we baptize babies.

Does your church do this, eazy?

I did a research on the practice of baptism. Baptism was a ritual for non Jews when they converted to Judaism. They would dip themselves in water as a sign of conversion, they would also be circumcised.
This was very relevant to Jews but not to other races. The water was also used extensively for cleansing. This started in Exodus where one would purify himself with water. At the wedding of Cana of Galilee, John 2:6: And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews… The water was of the same usage.

In actual sense, the water did not purify, but it was symbolic. When John the baptist was baptizing, people wondered the reason behind it. Luk 3:10: And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? 11: He answered and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. This was in preparation for the Messiah.
After baptism, the internal transformation was to be manifested externally by their changed actions. By then babies were not being baptized as they were not able to change their behavior.

The word “Baptism” is a translation of the Greek word BAPTIZO which means to immerse in a substance. In Hebrew it is referred to as a MIKVEH - an immersion. This is in contrast to antéxomai which is translated as “sprinkle”.
Baptisms are of many kinds; water baptism, baptism of fire, baptism of the Holy Spirit. These are events that would happen at different occasions and for different purposes.

Baptism does not confer salvation. Salvation is a transformation that comes after after accepting Christ. Baptism is performed to those who believe.

 

[Techno2000]

After baptism, the internal transformation was to be manifested externally by their changed actions. By then babies were not being baptized as they were not able to change their behavior.

The Baptism of infants

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

 

[Chong]

The Baptism of infants

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

Baptism from the original practice and meaning is by immersion.
Apostle Paul has explained baptism in Rom6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Here, the apostle teaches that baptism is symbolic. It does not make one a child of God.
Apostle Peter in 1Pet1:5: says; Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Faith in Christ is the one that makes a person a child of God. There is no one place that says that when one is baptized he becomes a child of God, even Jesus never implied that perception.

Apostle Paul in 1Cor7:14: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. He teaches that at birth what determines whether a child is clean is the faith of the mother. Afterwards, the laying of hands by a man of God; Jesus also laid hands on children and stated that the kingdom of God is of those who’ll be like children. Luk18:16: But Jesus said, let the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Thereafter, the responsibility is upon the parents to consecrate the child to God daily until he’s able to learn faith in God.

 

[Chong]

Indeed, a question of primary importance, but as I break it down, you will see that it is hopeless to think we can ever agree, since we are coming at it in order to serve two opposing goals.

For me, only Jesus can be the rock since He claims to be the only solid point of reference that can never move, shift, or vasilate. His word has been established in heaven for ever.
I see that the very point of the passage is to put the focus on Jesus. Everything must flow from the answer to “Who do you say that I am”.

Now for some reason the CC wishes to shift the focus of stability to Peter. Why? Because it needs to do this to establish an exclusive authority claim for itself. This is huge because now the CC has carte blanc to establish anything it wants and no one can question. How great is that?

My motivation is that the focus must always be Jesus. He is the reason for everything. He is the purpose and the center of everything the Father does. To shift any of the glory away from Him,would be an unthinkable position.

I concur with you eazyduzit!

 

[Techno2000]

Here, the apostle teaches that baptism is symbolic.

This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you–not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21

 

[JustaServant]

Remember to report before replying when defending yourself or others. I have learned that the hard way…

God Bless you brother.

Report what? Jon is an able debater. Topper is a bit of a novice. They seem to be handling things fairly well. The only person who appears to be offended is you.
Make sure you report this post too.