Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You don’t have to trust a man you have scripture:
Acts 17
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Those poor Bereans…they have been misunderstood by a whole generation of Evangelicals. Here’s help:

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).
Paul uses Scripture:
So does the Catholic Church.
To me the explanation takes Jesus out of the equation, that must be why GOD in HIS sovernity allowed other denominations to form.
God also allowed Adam and Eve to fall. What does this prove? 😛
ou show from Mt. 18 exactly where this understanding of authority is stated? I agree that men have the authority to forgive sins - this is why we confess our sins to priests - but I know that you do not do this so I’m not sure what “forgiveness” you speak of here.
In Matthew 18 the authority to bind and loose:

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I agree this is evidence of their authority…but you equated that with the forgiveness of sins. Are you saying that priests have this authority?
We can also confess ours to Jesus in prayer.
As can Catholics. However, confession was instituted by Jesus as the normal means of forgiveness of grave sins.
John 20
22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Exactly. That’s what Jesus told a small group of men who became the leaders of the Catholic Church. This authority was not given to all believers.
 
The first time Jesus gave that authority, it was to one and before witnesses. This was as He announced that He was building a Church.

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

The second time Christ said this, it was establishing the authority of His Church. The heirarchy had been established with His first announcement. To the Apostles, appointed by Him, this was, ‘as I told the leader, I tell you.’

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.


No other author in the New Testament used those terms, ‘bind and loose’. The closest we find is when John wrote:

Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

There is no need to re-interpret scriptures. Interpretation of scriptures have been passed down through the ages to present day.

I feel sure you’ve seen it explained before, but I give it again ‘just incase’. There was an intended Apostolic succession. It is scriptural.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

To answer your last paragraph, let me use the example of the canon of the Bible. For 1500 years, there was no disputes on the canon. After the Protestant reformation, Martin Luther decided to use the Hebrew canon over the Greek canon, which took away from the books that had been read and accepted up to that point. The infallible definition of the canonical books came from the Council of Trent in 1556 to prevent further errors from occuring.

We received a Church that came with tradition and scriptures. Some teachings were ‘taken for granted’, for a lack of better words, as they were accepted and believed by everyone. Once teachings become endangered, infallible decisions were proglumated to protect a teaching from being erroneous.

Infalliblity is not something that is abused, the last time an infallible decision was made was over 50 years ago.

Infallibilty does not mean that everything a Pope says is infallible. There are things we are at liberty to disagree with the Pope on.
Such as?
 
Protestants don’t do the “authority” thing. That’s not a game we play. Most Protestants don’t even know why it’s such a big deal for you and yours.
And do you pretend to speak for Protestants here? When the next Protestant arrives into forum and starts pushing sola fide and sola scripture down our throats with an assumed authority can we just say refer to MMMMCOUNTS post here as the definitive ruling on the case that we don’t have to listen to him. BTW - where are the patristics for sola scriptura and sola fide?
Some things within Protestantism are universal. The absence of leadership that claims infallibility is one of them.
Am I misunderstanding a blatant oxymoron here? How can the absence of a thing claim anything from an authority of silence?
You mean you’ll repeat what your leadership tells you to say on any given matter. And what of the traditions that were not handed down by the apostles? For example, none of the apostles pretended to be priests. Are you going to imagine that all the things Catholics do were handed down from the Apostles even though virtually every Catholic tradition/practice that makes you different from me was not handed down from the apostles?
By what tradition to you claim that none of the apostles claimed to be priests? You are sorely misinformed.

*See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). *
No it doesn’t. There is no apostolic support for papal infallibility- or, for that matter, a papacy. Furthermore, there is no patristic support for papal infallibility. It doesn’t come up at all until about 5 centuries after the RC started referring to anyone as “pope.”
Again you are sadly misinformed. Papal infallability derives first from the infallability of The Church that was given the divine promise that “The gates of hell would not prevail.” To teach even a shadow of error would be corruption of the Body of Christ, that is The Church. That would be an occasion where evil prevailed against God. That would render Jesus a liar and an impostor. You don’t intend to say or imply that Jesus is a liar do you?

[continued]

James
 
What do you take me for? I have absolutely no confusion as to the difference between infallibility and impeccability, and the distinction is fairly irrelevant in this particular case. A more relevant distinction would involve the differences between patristic support for papal primacy (which was far from universal) and patristic support for papal infallibility, which was completely non-existent.
See above scriptural reference and rationale. An apostle trumps even an apostolic father.

Building on what was said previously we can add:
That Scripture speaks of the Church as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Thus the Bible calls out to The Church for its context. The Church is Divinely endowed by God with the sole authority to divin scripture and to protect it from the abuses of error such as you attempt to propagate here for your own purposes.

The early Christians knew that they could turn to the apostolic teaching of the Church as a norm for the truth (2 Tim. 1:13). For whoever heard the Church heard Christ (Luke 10:16), and Christ cannot teach error (di fide). The very notion that goes counter to explicit scripture is that the Church could teach error. This is arrogant and is blatantly non-scriptural and is only for those who teach a different non-apostolic gospel. The Church has always removed and anathamized these in so doing as “deserving of a curse” (per Galatians 1:9). Further the Church is granted the divine promise to be guided to all truth by **the power of the Holy Spirit **(John 16:13) – not by the power of text or the fonts of the bible. Christ himself guards his Church from erroneous teaching. If you have a problem with that take it up with Christ but its axiomatic for a Christian that Christ is infallable.

We can continue in this progression to present the clear evidence that Christ intended a divine and mystic relationship between His Church and Heaven when he spoke His words to Peter and to the apostles in Matthew 16 and 18. A teaching authority is implicit in the authority to loose and bind since to judge what is proper in heaven and earth requires sound and divinely guided judgement. Do you think God would authorise fallable men to judge a soul into hell by an unjust denial of apostolic forgiveness? Then how so can the Church teach wrong and lead a greater many number of souls to hell? Absurd.

Further evidence of ongoing divine commitment to infallable teaching is seen in Christ’s entrustment of His Church to Peter to "tend and feed His Sheep (John 21:15-17). Why would God in-trust His Church to an incompetent teacher or leader? Impossible.

So much for scripture. Now consider too the early church father’s words:

*Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]). *

We can stop here as sufficient evidence that there was patristic support for papal infallability. Of course you will probably say this was not the whole Church - to which I say The Church’s ongoing perseverance for 2,000 years is ratification that the true faith lived and the gates of hell (and ignorance) did not prevail as you need to assert to make your case.

But we can give yet more evidence from the patristics:
*
Prior to this, Irenaeus of Lyons said, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

In 433 Pope Sixtus III said that “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.” *
If you happen to look at some Catholic tracts while coming up with another response, I can summarize what you’ll see on this topic. Patristic support for papal primacy will be quote-mined in order to give the illusion that everyone supported it and the move from “primacy” to “infallibility” will be presented as if it were a natural development that grew out of Rome’s growing ability to clarify things. Your Catholic tracts will be careful to avoid saying something like “There is no patristic support for the current doctrine and dogma of papal infallibility, and the idea never existed until the 9th century.” It’s absolutely true, but you won’t find any Catholic tracts that say it.
Ah here it is - just as expected. “The evidence is not sufficient” for you. What is your support for such a statement? Do you have claim to have a superior historical knowledge? Have you written any books? What is your pedigree? Anyone can make assertions of opinion. Catholic can point to the same chair of Peter as our evidence of apostolic succession and authority and all you seem to be able to point to is our Catholic bible and personal opinions.:rolleyes:

James
 
Same as a Catholic.
True for ALL.

Same old posts, just ‘snippets’ with no indication of what you really believe. Read the verse in my signature tweety. Be proud of your faith and share it with others…
 
True for ALL.

Same old posts, just ‘snippets’ with no indication of what you really believe. Read the verse in my signature tweety. Be proud of your faith and share it with others…
What I believce in is Jesus Christ and He died and rose again And I am saved by His amazing love for me. I am proud of my faith in Jesus Christ. What else is there to say.

Ditto for you, same old post same old stuff.
 
What I believce in is Jesus Christ and He died and rose again And I am saved by His amazing love for me. I am proud of my faith in Jesus Christ. What else is there to say.

Ditto for you, same old post same old stuff.
So all one has to do is believe? There are no other teachings that goes along with your faith?

And yes, I will post the same old stuff. It’s what I believe and I’m quite proud of it. I believe it’s all from God.
 
So all one has to do is believe? There are no other teachings that goes along with your faith?

And yes, I will post the same old stuff. It’s what I believe and I’m quite proud of it.
Thats what I do is believe in Jesus Christ and live my life to be pleasing to Him.

Good for you and God Bless you in your journey.
 
Same as a Catholic.
Nope. Protestants are missing too many sacraments and too many truths to give them anything close to an even categorical chance of being able to cooperate with grace to overcome concupiscence to attaing to to heaven AND their highest and best crown that God wants for each soul in heaven. But then again Catholics are held to a much higher standard as well so I wouldn’t dare to try to quantify it except in general terms – “not equal”. But this is off topic anyway…

James
 
Nope. Protestants are missing too many sacraments and too many truths to give them anything close to an even categorical chance of being able to cooperate with grace to overcome concupiscence to attaing to to heaven AND their highest and best crown that God wants for each soul in heaven. But then again Catholics are held to a much higher standard as well so I wouldn’t dare to try to quantify it except in general terms – “not equal”. But this is off topic anyway…

James
Wrong!:eek:
 
That is exactly what one of your fellow Catholics has posted:
No, schiack. I was not affirming your mis-reading of AwGusTeen’s post. I was simply affirming that the CC does indeed teach that outside the church there is no salvation.
 
When Jesus gives the authority to bind and loose to the Apostles in Matthew 18 it is the authority to discipline and forgive people so a person could lead their flock on the right path.

Are the Keys of Heaven something more then this?
Can you show us where the keys are mentioned in Matt 18?
 
So only the Pope can interprete Scripture for the Catholic Church?
Nope. That is not correct, schiack.
Originally Posted by Catholic Answers
Q:“
Are Catholics free to interpret Bible verses without the Church’s approval?

A:
So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office.
Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see “The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation” in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):
• The reference to being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
• In telling the apostles, “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
• In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
• Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
• The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.
Why is there a need for doctrines old and new ones when all we need for Salvation is in the Gospel.
Because without a Magisterium as a central authority, what you get is 40,000 different interpretations of what Salvation is in the Gospel.
 
And you have expressed yours… Thus, who’s opinion should carry more weight - yours or St. Augustines?
Like I said that is St. Augustines opinion. Mine may be different. As far as who’s opinion should care more weight? Its Don’t matter, that would be up to you. I’m intitled to mine just like he is intitled to his.
 
Like I said that is St. Augustines opinion. Mine may be different. As far as who’s opinion should care more weight? Its Don’t matter, that would be up to you. I’m intitled to mine just like he is intitled to his.
Hey rev,

Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It explains everything we believe and I think you’d find we have more in common than you think. At least it would be an opportunity to see the source of our beliefs from the Church. It’s just a suggestion. It’s not expensive in book form, or it’s free online at vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM or scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm . The second one is easier on my eyes, but it appears their server is down at the moment.
 
Hey rev,

Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It explains everything we believe and I think you’d find we have more in common than you think. At least it would be an opportunity to see the source of our beliefs from the Church. It’s just a suggestion. It’s not expensive in book form, or it’s free online at vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM or scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm . The second one is easier on my eyes, but it appears their server is down at the moment.
Thank you for the 2 sites. I went to them just now to get a glimps of what its about and I will, but not in one setting, read them. Yes I do believe we have things in common.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top