Should catholics saved By Grace Of God Forsake the RCC, and depart now?

[DHK]

The Context:

Now let's see what other Protestants think...
ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

I know what Barnes says. I use him all the time. If I can't trust you to quote him accurately, then I can't trust you to quote the others accurately either. I will just conclude your entire post to be unethical and deceitful.
Here is what Barnes said, specifically about Mat.16:18

[FONT=&quot]And upon this rock[/FONT][FONT=&quot], etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter's confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock-- this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah--and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution--the fury of the gates of hell. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Others have thought that he referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa 28:16; 1Pe 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah--upon myself as the Messiah--I will build my church." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Ac 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Ac 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Ga 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Ga 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] "I will make you the honoured instrument of making known[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Will build my Church[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]. This refers to the custom of building, in Judea, on a rock or other very firm foundation. Cmt. on Mt 7:24. The word church means, literally, those called out, and often means an assembly or congregation. See Ac 19:32; Gr.; Ac 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being called out from the world. It means, sometimes, the whole body of believers, Eph 1:22; 1Co 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers, worshipping in one place, Ac 8:1; 9:31; 1Co 1:2, etc. Sometimes, also, a society in a single house, as Ro 16:5. In common language, it means the church visible--ie. all who profess religion; or invisible, i.e. all who are real Christians, professors or not.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Quite a bit different then what you posted isn't it?
[/FONT]

 

[DHK]

Not in the Aramaic in which they were speaking. It's Kepha.

WM

Since you were not there to be an eye-witness you don't know what they were speaking.
The NT was written in Greek.
The Greek is the inspired Word of God. Those are the words that we go by--the very words that God himself inspired. Case closed.

 

[The Biblicist]

flimsy arguments. The greek word in the passage is soi and its singular to Peter thus when read. It is clear he is addressing Peter singularily and that the keys are singularily in this passage given to Peter.

Yes, that is true. However, in what capacity is he giving the keys to Peter? He never addressed the question to Peter but to all the disciples. It is clear from Matthew 18:15-18 it was not directed to Peter in any individual capacity because it is a plural "you" in Matthew 18:18.

It is clear from Peter that every single member of the congregation Jesus claim to build is a metaphorical "stone" (1 Pet. 2:5) and it is clear from Peter that the feminine "petra" upon which the church is built is Christ (1 Pet. 2:8) and not Peter in the capacity of a pope (1 Pet. 5:1-3).

The answer is simple. Matthew 16:18 is a building context.

1. There is a builder named - "I will"
2. There is a building named - "my church"
3. There is a foundation to build upon - "upon this rock"

But where is the material to build with? - "Thou art Peter"

Peter answered in behalf of all the congregation present (Acts 1:21-22) and Christ by design intentionaly characterized the anarthous construct "petros" to characterize the kind of material Christ uses to build His church - the kind that confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. This is exactly where Peter got the metaphor that every single member of Christ's congregation is a "lively STONE." It is "the church" in Matthew 18:17 that is the antecedant of the plural "you" entrusted with administration of the keys in Matthew 18:18. It is the church that administers the key of discipline in 1 Cor. 5:1-13 by a plurality (2 Cor. 2:6).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, that is true. However, in what capacity is he giving the keys to Peter? He never addressed the question to Peter but to all the disciples. It is clear from Matthew 18:15-18 it was not directed to Peter in any individual capacity because it is a plural "you" in Matthew 18:18.

It is clear from Peter that every single member of the congregation Jesus claim to build is a metaphorical "stone" (1 Pet. 2:5) and it is clear from Peter that the feminine "petra" upon which the church is built is Christ (1 Pet. 2:8) and not Peter in the capacity of a pope (1 Pet. 5:1-3).

The answer is simple. Matthew 16:18 is a building context.

1. There is a builder named - "I will"
2. There is a building named - "my church"
3. There is a foundation to build upon - "upon this rock"

But where is the material to build with? - "Thou art Peter"

Peter answered in behalf of all the congregation present (Acts 1:21-22) and Christ by design intentionaly characterized the anarthous construct "petros" to characterize the kind of material Christ uses to build His church - the kind that confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. This is exactly where Peter got the metaphor that every single member of Christ's congregation is a "lively STONE." It is "the church" in Matthew 18:17 that is the antecedant of the plural "you" entrusted with administration of the keys in Matthew 18:18. It is the church that administers the key of discipline in 1 Cor. 5:1-13 by a plurality (2 Cor. 2:6).

Couple of points to bring up. It is clear that Jesus spoke with his disciples in Aramaic. That when Jesus named Peter he did so in Aramaic. How can we conclude this? Simple, straight from scriptures. Galatians 1:18

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

We can see Paul using the name the Lord gave Peter which is Aramaic. Thus the Petros/Petra argument doesn't work. The Lord Named Peter Kephas which is like english in that rock means rock and doesn't use a gender identifier. However, translated into Greek a person isn't going to give Kephas a girl name or Petra which in greek is feminine also giving the term Large rock but a manish name which is Petros or little rock. But the originial intent by Jesus wasn't to call him pebble but rock and names him Kepha.

 

[The Biblicist]

Couple of points to bring up. It is clear that Jesus spoke with his disciples in Aramaic. That when Jesus named Peter he did so in Aramaic. How can we conclude this? Simple, straight from scriptures. Galatians 1:18 We can see Paul using the name the Lord gave Peter which is Aramaic. Thus the Petros/Petra argument doesn't work. The Lord Named Peter Kephas which is like english in that rock means rock and doesn't use a gender identifier. However, translated into Greek a person isn't going to give Kephas a girl name or Petra which in greek is feminine also giving the term Large rock but a manish name which is Petros or little rock. But the originial intent by Jesus wasn't to call him pebble but rock and names him Kepha.

Couple of problems to bring up. Peter is second person singular but "this" rock is third person singular and its grammatical antedent is traced back to his confession in verse 15.

Matthew is written in Greek not Aramaic. Aramaic can be applied to either size of rock - big or small but the Greek term "petros" versus "petra" CAN distinguish the size and Petros is found in Macabees to refer to a small stone.

Peter's own interpetative use of the building up of the church proves that in Peter's mind he merely was used as representative building material because every member is a "stone" in the congregation - 1 Pet. 2:5

Peter's own interpretative use of "petra" proves that in Peter's mind Christ is that foundation stone - 1 Pet. 2:8

Peter's own interpretative perception of his own office proves that in Peter's mind he holds no superior eldership than any other elder - 1 Pet. 5:1-4.

Christ's own application of the use of the keys proves that in Christ's own mind he never intended his statement in Matthew 16:19 to be perceived to be restricted to just Peter but to what Peter characterized - the materials that Jesus builds his churches - baptized believers - in Matthew 18:17-18 and thus a PLURAL "you" JUST AS PETER HIMSELF APPLIES IT METAPHORICALLY IN 1 Peter. 2:5:

1 Pet. 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

From this text we glean these truths

1. All members are EQUALLY metaphorical "stones" which Jesus uses to "build up" his congregation.
2. All members are EQUALLY priests before God
3. All membes EQUALLY offer up spiritual gifts

These three truths totally anihilate Roman Catholicism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Couple of problems to bring up. Peter is second person singular but "this" rock is third person singular and its grammatical antedent is traced back to his confession in verse 15.

I don't see how that is a problem listen to Jesus. "You are rock. And upon this rock" it seems pretty clear.

Matthew is written in Greek not Aramaic

Lets be more honest about this. All the copies that we can point to are Greek copies. There is no certainty that the autograph wasn't writen in Aramaic. Also its clear that Matthew is recalling a discussion which happened originally in Aramaic.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't see how that is a problem listen to Jesus. "You are rock. And upon this rock" it seems pretty clear.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the gospels were written in Aramaic. Second, if your positon were true he should have said, "You are rock and upon you I will build my church. The third person singular has grammatical antecedents in verses 16 and 15.

Lets be more honest about this. All the copies that we can point to are Greek copies. There is no certainty that the autograph wasn't writen in Aramaic. Also its clear that Matthew is recalling a discussion which happened originally in Aramaic.

There is no evidence for your position. There is evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek as he has to provide his audiance with an Aramaic translation of Christ's words in Matthew 27:46.


Matthew is not recalling any discussion. You are confusing John with Matthew. It is John that recalls the discussion and John writes in Greek to non-Aramaic speaking audiance as he has to provide an Aramaic translation.

 

[Walter]

Matthew was prevailed upon by Jewish Christians to write the Gospel of Matthew in the first place. According to Eusebius:
“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.6-7).

Jerome also states that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. I don't know why these guys would fabricate this. It seems like good evidence to me that the gospel of Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew. Matthew was a Jewish tax collector. He was literate so he must have been able to read and write Hebrew. Many of the people who asked him to write the gospel were most likely illiterate. But the ones that could read & write most often learned Hebrew. Saint Jerome states that the Hebrew version of Matthew was still in existence during his lifetime in Pamphilus' library at Caesarea. Jerome also knew that the Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel was in use during his lifetime by a certain group of Christians in Syria.

All this seems to strongly point to the gospel of Matthew orignally being written in Hebrew, not Greek. I have read that it is highly unlikely that Matthew even knew how to read or write Greek. As a tax collector for the Romans, he must also have been able to read and write Latin

 

[saturneptune]

Matthew was prevailed upon by Jewish Christians to write the Gospel of Matthew in the first place.

That is pure baloney. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew inspired by the Holy Spirit. He was not prevailed upon. Like so much of your reasoning, this is not a man made plan, but the hand of God. It makes no difference which language it was originally written in, and it certainly makes no difference what the RCC goofy historians think about it.

 

[Walter]

That is pure baloney. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew inspired by the Holy Spirit. He was not prevailed upon. Like so much of your reasoning, this is not a man made plan, but the hand of God. It makes no difference which language it was originally written in, and it certainly makes no difference what the RCC goofy historians think about it.

I never said that Matthew did not write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If people prevailed upon Matthew to write the gospel doesn't mean that the Lord wasn't behind their doing so. For you to say 'it is pure baloney and made up' is what I would expect out of you. It DOES matter what language it was written in. For one thing, it puts that ridiculous 'petra/petros' argument to rest. As 'TS' said, the fact that Peter was addressed as Kephas AFTER the Lord Jesus changed his name to that supports the fact that Jesus used the Aramaic word for Rock. Are you saying that Catholic historians 'made up what Eusubeus and Jerome wrote? That their writings are forgeries? The 'goofy historians' I'm finding are the Baptist ones like Caroll's inaccurate 'Trail of Blood' nonsense.

 

[DHK]

Matthew was prevailed upon by Jewish Christians to write the Gospel of Matthew in the first place. According to Eusebius:
“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.6-7).

Even in your quote it doesn't say what his native tongue was. It could have been Greek in the Hellenistic society in which he lived. We have over 5,000 MSS of the NT. There is not one Aramaic MS of the gospel of Matthew. In 5,000 MS. not one points to an Aramaic MS of Matthew. You stand on pure speculation, with absolutely no proof.

Jerome also states that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. I don't know why these guys would fabricate this. It seems like good evidence to me that the gospel of Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew. Matthew was a Jewish tax collector.

All of the apostles knew at least four languages, if not more: Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and possibly the language of the part of the country that they were from or went to. Read Acts 2. There are about 13 nations or languages represented there. All spoke Greek, but they all spoke a native language as well. The key to it all is that the NT was inspired in Greek. That is the language that God's Word is inspired in; that is our authoritative source.

He was literate so he must have been able to read and write Hebrew. Many of the people who asked him to write the gospel were most likely illiterate.

Not true. They lived in one of the most literate societies ever. Even the slaves knew Greek. It was a gift from Alexander the Great--to give Greek to the world as a universal language and make it accessible so that all could learn it.
[quote But the ones that could read & write most often learned Hebrew. [/quote]
All Jews were required to learn Hebrew in the synagogues.

Saint Jerome states that the Hebrew version of Matthew was still in existence during his lifetime in Pamphilus' library at Caesarea. Jerome also knew that the Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel was in use during his lifetime by a certain group of Christians in Syria.

If there was a Hebrew translation, it came from the Greek, not the other way around.

All this seems to strongly point to the gospel of Matthew orignally being written in Hebrew, not Greek. I have read that it is highly unlikely that Matthew even knew how to read or write Greek. As a tax collector for the Romans, he must also have been able to read and write Latin

That is pure foolishness. Greek was the universal language of the day. All knew Greek.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Context:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In context, Matthew 16:13-20 is about Jesus, AND it describes how Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him [PETER] full authority on Earth in anticipation of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In other words, Peter will be Jesus’ representative (look at the significance of a King giving the keys to someone in Jewish culture.) Remember this - “feed my sheep” , “tend my flock”?

Let's disect the scripture...
1. Jesus blesses Simon Bar-Jonah
2. Jesus tell Simon Bar-Jonah that God the Father has revealed Christ’s identity to him [Simon]
3. Jesus tells Simon Bar-Jonah that he is the Rock [Peter] (significant name change)
4. Jesus [now using Simon’s new name ROCK] tells Peter [Rock] that he [Jesus] would build his Church upon him [Peter – Rock]
5. Jesus promises [Peter - Rock] that the gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church]
6. Jesus gives Peter [Rock] the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. (More cultural significance there, Mal)
7. Jesus tells Peter [Rock] that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in heaven. (The power to forgive sin)

THE primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:
"And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ['Peter' is Greek for 'rock'] 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).

"I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter's name is always first. Sometimes it's just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter's name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.


Now let's see what other Protestants think...
ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

james, half brother to Yeshua, was recognized as the "Pope" in mother church in jerusalem, peter was Apostle to the jews, but said paul as JUST same authority as he was, Apostle to the gentiles...

Were there 3 popes in early church, so how can there be an Apostolic succession?

 

[DHK]

I never said that Matthew did not write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If people prevailed upon Matthew to write the gospel doesn't mean that the Lord wasn't behind their doing so. For you to say 'it is pure baloney and made up' is what I would expect out of you. It DOES matter what language it was written in. For one thing, it puts that ridiculous 'petra/petros' argument to rest. As 'TS' said, the fact that Peter was addressed as Kephas AFTER the Lord Jesus changed his name to that supports the fact that Jesus used the Aramaic word for Rock. Are you saying that Catholic historians 'made up what Eusubeus and Jerome wrote? That their writings are forgeries? The 'goofy historians' I'm finding are the Baptist ones like Caroll's inaccurate 'Trail of Blood' nonsense.

Many of the heresies that entered the church came from "so-called church fathers." Even the RCC, for example, considered Origen a heretic.
I believe it was Ireneus that believed Christ lived to 80 years old.
Tertullian changed his views on Baptism more than once and in the end became a Montanist.
Which part of Tertullian's life do you conveniently quote in defense of the RCC's teaching?

 

[Yeshua1]

Many of the heresies that entered the church came from "so-called church fathers." Even the RCC, for example, considered Origen a heretic.
I believe it was Ireneus that believed Christ lived to 80 years old.
Tertullian changed his views on Baptism more than once and in the end became a Montanist.
Which part of Tertullian's life do you conveniently quote in defense of the RCC's teaching?

Thta is why we MUST build all doctrines and practices upon a firm foundation, and that is ONLY the Bible!

All other foundations are 'sinking sand"