Matt. 16.18--A View Biblically Considered

Frogman · Oct 13, 2003

John Gill on Matt. 16.18

And I say also unto thee, &c.] Either besides what he had
already said concerning his happiness; or, as the father had revealed
something great and valuable, so likewise would he; or inasmuch as he
had freely said and declared who, and what he was, in like manner he
also would say what Peter was, thou art Peter: intimating, that he
was rightly called Peter, or Cephas, by him, when he first became a
follower of him, #Mt 4:18 Joh 1:42, which words signify the same
thing, a rock, or stone; because of his firmness and solidity, and
because he was laid upon the sure foundation, and built on the rock
Christ, and was a very fit stone to be laid in the spiritual
building. The aptness of this name to him is easy to be seen in his
full assurance of faith, as to the person of Christ, and his free,
open, and undaunted confession of him.

And upon this rock will I build my church: by the church, is meant,
not an edifice of wood, stones, &c. but an assembly, and congregation
of men; and that not of any sort; not a disorderly, tumultuous
assembly, in which sense this word is sometimes taken; nor does it
design the faithful of a family, which is sometimes the import of it;
nor a particular congregated church, but the elect of God, the
general assembly and church of the first born, whose names are
written in heaven; and especially such of them as were to be gathered
in, and built on Christ, from among the Jews and Gentiles. The
materials of this building are such, as are by nature no better, or
more fit for it, than others: these stones originally lie in the same
quarry with others; they are singled out, and separated from the
rest, according to the sovereign will of God, by powerful and
efficacious grace; and are broken and hewn by the Spirit of God,
generally speaking, under the ministry of the word, and are, by him,
made living stones; and being holy and spiritual persons, are built
up a spiritual house: and these are the only persons which make up
the true and invisible church of Christ in the issue, and are only
fit to be members of the visible church; and all such ought to be in
a Gospel church state, and partake of the privileges of it: these
materials are of different sorts, and have a different place, and
have a different usefulness in this building; some are only as common
stones, and timber; others are as pillars, beams, and rafters; and
all are useful and serviceable; and being put, and knit together,
grow up as an holy temple to the Lord: and are called, by
Christ, "my" church, because given him by the Father; and he has
purchased them with his own blood; are built by him, and on him;
inhabited by him, and of whom he is the head, king, and governor;
though not to the exclusion of the Father, whose house they also are;
nor of the Spirit, who dwells in them, as in his temple. This church
Christ promises to "build". Though his ministers are builders, they
are but under builders; they are qualified, employed, directed,
encouraged, and succeeded by him; he is the wise, able, and chief
master builder. This act of building seems to have a special regard
to the conversion of God's elect, both among Jews and Gentiles,
particularly the latter; and to the daily conversions of them in all
ages; and to the building up of saints in faith and holiness; each of
which will more manifestly appear in the latter day; and are both
generally effected through the word, and ordinances, as means, the
Spirit of Christ blessing them. By the rock on which Christ builds
his church, is meant, not the person of Peter; for Christ does not
say, upon thee Peter, but upon this rock, referring to something
distinct from him: for though his name signifies a rock, or stone,
and there may be some allusion to it; and he is so called because of
his trust and confidence in the Lord, on whom he was built; but not
because he was the foundation on which any others, and especially the
whole church, were built: it is true, he may be called the
foundation, as the rest of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are, #Eph
2:20, Re 21:14 without any distinction from them, and preference to
them; they and he agreeing in laying doctrinally and ministerially
Christ Jesus as the foundation of faith and hope, but not in such
sense as he is; neither he, nor they, are the foundation on which the
church is built, which is Christ, and him only. Moreover, what is
said to Peter in these, and the following words, is not said to him
personally and separately from the rest of the apostles, but is
designed for them, as well as him, as appears by comparing them with
#Mt 18:18. As he spoke in the name of them all, to Christ; so Christ
spake to him, including them all. Peter had no preeminence over the
rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted;
nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ, who often showed
his resentment at such a spirit and conduct, whenever there was any
appearance of it in any of them; see #Mt 18:1-3, 20:25-28 and though
Peter, with James, and John, had some particular favours bestowed on
him by Christ; as to be at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and at
the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, and with him in the
garden; and he appeared to him alone after his resurrection, and
before he was seen by the rest of the disciples; yet in some things
he was inferior to them, being left to deny his Lord and master, they
did not; and upon another account is called Satan by Christ, which
they never were; not to mention other infirmities of his, which show
he is not the rock: and, after all, what is this to the pope of Rome,
who is no successor of Peter's? Peter, as an apostle, had no
successor in his office; nor was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope
of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but here, by the rock, is
meant, either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor
form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of
Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ
himself, who points, as it were, with his finger to himself, and whom
Peter had made such a glorious confession of; and who was prefigured
by the rock the Israelites drank water out of in the wilderness; and
is comparable to any rock for height, shelter, strength, firmness,
and duration; and is the one and only foundation of his church and
people, and on whom their security, salvation, and happiness entirely
depend. Christ is a rock that is higher than they, where they find
safety in times of distress, and the shadow of which is refreshing to
them; and therefore betake themselves to him for shelter, and where
they are secure from the wrath of God, and rage of men: he is the
rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; and is the sure, firm,
and everlasting foundation on which the church, and all true
believers, are laid: he is the foundation of their faith, and hope,
and everlasting happiness, and will ever continue; and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it. The Jews speak of the gates of
hell: sometimes of the gate of hell, in the singular number {p}; and
sometimes of the gates of hell, in the plural number. They say {q},
that

" Mnhygl vy Myxtp hvlv, "hell has three gates", one in the
wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem."

They talk {r} of

" an angel that is appointed Mnhygd yert le, "over the gates of
hell", whose name is Samriel; who has three keys in his hands, and
opens three doors."

And elsewhere {s} they say, that

" he that is appointed over hell his name is Dumah, and many myriads
of destroying angels are with him, and he stands Mnhygd axtp le, "at
the gate of hell"; and all those that keep the holy covenant in this
world, he has no power to bring them in."

Our Lord may allude to these notions of the Jews, and his sense be,
that all the infernal principalities and powers, with all their
united cunning and strength, will never be able to extirpate his
Gospel, to destroy his interest, to demolish his church in general,
or ruin anyone particular soul that is built upon him. Again, the
gates of "Hades", or hell, sometimes seem to design no other than the
gates of death, and the grave, and persons going into the state of
death; see #Job 38:17 Isa 38:10 where the Septuagint use the same
phrase as here; and then the sense is, that neither death, nor the
grave, shall finally, and totally prevail over the people of God, and
members of Christ; but they shall be raised out of such a state, and
live gloriously with him for ever. By it here is not meant Peter
himself; though it is true of him, that Satan, and his posse of
devils that beset him, did not prevail against him, so as to destroy
his grace, hurt his estate, and hinder his salvation: nor could
death, in all its frightful appearances, deter him from holding, and
preaching, and maintaining the doctrine of Christ; and though death,
and the grave, have now power over him, yet they shall not always
detain him: but rather, it designs the doctrine Peter made a
confession of; which, though it may be opposed by hell and earth, by
Satan, and his emissaries, by the open force of persecutors, and the
secret fraud of heretics, it may be brought into contempt by the
scandalous lives of professors; and though the true professors of it
may die off, yet truth itself always lives, and defies the power of
death, and the grave: or else the church in general is meant, and
every true believer. These words do not ascertain the continuance of
anyone particular congregated church, but secures the church
universal, which will continue as long as the sun and moon endure,
and the perseverance of everyone of God's elect; and assure that
death, and the grave, shall not always have the dominion over the
saints, but that they shall be rescued from them. Once more,
this "it" may refer to Christ the rock, who, though he was brought to
the dust of death, by the means of Satan, and the powers of darkness,
yet to the ruin of him that had the power of death; and though death,
and the grave, had power over him for a while, yet could not hold
him; he rose victorious over them, and ever lives, having the keys of
hell and death, to open the gates thereof, and let his people out
when he thinks fit.

{p} T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 39. 1. Succa, fol. 32. 2. Bava Bathra, fol.
84. 1.
{q} T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. Menasseh ben Israel, Nishmat Chayim,
fol, 33. 1, 2.
{r} Zohar in Gen. fol. 47. 4.
{s} Ib. fol. 7. 1
Click to expand...

Frogman · Oct 13, 2003

The following is shorter than what I opened this thread with. Because of this I thought some may be more inclined to read it. Note each of these are pre-Luther and each of these speak of Baptist distinctives.

hummmm.....

"1. Bernard, abbot of Foncaud, in his treatise against the sect of the Waldenses, ch. vi. accuses only some of them of having no pastors; which shows, as he very properly remarks, that the body of that church had a fixed ministry before the end of the twelfth century. . . .

"Reinerius Saccho, who lived about the year 1250, acknowledges that in Lombardy, where he himself resided, they had their bishops or pastors. . . . Again, Matthew Paris (under the year 1243) speaks of a bishop of the Paterines in Cremona, who was deposed by them for fornication. And, further, Pilickdorf, a writer quoted by Bossuet in his history of the Variations, p. 223, says, 'they do not approve of a layman's celebrating the eucharist,' ch. 1, which sufficiently proves, says Dr. Allix, that they made a signal difference between the people and their pastors."[11]
Click to expand...

Frogman · Oct 13, 2003

I know this is difficult for you guys to read, after all it isn't in Latin. And I am sure that it bothers you more that Gill is already passed on and that half way through this you are itching to build a bonfire and have a pep rally, but please try to read through before you burn your PC's, maybe you won't learn something, but then again, maybe you will.

That last thought brought up another question: Are you afraid you will or you won't learn something?

BobRyan · Oct 13, 2003

You forgot to mention - Matt 16 is where Christ addresses Peter as "Satan".

Also 1Cor 3 is where Paul informs us that there is only ONE foundation for the church - and that is Christ.

In 1Cor 10 he tells us that the Rock - the Petros is Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

Stephen III · Oct 13, 2003

Froggy,

You wrote:

That last thought brought up another question: Are you afraid you will or you won't learn something?
Click to expand...

Another question?
Where, in that long oration of Gill's interpretation of Matt16:18, are we to find a question?

Are you looking for an adverse reaction to something in particular, or to the whole?
Or, perhaps you're looking for the "amen" choir of like minded Protestants?

Frogman · Oct 13, 2003

Tried to shorten for you guys to make it more readable.

Bro. Bob, this is Gill speaking and not me. Note the portion below, he does address the falsehood of Peter being ever established in any office above any other.

Stephen III, if I were a Protestant, I might just be looking for that Amen corner. But I have never been in a protestant church possessing such a corner. Since I am not a protestant, I cannot be seeking their approval. What I am posting is historical evidence of the Baptist distinctives. The second post I made is better than Gill. They were before Gill and before Luther and note how there is found Baptist distinctives among the Waldenses.

I tried to highlight the main points.

Again, Gill

these
materials are of different sorts, and have a different place, and
have a different usefulness in this building; some are only as common
stones, and timber; others are as pillars, beams, and rafters; and
all are useful and serviceable; and being put, and knit together,
grow up as an holy temple to the Lord: and are called, by
Christ, "my" church, because given him by the Father; and he has
purchased them with his own blood; are built by him, and on him;
inhabited by him, and of whom he is the head, king, and governor;
though not to the exclusion of the Father, whose house they also are;
nor of the Spirit, who dwells in them, as in his temple. This church
Christ promises to "build". Though his ministers are builders, they
are but under builders; they are qualified, employed, directed,
encouraged, and succeeded by him; he is the wise, able, and chief
master builder. This act of building seems to have a special regard
to the conversion of God's elect, both among Jews and Gentiles,
particularly the latter; and to the daily conversions of them in all
ages; and to the building up of saints in faith and holiness; each of
which will more manifestly appear in the latter day; and are both
generally effected through the word, and ordinances, as means, the
Spirit of Christ blessing them. By the rock on which Christ builds
his church, is meant, not the person of Peter; for Christ does not
say, upon thee Peter, but upon this rock, referring to something
distinct from him: for though his name signifies a rock, or stone,
and there may be some allusion to it; and he is so called because of
his trust and confidence in the Lord, on whom he was built; but not
because he was the foundation on which any others, and especially the
whole church, were built: it is true, he may be called the
foundation, as the rest of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are, #Eph
2:20, Re 21:14 without any distinction from them, and preference to
them; they and he agreeing in laying doctrinally and ministerially
Christ Jesus as the foundation of faith and hope, but not in such
sense as he is; neither he, nor they, are the foundation on which the
church is built, which is Christ, and him only. Moreover, what is
said to Peter in these, and the following words, is not said to him
personally and separately from the rest of the apostles, but is
designed for them, as well as him, as appears by comparing them with
#Mt 18:18. As he spoke in the name of them all, to Christ; so Christ
spake to him, including them all. Peter had no preeminence over the
rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted;
nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ, who often showed
his resentment at such a spirit and conduct, whenever there was any
appearance of it in any of them; see #Mt 18:1-3, 20:25-28 and though
Peter, with James, and John, had some particular favours bestowed on
him by Christ; as to be at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and at
the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, and with him in the
garden; and he appeared to him alone after his resurrection, and
before he was seen by the rest of the disciples; yet in some things
he was inferior to them, being left to deny his Lord and master, they
did not; and upon another account is called Satan by Christ, which
they never were; not to mention other infirmities of his, which show
he is not the rock: and, after all, what is this to the pope of Rome,
who is no successor of Peter's? Peter, as an apostle, had no
successor in his office; nor was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope
of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but here, by the rock, is
meant, either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor
form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of
Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ
himself, who points, as it were, with his finger to himself, and whom
Peter had made such a glorious confession of; and who was prefigured
by the rock the Israelites drank water out of in the wilderness; and
is comparable to any rock for height, shelter, strength, firmness,
and duration; and is the one and only foundation of his church and
people, and on whom their security, salvation, and happiness entirely
depend. Christ is a rock that is higher than they, where they find
safety in times of distress, and the shadow of which is refreshing to
them; and therefore betake themselves to him for shelter, and where
they are secure from the wrath of God, and rage of men: he is the
rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; and is the sure, firm,
and everlasting foundation on which the church, and all true
believers, are laid: he is the foundation of their faith, and hope,
and everlasting happiness, and will ever continue;
Click to expand...

[ October 13, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

Stephen III · Oct 13, 2003

Forgive me, but I still don't see your question.

Frogman · Oct 13, 2003

Originally posted by Stephen III:
Forgive me, but I still don't see your question.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is no question. This is as the title speaks the Biblical view of Matt. 16.18. I didn't realize it would be accepted so readily. I thought I would post it to show what is really taught at Matt. 16.18.

BobRyan · Oct 13, 2003

Whereas the Papacy is left clinging to the argument that through the lineage of sometimes good and other times wicked popes the Christian faith was preseved,, the argument Dallas makes on this thread is that the pure Christian faith was preserved by Godly saints in all ages - persecuted and abused JUST as were the saints of the first century.

Amen!

In Christ,

Bob

Frogman · Oct 13, 2003

There's that Amen! Corner yet.

BTW, the wavey doesn't mean I am charismatic.

Amen Bro. Bob. An interesting study is the root of our religious freedoms in this country. Preserved as such by the same Grace of God whereby His only Begotten Son was sent into the world to seek and save that which was lost.

Bro. Dallas

[ October 14, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

Frogman · Oct 14, 2003

Stephen III · Oct 14, 2003

I didn't realize it would be accepted so readily. I thought I would post it to show what is really taught at Matt. 16.18.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that everyone here believes you have readily accepted Gill's interpretation. As far as showing what is really taught at matt. 16:18, I guess we're still waiting. But here is an interesting start with a bit of Hebrew slant on the verse:

Taken from a Hebrew Catholic website found at:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/petersseat.html

Peter's Seat

"Moses said to the L-rd, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the L-rd may not be as sheep which has no shepherd." Num.27.15-17

HaShem (G-d) tells Moshe (Moses) that he will not enter the Promised Land, rather he will die as the people are to enter into the land. What was Moshe's first priority? It wasn't to ask for an extension, as most of us would probably do, but to request a replacement. Moshe knew, as did Yeshua, that Hashem is our true Shepherd ("The L-rd is my Shepherd, I shall not want . . ."), yet we believe he still saw rightly the need for an earthly guide to help us while He is away preparing a place for us.
Even before Moshe there was Av'raham, Y'tzak (Isaac), and Yakov (Jacob), the true patriarchs. After Yakov, Yosif (Joseph) led his 11 brothers and their families, but nothing is said of a leader after Yosif. What we do know is that Yosif lived to see three generations of his children and when he died he made those still alive promise to take his bones back to the Promised Land, Gen.50.50.22-26. From Yosif's death until Moshe, there was no thread of leadership and yet this was also the time that our ancestors fell into slavery (symbolically sin). Why is this significant? We believe this is because those who Moshe led out of Egypt, through the hand of HaShem, did not know the Mitzvoths that Av'raham, Y'tzak and Yakov abided in. Also they seem to have lost the love of the Promised Land and only wanted to leave Egypt because they were oppressed as slaves.

Since their departure from Egypt, the Israelites kept asking to return to Egypt and when they finally came to the Promised Land, they were afraid to go in. So it is apparent why Moshe saw a great value in requesting from HaShem a leader to replace him when he had reached his final destination. Of course, HaShem knows all things, so why did He leave Moshe in the dark about this? He could have easily said to him, "Go up into this mountain of Abr'arim, and see the land which I have given, which Y'hoshua (Joshua), son of Nun will take the children of Israel into because . . ."

We believe He by leaving Moshe without this fore knowledge, HaShem sought Moshe to show wisdom and an example to ask for guidance through a shepherd:

" . . . appoint a man over the congregation, who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of HaShem may not be as sheep which have no shepherd."

The benefits to having a shepherd that should lead G-d's people are:

He can go out before them and go in before them- that is to set an example.
He can lead them out and lead them in- that is to show them direction, which we see as setting parameters on the Laws ("loosening and binding").
Now we feel Yeshua also embodied these attributes for He lived the life we should live and through the cross, dying for us while we were still sinners, He showed us the direction of true love, the love of G-d. Yeshua also confirmed the position of the shepherds when he said:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." Matt.23.1-3

So believe that Yeshua Himself saw and accepted the authority of the scribes and Pharisees even though He is HaMoshiach (Shiloh, to Whom the true scepter belongs). Why would He do this? We feel this is because He knew what few realize, that Israel needs a physical shepherd, even though HaShem is the true Shepherd. This we see is what Moshe understood and why he asked for one. And like HaShem Who had planned for Y'hoshua to shepherd after Moshe, so we believe Yeshua set up a shepherd as well:

"And I tell you Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosen on earth shall be loosened in heaven." Matt.16.18-19

Yeshua is the Rock on which our Church was built and on which the powers of hell will not prevail, which Protestants correctly state, however the thing they miss is that Yeshua told Peter this and then added a "I will give to you the keys of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosen on earth shall be loosened in heaven."
So what does this mean that Yeshua handed Peter the keys of heaven? Yeshua Himself explains: " . . .whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loosen on earth shall be loosened in heaven". Therefore, this Church that we believe in is built on the Rock (Yeshua)and has authority to loosen and bind all things under heaven, which is earth. Why would Yeshua give such power to a mere man, especially one as Peter who Yeshua knew would deny Him three times? In fact, Yeshua also upheld flawed human leaders (scribes and Pharisees) that ruled even in His day.

Note these are the same people who would later call for the people to crucify HaShem's Anointed and who also persecuted the early Church fathers immediately after Yeshua rose from the dead. Was Yeshua unaware of these future actions? Clearly the answer must be 'no' because He is the Incarnate El-hei (G-d). But if you read the entire passage of Matthew 23 you can see He was not granting them authority because of their perfection. The scribes and Pharisees suffered a severe case of hypocrisy, but their sinful nature did not absolve them of their authority nor did it allow those following them to seek another way. This was because despite their sinfulness they worshiped what they knew was true and it was for this reason we feel salvation came forth out of Judah, Jn.4.21-22.

So if hypocritical, arrogant and self-seeking leaders of the first century that actually helped to send HaShem's Anointed to His death are still under authority until Yeshua passes this authority to Peter and the apostles (see Matt.28.18-20 and especially Jn.20.22-23 for when this passing actually happened), then how much more are those of the Church He founded by His Own Words, see Matt.16.18-19. Notice another detail, Yeshua passed the "keys" to Peter but gave all eleven (and any later apostles) the ability to

" . . . make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them all I have commanded you . . . If (they) forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if (they) retain the sins of any, they are retained."

So this authority to Yeshua's "Church" started after Shavuot/Pentecost and will continue until the "close of the age" (Matt.28.20) and "Peter" will thus have the right to "loosen and bind" things here on earth while the disciples of Yeshua have the call to teach, baptize and even forgive the sins of the Talmudine. So if Yeshua's words are to be true, then this must exist from Shavout until Yeshua's return or until the "close of the age" of HaMoshiach. Yet this last detail isn't the one that Protestants argue against but rather that Yeshua's words did not imply a succession of popes. They believe Yeshua was only denoting shepherds in general and that we "all have the right to loosen and bind". Some of the references for this claim include that Peter did not rule the early Church; Saint Paul's many words against the circumcision party as well as the one case where he speaks of Peter himself are the places they point to as proof. Let's look at these claims one at a time:
First, that Peter did not rule the early Church-

It was Peter that spoke first after the Ruach HaKadosh (Holy Spirit) descended upon the Talmudine at Shavout, Acts 2.14-47. It was Peter who caught Anani'as and Sapphi'ra in their deceit and then judged them, this judgment was upheld in heaven, Acts 5. But the greatest proof is in an area of contention, the going forth of the gospel to the Gentiles and the mission of Paul. If Peter was not the leader, then why would HaShem give Peter the dream in Acts 10.9-16, which foretold the validity of Paul's future ministry? And if Paul's condemnation of Peter meant Peter had no authority due to Peter's misbehavior (which Paul talks in length about in Acts 2.11-14), then why did Paul go with Barnabas and the others to the "elders" to get a discussion on the whole Gentile question? If Paul and all the Christians were independent of a central authority they would have had no reason to convene that council and abide with the council's decision. The mere fact that they went to Jerusalem, and that Peter again gave decision is for us a clear indication of who ultimately held the authority. All Paul's words in Galatians do is show Peter's humanity. Peter wasn't breaking Paul's directive, but his own which HaShem gave him in that dream (thus even popes are not above the Holy See). This is why Paul condemned Peter with such fervent anger and why Peter later affirms Paul's own authority as a leader while condemning those who interpreted Paul's words incorrectly, 2Pet.3.15-18.

Therefore, all Peter's abrogating of the Church's own directive through his actions (a directive he himself had made after his dream mentioned in Acts 10) shows that shepherds are not above the Law, yet neither are they above sin or beyond repentance. Perhaps this is why Peter "had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised" whereas Paul had been "entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised". Peter wisely knew that he was biased against the G-dless whereas Yeshua had removed all such biasness from the heart of Paul. Of course this could imply two different leaders- one for the circumcised and one for the uncircumcised (Paul also states that Yeshua made this distinction), but it could also be that Peter was well aware of his shortcomings and thus delegated Paul (with authority) to the mission Yeshua gave through the Ruach HaKadosh (this we believe is more likely the scenario). History seems to show that there was one Church in the later three to six centuries as well as to the one centered at Rome:

St Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies, III, 3, 1, states (193;150;211):

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 the Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles."

What St. Irenaneus states here is that this Church of Rome was reconnected from the ministerial separation that occurred between Peter and Paul. This in turn implies that Paul's mission, however separate during his life, was still connected to Peter's. Peter gave a "hands off" because HaShem called it and this "hands off" did not have a long-term effect on the virgin Church.
Another example comes from another early father, St. Ignatius of Antioch (-109), where he states in a salutation to the Church at Rome:

"Ignatius Theophorus . . . to the Church in the place of the country of the Romans which hold the primacy. I salute you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, You are a Church worthy of G-d, worthy of honor, felicitation and praise, worthy of attaining G-d, a Church without blemish, which holds the primacy of the community of love . . ." (To the Romans, Introduction).

This Church of Rome held "primacy" or predominance before St. Ignatius died in 109. That is just 79 years after Yeshua rose. Peter and Paul were both alive during this man's life and so the Church of Rome formed and existed in the latter first century formed by the contemporaries of those that walked with Yeshua and the Twelve (in fact we believe this fact was prophesied by Zechariah in chapter 5). Therefore we firmly believe the early fathers support that the Roman Catholic Church is the one founded by Peter as well as its existence, which predates the third century, and Constantine.
Another charge that is levied is if the Roman Catholic Church is kosher and our pope is the true lead shepherd while we are in Diaspora (before Yeshua returns to bring us home) then why doesn't our Church keep the Halacha Law (the Laws given in Torah)? Actually, we believe she does, at least the Law bound upon the Goyim. Thus this proves to us her right to rule because according to Act.15 she was not bound by all seven laws but only three and yet the Holy Roman Catholic Church keeps all seven (except for one-half law she states is bound upon only those in Jewish communities see Council of Florence). So our Church acquired the remaining Halacha laws binding upon the Goyim after she began to rule from Rome and not before and this in fact is prophecy:

"But this is the Covenant which I will make with the House of Israel AFTER those days, says HaShem: I will put My Law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people." Jer.31.33

Rav. St. Shual (Paul) clearly states this is the promise of the New Covenant, Heb.8.8-13. This passage states that after Yeshua gave the New Covenant to us, He would write His laws upon our hearts and we would become His people. Therefore what would be the greatest proof that He really was HaMoshiach and we really are His people? The answer for us is if we as Church have His Law, verifiably His Law, as our Law, and in fact our evidence we believe shows clearly that our Roman Catholic Church does in fact have HIS verifiable LAW upon the grafted-in, see Noahide for further details.
Yet why did this take (approximately) 2000 years to come about? We suspect this text stated this would come about after those days and not when Peter first ruled as pope to provide us with a great miracle! For just after that text above we read:

"no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the L-rd' for they shall know Me from the least of them to the greatest, says HaShem; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

What is so miraculous about the Holy Roman Catholic Church having the Noachide is that the Noachide is not only based upon Torah but outlined specifically in the Talmud a Jewish teaching that wasn't written down until AFTER Yeshua came and our two faiths divided (by the third century to fulfill the words of Rav. St. Shual found in Rom.11.28). For two thousand years Rome and Judah did not talk- we fought among ourselves; so Who taught the Holy Roman Church the Halacha Law upon the grafted-in according to the Talmud?
And what other church can name successor upon successor through an unbroken link from the first century to the 21st century? This is highly important because without such a link directly to HaMoshiach Himself, our faith cannot be link to Him because either He is with us to the end of the earth or it is all made up!

Yet others reading this may struggle with our Churches claimed "lawlessness" and her many errors down though history however as we already explained Yeshua chose Peter to be His pope and not St. John even though Peter denied Him while John stood by Him unto the end! Thus Yeshua wasn't looking for perfection from His shepherd indeed perfection wasn't His prayer but only that we be ONE!

"The glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them, that may be one even as we are one, I in them and Thou in Me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me and hast loved them even as Thou hast loved Me."
Click to expand...

Frogman · Oct 14, 2003

If the church was not authorized yet until Pentecost, then the ordinances are meaningless to the church and pertained only to the Apostles, and then not even to Mathhias and Paul.

To quote Judaizing believers does not prove anything concerning the origin of your traditions as having come from Christ. Christ came to, and did fulfill the Law. The perversion of the Church in Rome was to seek after that preeminence among the independent local bodies of immersed believers who made up the church Christ organized and then to claim salvation in none but herself and by her administration. And then to set about to burn any who bowed to Christ rather than to her self-exalted head.

Show me where Peter claimed this authority upon himself. From scripture rather than a group of Judaizers who would creep in unawares to spy our liberty and rob us of it and thus exalt themselves even as your Pope.

Bro. Dallas

Stephen III · Oct 14, 2003

If the church was not authorized yet until Pentecost, then the ordinances are meaningless to the church and pertained only to the Apostles, and then not even to Mathhias and Paul.
Click to expand...

How do you get "not authorized"; out of "this authority started"?
The church was authorized with Christ's exclamation that he would build (a future reference)a church and give Peter the keys of the kingdom through the powers to loose and bind. The so-called "ordinances" were given by Christ for the faithfuls' assurance of Christ always being with His Church (through the Holy Spirit) These "ordinances" include: The assurance that the Church would survive (as it has!) noted in His statement that the gates of hades would not prevail against Her.
The church became evident, that is earthly visible through the appearence of the Holy Spirit descending on those in the upper room. The feast of Pentecost as the Jews were celebrating at the time is a gathering of the harvest, a 50 day gathering that ends in a big feast day. The beginning of the church fills in typology that gathering of the harvest into Her. To one day end in a large feast day.
The harvest of the church are the peoples of the earth.
The great commission of Christ is to go and make disciples of all nations, and the Church is to be one (as Christ Himself prayed for), holy as was Christ himself,(remember "as the Father has sent me so I send you"), universal ("disciples of all nations") and by neccesity and what became obvious: Apostolic (as Paul and Matthias are examples) The Church was to be visible (like a "city set on a hill")and would yield the authority of Christ himself (the holy Spirit would guide, and again as Christ was sent with authority so he sent with authority first individually to Peter then to the body of the Apostles). Why would anyone want to deny that Christ's church excludes these characteristics or "ordinances" if you prefer.

You seem to not only want to deny that the Catholic Church is that Church that meets these criteria but that the Church is not even identifiable in these characteristics.

The perversion of the Church in Rome was to seek after that preeminence among the independent local bodies of immersed believers who made up the church Christ organized and then to claim salvation in none but herself and by her administration. And then to set about to burn any who bowed to Christ rather than to her self-exalted head.
Click to expand...

It is not the case that an "independent" church was seeking to establish preeminence for itself as there was no seperate AUTHENTIC apostolic tradition. The church was one body with different satellite locations if you will. They may have varied in the running of the local office (as each location would have its own individual idiosynchrocies) but they would be one in their having one guide (the Holy Spirit). The argument that Christ came to establish a local autonomous church body and a wider invisible body of "immersed" constituents who could vary in the fundamentals with the fickleness of men (as the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the confusion that reigns within those opposed to the authentic Apostolic tradition established by Christ) is not just foolhardy but is indeed EXACTLY what the advesary of Christ would prefer.

Lets not get into all the rhetorical jabs about the Puritans burning witches etc. As part of the harvest we would both agree include the wheat and the chaff.

Blessings

Ray Berrian · Oct 14, 2003

If Peter was the Rock and the first pope sitting in Rome extending his hand with the holy pontiff's ring on his finger to the lesser bishops, then who did the O.T. saints go to for guidance? I don't read much about Mary and nothing about Peter in the O.T. I guess they were just stuck with good, old Almighty God. Almost a step down don't you think?

Not.

thessalonian · Oct 14, 2003

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If Peter was the Rock and the first pope sitting in Rome extending his hand with the holy pontiff's ring on his finger to the lesser bishops, then who did the O.T. saints go to for guidance? I don't read much about Mary and nothing about Peter in the O.T. I guess they were just stuck with good, old Almighty God. Almost a step down don't you think?

Not.
Click to expand...

Joseph the infallible interpruter of dreams,
Moses and his chair.
Eliakim in Is 22.
Well I guess his name is not mentioned so you could put your head in the sand if you would like. Then again by that arguement Jesus was not the Messiah either.

Snore.

CatholicConvert · Oct 14, 2003

Hello Frogman --

You wrote and asked us if we were afraid to read your post because we might learn something.

Perhaps a quick history (mine) is in order.

I was a Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years. After that, a Presbyterian Calvinist for the next 12 years. During that whole time, I was convinced of every objection and "error" which you believe you see in the Church. The most ardent anti-Catholic on this board is no more vocal nor hateful towards the Church and the Catholic Faith than I was.

Now there is only one of two things which could have happened to me....

Either I completely lost my mind, and in my state of insanity, ran down to the nearest papist repository of idolatry and begged them to sell my soul to the devil.

OR

I studied the issues quite thoroughly, delving into history, reading the statements of the Early Fathers, asking questions -- lots of questions -- and built upon the foundations which were built in me by Fundamentalism and Calvinism, especially that of the Covenant of God.

And while I know that a small handful of folks on this board will read the first example and declare

"Yeppp, that is surely what must have happened to him. Lost his blinkin' mind!!"

May I assure you that it was the second.

And having studied the issue with a certain thoroughness, and continuing to study, I must reject out of hand, any system of thought which contradicts the Covenant of God and how He deals with us in that covenant relationship.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS...Believe it or not, it is the covenantal relationship of mankind to God which will take care of the difficulties you have with the Marian doctrines, which are very hard on Anabaptists, and the soteriological and eclessological issues which are a problem for you at this time.

Ray Berrian · Oct 14, 2003

Catholic Convert,

Your background is interesting.

Can you give me a chapter or chapters and verses for you Marian doctrines?

People switch from one denomination to another every day. This does not make you the correct theological guru. I think it does show that you have a greater understanding about Catholicism than most Catholics, but that is all.

You must admit that without your church traditions and ex cathedras, you have no solid ground to stand on as to your faith. I stand solidly on the Word of God the Bible. When Christ judges me, it will be from the words of His Book that was inspired by Him; I doubt, if He will call for one of the elders in Heaven to bring out a book of the traditions and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. I could be wrong, but I doubt that He will have one of those bad popes delivering the errors of the centuries to His side, just for His Personal reference.

BobRyan · Oct 14, 2003

Imagine coming from a solid - informed "Bob Jones" perspective to ...

1. Prayers to the dead.
2. Deification of Mary as "Mother of God", "sinless like Christ" - "Co redemptrix" "Queen of Heaven" " allpowerful like Christ", worship at her "altars".
3. Purgatory - a place to go to suffer on your way to heaven.

4. Turning a blind eye to the slaughter of the saints in the dark ages by the RCC - and EVEN of the RCC killing fellow catholics in papal wars.

5. The system of idolatry that the "FAith Explained" declares someon from the Bob-Jones doctrinal perspective MUST conclude for Catholics.

6. Discounting the fall of man, the creation of the world - the LITERAL events described in Genesis 1-7 that form the basis for the Gospel solution.

"Hard to believe" that someone with the "Bob Jones" background could wander so far afield.

In Christ,

Bob

Frogman · Oct 15, 2003

Dear Catholic Convert,

If I am or have been hateful forgive me because of my nature.

You wrote this:
PS...Believe it or not, it is the covenantal relationship of mankind to God which will take care of the difficulties you have with the Marian doctrines, which are very hard on Anabaptists, and the soteriological and eclessological issues which are a problem for you at this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problems with Anabaptists, I have no difficulties with soteriology nor eclessiology as they are taught in scripture. I am/do have(ing) difficulties with Mariology. I do not find it in scripture. It is for this reason alone that I would think Catholicism is idolotry.

With the Son of God as my mediator, why would I want to risk placing another between me and Him?

Bro. Dallas

Matt. 16.18--A View Biblically Considered

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Stephen III New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Stephen III New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Stephen III New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Stephen III New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

thessalonian New Member

CatholicConvert New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Useful Searches

Matt. 16.18--A View Biblically Considered

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Stephen III New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Stephen III New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Stephen III New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Stephen III New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

thessalonian New Member

CatholicConvert New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr