Matt. 16.18--A View Biblically Considered

Bob Ryan,

You have about said it all. A real apostates---apostate. One really wonders whether some of these types were ever really born of the Spirit. Christ will be the Judge. 'For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.'

 

Hello Dallas,

You mention that you have trouble with Marian Doctrine.. I am curious if there is any leeway here. Are you saying that the Marian beliefs of Catholics are definately 100% wrong or are you saying you are not 100% sure they are true. I know you base your beliefs on the Bible and it contents with the knowledge that what ever is in the Bible is true. But if something is not in the Bible does that make it false??? Is American History false since it is not in the Bible? I would think that since you do not see the Marian beliefs in the Bible directly you would make the conclusion that it could be true but your are not sure since many things not in the Bible are true.

You also mentioned that you don't want to stick another mediator between you and Jesus. I take it then that you do not believe in praying for each other or asking anyone to pray for you since this is not going directly to God. As Catholics we feel we can ask others to pray of us and this includes the whole communion of Saints, both alive on earth or in Heaven. So when we say the Hail Mary we are asking Jesus's earthly mother to pray for us. Don't you think he prayers for us would hold more weight than our own prayers. Mary is perfected in Heaven while we are still hear on earth, a sinful people. In the book of Job God said to the friends of Job to have Job pray for them since Jobs prayers where more pleasing to God.

It was claimed that we do not have anything to stand on without of Traditions. But these Traditions clarify scripture for us. The Bible was never meant to be interpreted in a vacuum, but instead with the tradition as a guide. If the Catholic churchs interpetation of scripture is wrong then please tell me which group is correct, Baptists, Methodists, Lutheran,...etc. Can anyone tell me why if we are only to consider the Bible as the only deposit of faith, then why is there so many different interpretations. There is only one Truth.

God Bless you all.
Daniel

 

Speaking of Bob Jones (University),

My roommate just transferred up here from that school, and he's currently enrolled in RCIA as a candidate for full communion. Both he and I are not sure if he's going to reconcile with the Church this upcoming Easter, but I have a feeling it is inevitable (I mean, considering I sic'ed the BVM on him). He's read all the anti-Catholic lore, and coming to Steubenville has been wonderful for him, and he's quite upset at all the misrepresentations the Catholic Church receives from anti-Catholics.

He's the one on the left. Next to him is his Catholic g i r l f r i e n d. To her right is Matt's best friend - Dave - who is also considering becoming Catholic very soon, and with Dave is Dave's g i r l f r i e n d (I put the spaces in b/c the webboard deletes "g i r l" for some protective reason) Teresa, Jessica's sister, another faithful Catholic:

 

Daniel Vollmer & Dallas (two)

If you will allow me to enter the discussion I noticed that Mr. Vollmer said, 'But if something is not in the Bible does that make it false??? Is American History false since it is not in the Bible? I would think that since you do not see the Marian beliefs in the Bible
directly you would make the conclusion that it could be true but your are not
sure since many things not in the Bible are true.'

Ray is saying, 'The truths of Jesus and of His love and death for us, is in a totally different arena that World History. They are two different disciplines. If truth is not found in the Bible it is error. Galatians 1:4 is the basic truth of the Gospel. The Apostle Paul warns Christians not to accept any other alleged truth even if an brilliant angel delivered new ideas to us. [vs. 8] Why would anyone consider yet alone to follow the teaching of a human Magisterium or a pontiff. I have lived long enough to notice that they did just the same as some of the members of my church, friends or relatives. If we don't accept a new scroll from an angel, why would we listen to any other person than the Person of Jesus?'

Daniel said, 'You also mentioned that you don't want to stick another mediator between
you and Jesus.'

Ray is saying, 'Why would you pray to Mary, Padre Pio, or other saints when God defines and instructs who Christians are to pray to for help? In Bethlehem we have the headquarters of "Mack Truck." One would guess that someone would have to hit you in the face with a Mack truck in order to get you Catholics to believe, I Timothy 2:5.

Daniel said, 'I take it then that you do not believe in praying for each other or asking anyone to pray for you since this is not going directly to . . . '

Ray is saying, 'We pray to the Lord about other friends, Christians and sinners. This is in keeping with the one Mediator regulation coming from the Lord God.'

If we are not to listen to alleged new truth from an angel from Heaven, we sure are not allowed to listen to the traditions and appeals from an aging and earthly Magisterium. Read: Revelation 22:18. "Add not to these prophecies!"'

Why not listen to the Book of Mormon also; I understand that they might think they are a church too?

 

Having a Catholic girlfriend might also have something to do with his 'conversion'.

 

Typing error:

These sentences should have read this way in my last post. 'Why would anyone consider, yet alone, follow the teaching of a human Magisterium or a pontiff? I have lived long enough to notice that they all die just the same as some of the members of my church, friends or relatives.' They are in many cases gifted men for ministry but not authoratitive in their add-on theology. Only the Bible is the Word of God. This is the ABC's of the Gospel.

 

Daniel,

This is a no brainer . . .

You said, 'If the Catholic churchs interpetation of scripture is wrong then please
tell me which group is correct, Baptists, Methodists, Lutheran,...etc. Can
anyone tell me why if we are only to consider the Bible as the only deposit of
faith, then why is there so many different interpretations. There is only one
Truth.'

Ray is saying, 'Baptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, Assembly of God and Lutherans each have the same cardinal truths of Christianity. Each denomination emphasizes a different aspect of the Bible or of the Being and Nature of the Lord God.

May Baptists emphasize the sovereignty of God, Methodists have their own special polity, Nazarenes highlight the holiness of the Lord and personal purity, the Assembly of God point to the 'gifts of the Spirit' as found in I Corinthians 12 & 14, and Lutherans have more 'high church' liturgies and services than other Protestant and Christian denominations. Lutherans are more into their ancient creeds than the above mentioned groups of Christians. This means that they have the same heart of the holy Gospel but are merely different expressions of the One living and true Lord God. Perhaps someone else can better explain the uniqueness of the Methodist Church than I have tried to do.

We also know of the varieties of Catholics. Liberal, conservative, those who believe in contriception and who refuse it, those who doubt Purgatory and those who buy in on the whole idea. You have theologians who have been stripped of their 'mantle' and yet you have your radical, Socialistic, Catholic leaders in South America who will shoot to kill if they can establish a more equal culture there. So all is not----peace, tranquility and doctrinal unity as you in your fantasy world might willingly believe.

 

Hello Ray,

You can refer to me as Dan, Mr Vollmer sounds to formal and too old. I am not saying that we should not pray directly to God, that is our primary form of prayer. But when we pray to Mary or the other Saints, maybe I should say when we talk to the Saints we are asking them to pray for us or intercede for us just as we may ask a friend to pray for us. I am still not clear if you are allowed to ask someone to pray for you, because that sounds like you are asking someone else to pray for you, just as we ask Mary to pray for us. We are not asking Mary to forgive our sins.

I am also not clear on where you come up with the belief that we are to ONLY follow what the Bible teaches and not also the Tradition of the church which Jesus taught to the Apostles who then passed on to the church fathers and has been carried on till this day.

In regards to the truth of the Gospel as written in Galatians

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

At that time the Gospel was the preached word of God, the Oral Tradition. Paul is warning against others who are preaching against what he has preached through oral teaching.

I know you have difficulty with the authority of the Pope, but since the time of Peter has the teaching of the Popes and the Catholic church deviated from that at the time of the Early church fathers. You will see that it remains the same. Truth and morals remains the same over time. True we have had some bad Popes but these men never changed the doctrine of the church. Also if you look at many protestant faiths, thruths and morals change from time to time, birth control being one of the most obvious. Now many protestant faiths say birth control is Ok when just 50 years ago they were in line with the Catholic church and said it was wrong.

Yours in Christ
Dan

 

Ray,

There are not alot of interpretations. ALL "Protestant" churches, that still presently hold to the inerrancy of scripture, do not accept that the papacy is the head of Christianity nor the foundation on which Christianity could stand,
does, or should.

It is the Roman Catholic church that has placed itself in its supposed position of superiority and attempted to destroy all the "heretics" who would dare to disagree with "her" interpretation.
Obviously, this would also have caused a loss of revenue and so lofty claims of spirituality are rather lame.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]OK, I came upon this quote a bit late, so here is my take on it:

This John Gill is attempting to exegete Matthew 16:18 against the historical exegesis that is obvious in the early church fathers, who also saw the "rock" as also refering to the confession of Peter, but they also (and mostly, I think) acknowledged that it was on Peter himself that the church was built upon.

No offense, but I see this attempt as over-worded, desperate and blatant attempt to steer the meaning of Matthew 16:18 into something that it simply is not in a first simple read, even ignoring (as I recall) what verse 19 goes on to express the authority given to first Peter, who is the only one to receive the "keys of the kingdom" but is the first to receive the authority of "binding and loosing," later given the the rest of the apostles, who are, if you think about it, the very "charter clergy" of Christ is soon to establish (noting the future tense of Matthew 16:18.)

As for Christ to soon later to call Peter "Satan," it is obvious to the most casual reader that Christ is not calling Peter "Satan" per se but rather the influences on Peter, Satan has on all of us! And we all know the story of Peter denying Christ three times!

Yet here we are, in Luke 22:32, where Christ tells Peter to "strengthen His brethren." And then later, to Peter only again, Christ gives him the authority he promised earlier in Matthew 16:18-19 in John 21:17 in the "Feed my lambs, Feed my Sheep" sequence.

And of course, we see this throughout the writings of the early fathers, even at least one of them who was a pope:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

And I would again invite all to purchase the book:

JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren,
David Hess, ISBN: `-882972-54-6
for about $14.00 in paperback from
AMAZON.COM

In my humble opinion, it destroys all Protestant attempts to refute the Catholic exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

100% wrong in their errors regarding Mary.

In the NT - we have eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Lazarus, of the resurrection of the Widow of Nain's son, of the resurrection of the ruler of the synagogue's daughter - but nothing -- not one word about the resurrection of Mary.

You would "think" that Mary had "some clout" back then so that IF it were actually true - at least ONE NT writer would squeeze that fact in - or AT LEAST one late first century source.

Instead - dead silence.

Suppose you came up with a late 19th century idea that Mary never ate breakfast - only lunch and dinner.

We would "doubt" that your late 19th century imaginings were "so" but we would not "debate it to the last" as though it were a direct contradiction of Bible teaching.

However when the RCC claims Mary is the Mother of GOD (as if Christ became the Son of GOD at His birth instead of the Son of MAN).

When the RCC claims she is "all-powerful like Christ", when the RCC claims "she is sinless like Christ" even though the Bible says "ALL have sinned" and Mary calls Christ her SAVIOR,, when the RCC claims that that they worship at her altars, when the RCC reaches you to the dead etc...

Well then - we have "one or two Biblical reasons" for doubting the RCC.

This is not simply the case of "some event happening that did not get recorded in scripture" as perhaps your RC instructors have taught you to think of the opposition to mariolotry in this case.


In Christ,

Bob

 

#1.When -"we" pray for someone we do not become "their mediator" or even A MEDIATOR between them and God.

#2. However even worse for the case you are trying to make - the RCC itself will not ALLOW its members to PRAY to fellow Catholics living today asking for their mediation with God. So the argument that you DO this with living catholics today - is not true.. not only that -- it is NOT ALLOWED! Only praying to the dead is allowed. And in this practice - there are many non-Christian religions that join the RCC.

Wrong. The Bible was meant to be intrepreting via the direct, personnal, supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that we are told in John 16 would "LEAD us into ALL truth". "HE the Spirit of Truth whom I shall send shall lead you into all truth".

And St. John speaking to the church in 1John 2 confirms that message saying "you have no need for anyone to teach you.. .for his annointing teaches you".

Paul in Hebrews 8 declares that the message to the Christian in the New Covenant is "They SHALL NOT each one say to his neighber - KNOW the Lord for ALL shall know me". Hebrews 8.

In Acts 17:11 EVEN NON-Christians were able to benefit from the Holy Spirit and the Word of God - the Scriptures and TEST the teaching of Paul. They did not say "Paul please tell us what to think - and then we will use that to see if the next thing you say is correct". Such a gross type of circular reasoning was not used. Rather they TESTED the apostolic teaching of Paul BY the Scriptures VIA the Holy Spirit's direct, and personnal ministry to them.

Actually - any one of those will do as a step forward from the errors adopted by the RCC over the dark ages.

Obviously there has always been only one truth. That was true when the one true church started by God at Sinai went into apostacy. That was still true as the Jewish reformers were cast out of the synagogues and started the Christian church.

That was true as the Catholic church burned faithful saints at the stake.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here's some more background on this passage that I came across during my daily reading of Scripture today..

Peter's role in the New Covenant is foreshadowed by both Joseph and Daniel. Not only that, but Matthew is making an allusion to these instances in the OT when he gives his narrative in Chapter 16.

"The king said to Daniel, "Truly, your God is God
of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries,
for you have been able to reveal this mystery."
Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great
gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province
of Babylon, and chief prefect over all the wise men of
Babylon" (Daniel 2:47-48 )

"So Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Since God has shown
you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as
you are; you shall be over my house, and all my
people shall order themselves as you command; only as
regards the throne will I be greater than you.' And
Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Behold, I have set you over all
the land of Egypt.' Then Pharaoh took his signet ring
from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and arrayed
him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about
his neck" (Gen 41:39-41).

In both instances, the king/ruler bestowed the role of vizier upon the individual to whom God had revealed his mystery.

In Matthew 16:16-19, Peter declares Jesus the Christos, which is the Davidic title of the Davidic king, the anointed one who is God's son.

"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
take counsel together, against the LORD and his
anointed ... He said to me, 'You are my son, today I
have begotten you ... You shall break them with a rod of
iron'" (Psalm 2).

This same Psalm (2:9) is quoted with reference to Jesus in Revelation 12:5.

"Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christos, the
Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered
him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and
blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who
is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Petros, and
on this Petras I will build my church, and the
powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give
you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven'" (Mt 16:16-19).

"The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New" (St. Augustine).

 

William Hendriksen - Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon
this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.'
Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, 'And I say to
you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my
church.' Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going
to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New
Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel
According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973),
647.)

Gerhard Maier - Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which - in
accordance with the words of the text - applies the
promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J.
Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann,
Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of
Roman Catholic exegesis. ('The Church in the Gospel of
Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current
Debate,' Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and
Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press,
1984), 58.

Donald A. Carson III - Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

'The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock' (Gk 4377), is
masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses
the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this
change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter
as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it
were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of
Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether
many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or
anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible
Commentary - New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.

John Peter Lange - German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic
word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon,
John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which
means rock and is used both as a proper and a common
noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: 'Thou
art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc. (Lange's Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to
Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976),
293.)

John A. Broadus - Baptist author

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek
words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if
the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would
have been used both times, and that petros signifies a
separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is
the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely
confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of
petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly
observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly
spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making
such a distinction [between feminine petra
and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western
Aramaic) renders, 'Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.'
The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of
Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, 'Thou
are kepha, and on this kepha.' . . . Beza called
attention to the fact that it is so likewise in
French: 'Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre'; and
Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers
(old English for Peter), and on this pier.' (Commentary
on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson
Press, 1886), 355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin - Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

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. The demonstrative
this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus
or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally
refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote
confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of
verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on
words, 'You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk.
petra) I will build my church.' As an apostle, Peter
utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he
receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
('Matthew,' Evangelical Commentary on the Bible,
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

 

Without looking, it appears to be straight out of the book I recommended above in this thread, a book you also recomended:

JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
By Scott Butler et al

Great book!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your reply, I have a few questions remaining.

If I am 100% wrong about Mary, can you give me definate proof of every belief the Catholic church has about Mary to show that as Catholics we are incorrect in our beliefs.

Can you show me Marys body that has not been assumed into Heaven. She should still be buried here on earth if I understand your viewpoint correctly. It is interesting that during the time of the Apostles and early church fathers, there was a great desire to obtain relics of these early believers and their graves would be dug up to obtain them. There has never been any relics or remains of Mary ever found.

Bob I am not trying to prove you are wrong since I have no physical evidence myself, I am just trying to say that you can not be 100% positive without proof to back it up.

This is true of all the Marian Doctines.

Immaculate conception ... no where in the Bible does it say Mary was born with original sin. While like all of us she normally would have this stain but Jesus who is Mary's and our Savior wiped away that sin. God Transends time and space and can easily apply his grace to Mary before she was concieved.

Sinless life .... Does the Bible show any instances of Mary commiting a sin. You bring up the Romans verse to prove that she has sinned but that vs was speaking generally of the different groups of people at that time. For example how can an infant who dies at birth sin. Sure the child had the stain of original sin but the child did not actively commit a sin.

Virgin Birth & remaining a virgin through the birth and after the birth.... Since there are a number of Mary's and missunderstanding of the term brother this can easily be explained to show she remained celebate with Joseph. There are a number of writtings at that time which tell the story of Anna and how she gave Mary to God and she was a consecrated virgin at the temple. It tells how she needed a protector she Joseph was chosen since he was widower and already had children.

Mary's Corination Queen of Heaven... This can be seen through types in revelation with the Arc of the Covenant being the prefigurement of Mary.

As Elizabeth said to Mary...Blessed are you among women. Meaning she is the most blessed of all women. Since Eve was born without original sin it makes sense that if Mary is more blessed that Eve she would not have original sin either. And while Eve succombed to temptation and sinned, Mary being more blessed did not.

God Bless you all
Daniel

 

Someone said, 'It should still be buried here on earth if I understand your viewpoint correctly. It is interesting that during the time of the Apostles and early church fathers, there was a great desire to obtain relics of these early believers and their graves would be dug up to obtain them. There has never been any relics or remains of Mary ever found.'

Ray is saying, 'Israelites were taught that it would be an act of uncleanness to touch the body of a dead person. And since all of the Apostles were Jewish except Luke, one would realize that they would not have been excavating bodies to divide their bones among the saints. And I don't think that Mary would have been wearing a 'scapular' or a 'rosary' around her neck due to the fact that her son, the Savior, was present among she and the other disciples. [Luke 1:47] Mary called Jesus her God and personal Savior and celebrated this fact. No scapular or rosary equals not relics.

 

Mary's Corination Queen of Heaven...

Ray is saying, 'You spoke of a queen in your post. Mary is the King's mother not the Queen of Heaven. And as always we need a book, chapter and verse to accept the Vatican's 'spin.'

This can be seen through types in revelation with the Arc of the Covenant being the prefigurement of Mary.

Ray is saying, 'In Leviticus 16:1-2 the poignant truth is that the Lord is on the mercy-seat of the Ark of the Covenant. In theology we call this a "Preincarnate Appearance of Christ." If Mary should have factored into the Ark of the Covenant, God would not have been reluctant to express this reality. Moses, Aaron, and the Lord are mentioned, but we all know that it was another 1,400 years before even Mary's birth on this earthly scene.

Catholics just can't conceive that the Lord was in charge from eternity and that Mary was not on the scene until Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. Yes, she was prophecied as coming into our world, [Isaiah 7:14; 9:6] but no "Prebirth visions or dreams" are documented. Why? Because Almighty God wants Jesus to have all the preeminence and glory because it was He who died, was raised, and ascended into Heaven. If Mary was ascended into Heaven, {the Assumption of Mary} it really would have at least been footnoted in God's Word--the Bible. Get it!

 

In my last post I meant to say, 'Get it? Probably not.'

 

Peter says that the FLOOD was real and actually happened. The vatican now says that it is just a story. Who is lying? And if they make mistakes concerning scriptures reality, what makes anyone think that the vatican cannot be wrong about its interpretation.

The Roman Catholic church is under the judgement of GOD. Just as GOD judged Israel, the contol of the church has been removed from the papacy IF it ever had any.