The Church, The Reformation, The Now

4

Once again, you fail to reconcile Romans 13 with the Christian. As individual Christians we must not use the sword (except in self defense ). Your verse of peter drawing his sword and Jesus saying "those who live by the sword..." is ample evidence of that. You see from what I have seen of history, heretics were handed over to the state for the most part. Though there are cases where Christians took maters in to their own, non-athoritative hands as vigilanties, in general the heretics were turned over to the state which had laws against heresy. Now there were Christians involved in the state governements. But does Romans 13 go away when one Christian enters the government. How about if 49% of the government is Christian. Or 51%. Is it a majority deal or does the government still have the right to make laws that by todays standards seem unjust but at that time when most people couldn't read, put them in grave danger of falling in to heresy if the heretic was allowed to run free. Remember also that the leaders of beloved reformation of which this thread is about were all for these laws. At least Calvin and Luther. Not sure about Zwingli. I can post evidence if you like.

Blessings

 

Thessalonian,

Rev. J.N. Darby is a famous expositor of the Scripture. Here is what he has to say.

'And if he loosed anything on earth, his deed should be ratified in heaven. In a word, he had the power of command in the kingdom of God on earth, this kingdom having now the character of kingdom of heaven, because its King was in heaven [45] and heaven would stamp his acts with its authority. But it is heaven sanctioning his earthly acts, not his binding or loosing for heaven. The assembly connected with the character of Son of the living God and built by Christ, though formed on earth, belongs to heaven; the kingdom, though governed from heaven, belongs to earth-has its place and ministration there.

These four things then are declared by the Lord in this passage:-First, the revelation made by the Father to Simon; Second, the name given to this Simon by Jesus, who was going to build His assembly on the foundation revealed in that which the Father had made known to Simon; Third, the assembly built by Christ Himself, not yet complete, on the foundation of the Person of Jesus acknowledged by Peter, as Son of the living God; Fourth, the keys of the kingdom that should be given to Peter, that is to say, authority in the kingdom as administering it on the part of Christ, ordering in it that which was His will, and which should be ratified in heaven. All this is connected with Simon personally, in virtue of the Father's election (who, in His wisdom, had chosen him to receive this revelation), and of Christ's authority (who had bestowed on him the name that distinguished him as personally enjoying this privilege).

The Lord having thus made known the purposes of God with regard to the future-purposes to be accomplished in the assembly and in the kingdom, there was no longer room for His presentation to the Jews as Messiah. Not that He gave up the testimony, full of grace and patience towards the people, which He had borne throughout His ministry. No; that indeed continued, but His disciples were to understand that it was no longer their work to proclaim Him to the people as the Christ. From this time also He began to teach His disciples that He must suffer and be killed and be raised again.

But, blessed and honoured as Peter was by the revelation which the Father had made to him, his heart still clung in a carnal manner to the human glory of his Master (in truth,
to his own), and was still far from rising to the height of the thoughts of God. Alas! he
is not the only instance of this. To be convinced of the most exalted truths, and even to
enjoy them sincerely as truths, is a different thing from having the heart formed to the
sentiments, and to the walk here below, which are in accordance with those truths. It
is not sincerity in the enjoyment of the truth that is wanting. What is wanting is to have
the flesh, self, mortified-to be dead to the world. We may sincerely enjoy the truth as taught of God and yet not have the flesh mortified or the heart in a state which is according to that truth in what it involves down here. Peter (so lately honoured by the revelation of the glory of Jesus, and made in a very special manner the depositary of administration in the kingdom given to the Son-having a distinguished place in that which was to follow the Lord's rejection by the Jews.' {end quote from Dr. Darby}

As far as my understanding of Matthew 16:18-19 I would say that people need to study the Greek word for Peter and then study the word, 'Rock'---'upon this Rock I will build My church . . . ' In effect Jesus is saying you, Peter are a small rock and I am the cleft of the rock {the larger rock} on which the church will be built during time. Peter is never referred to in the Bible as the Rock, but Jesus of course is spoken of as the Rock. Notice: Psalm 92:15, Psalm 61:2, Psalm 62:2, Psalm 78:35, Psalm 94:22, and Psalm 95:1.

 

Ray,

I was hoping you would give me your own thoughts. I could care less what some Protestant theologian says. Thanks for the last paragraph but it only shows that you did not read the first 5.

"As far as my understanding of Matthew 16:18-19 I would say that people need to study the Greek word for Peter and then study the word, 'Rock'---'upon this Rock I will build My church . . . ' In effect Jesus is saying you, Peter are a small rock and I am the cleft of the rock {the larger rock} on which the church will be built during time. Peter is never referred to in the Bible as the Rock, but Jesus of course is spoken of as the Rock. Notice: Psalm 92:15, Psalm 61:2, Psalm 62:2, Psalm 78:35, Psalm 94:22, and Psalm 95:1."

Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (Rock). The greek word for Peter is Petros, that is true, which can mean small stone (though my understanding is that it doesn't always). However it is very unlikely that Jesus spoke Greek but Aramic. And the Aramic word for Rock is Kepha. The distinction you are trying to make does not exist in that language. We also have proof in the Bible that Jesus actually spoke in Aramic because in John's Gospel and in Paul's writings Peter is called Cephas which is a form of Kepha. Now Peter would not have been called Kepha because it is a femine form. Kind of like Virginia or Laura or Rhonda. Your not doing to well in the refuting part ray. You didn't even get by the first one.
Thanks though. By the way with your comment about leaders of Churches being servants I thought you might be interested that St. Gregory the Great coined the name "Servant of Servants" for his papacy and it has been used for the office ever since.

By the way, did you know that Abraham was also refered to as rock. I can't recall but I think it is Isaiha 51 (or is it psalm 51). Interestingly enough Abraham was considered our Father in faith. Abraham also had his named changed. Am I sensing a pattern here?

By the way, the 50 proofs should be seen as collective evidence. I am not claiming that anyone in and of itself proves the papacy, just as no one verse proves the trinity.

Blessings

[ July 09, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

thessalonian,

I might be wrong but perhaps you are very bias in not wanting to hear what a great (in this case) Protestant theologian had to say about Peter, the rock. I think, for example, that I would be interested in reading what the late Cardinal Spielman had to say about Matthew 16:18. Understanding the thinking of other people does not taint the soul. Right?

 

I read it before. It is just not what I was looking for from you. I also find the language he speaks in difficult to wade through.

 

Ray,

By the way, I am quite familiar with Darby's expositions concerning end times. From that perspective I would have a hard time calling him a great theologian. If that is bias, then so be it.

 

Ray,

One more by the way, if you think I limit my reading, I happen to have a collection of anti-catholic books and pamphlets including Foxes book of Martyrs which I am currently reading, Loraine Boettners Roman Catholicsm and another book by Ron Gedron (can't recall the title) that I have read. I actually find their darkness shed on Catholicism through the countless distortions and outright lies to make it's light more radiant.

 

thessalonian,

I think I read "Fox's Book of Martyrs" many years ago but have no interest in reading the horrors of the past. Hopefully, we have moved beyond those days.

You said, 'I actually find their darkness shed on Catholicism through the countless distortions and outright lies to make it's light more radiant.'

Ray is saying, 'You seem so sure of yourself that these presentations were distortions. You had to be there to know 100% for sure that all of these allogations were true. Funny, I didn't take you to be that old.

I guess I am more concerned about the error that is still being passed down to the innocent people in Catholic congregations. But, I guess there will be no retractions, until the Lord comes and sets people and their ideas on the correct path.

 

"Ray is saying, 'You seem so sure of yourself that these presentations were distortions. You had to be there to know 100% for sure that all of these allogations were true. Funny, I didn't take you to be that old."

Didn't say they were all distortions. Some are, some aren't. I can go through my why sins of some don't really matter routine if you would like. It is quite scriptural as was the exegesis (not done by me) of why Peter was the cheif of the Apostles. What I find interesting is that I have seen people on websites say THE CATHOLIC CHURCH KILLED 150 Million PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Funny thing is they would have had to kill most of Europe over those years to accomplish such a feat. Europes population at it's highest point in this time was perhaps 75 million. Estimates of deaths due to Inquisitions and things by rational Protestant historians are around 5000. Maybe 10 at the most. And if you look in to these it was generally the Church turning people over to Government for laws against heresy. Don't get to excited Protestants did it too. Check out the Geneva Inquisition. It wasn't Catholic.

"I guess I am more concerned about the error that is still being passed down to the innocent people in Catholic congregations. "

And I am more concerned that you seem to have no real problem with distorting what you call error. Further, where is your concern for the error in Protestant denominations? There obviously is some. In fact more than just a little or there wouldn't be a Church with a different name over the door on every block teaching conflicting things from the Church accross the street. I recall a conversion story by a Kim Franklin (now on EWTN) where when she was trying to convert the "pagan" Catholic of Brazil she noticed three Pentecostal Churches on one block. Ray, Catholicism is true. You have proven that what you think it is is false from your posts on this board..

"There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church; But there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to be." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen

 

*thessalonian said, 'And if you look in to these it was generally the Church turning people over to Government for laws against heresy.

Ray-In your view was it God's work to kill one or 1,000 non-Catholics who did not see in their Bibles some of your alleged, orthodoxy?

* Don't get to excited Protestants did it too. Check out the Geneva Inquisition. It wasn't Catholic.

Ray-Did that give Calvin the right to imprison or kill those who did not believe in 'infant baptism?' Absolutely not!

Ray--"I guess I am more concerned about the error that is still being passed down to the innocent people in Catholic congregations. "

*And I am more concerned that you seem to have no real problem with distorting what you call error.

Ray-I don't assume that Mary ascended into Heaven merely because a prelate tells me to say, "Yes, yes, it is now true because Catholic tradition after mega years, since the mother of our Lord lived, is all of a sudden is saying that she ascended like Jesus. The doctrine I believe you refer to is, "The Assumption of Mary into Heaven.

*"Further, where is your concern for the error in Protestant denominations? There obviously is some. In fact more than just a little or there wouldn't be a Church with a different name over the door on every block teaching conflicting things from the Church accross the street.

Ray-I have posted my concerns on the Calvinistic-Arminian Baptist Board about the error of four out of five points of Calvinism. In fact, I have stated that Roman Catholics today are closer to most of the Arminian views than Calvinistic churches. This is a positive change for the Catholic church over the centuries.

*I recall a conversion story by a Kim Franklin (now on EWTN) where when she
was trying to convert the "pagan" Catholic of Brazil she noticed three
Pentecostal Churches on one block.

Ray-I understand there are two WaWa--quick stores on one block in one state; is that a bad thing? No. Many Protestant churches are started with a small congretation of people who are friends, so they build a church; other groups of friends buid another church. At least they are not not constructing a 'porno store.' Our churches are focused around different aspects of Christ's teaching and so nothing is lost by having unique denomintions. Baptist Churches sometime focus their attention on the security of the believer in Christ, and say that we can know one day we will get to Heaven because of our faith. On the other hand, Wesleyan Churches, for example, focus on holiness of heart and living close to Jesus and striving to please Him. I am not saying that Baptists don't live close to the Lord, nor am I saying that Wesleyans don't believe in present, assurance of salvation.

Thessalonias said, 'Ray, Catholicism is true. You have proven that what you think it is is false from your posts on this board..'

Ray--'You probably will die in your own self-deception and at the Judgment Seat of Christ will have wished that you would have continued in your dispensational background, spiritually speaking. No hurt intended. I wish you were right that Catholicism were true; I would see the truth and start studying at the local Catholic Church for admission into this centuries old, Christian Church.'

* "There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church; But there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to be." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Ray-'I liked Archbishop Sheen's style and most of his preaching; he represent the church well, to my knowledge. I do not hate any member of the Catholic church or any popes, but it sure would be more of a blessing if you folks would stay closer to the 'literal interpretation of Scripture and not the allegorical method of understanding your Bibles, nor value the ecclesiastical tradition of the church on the same level, and in my view, a more exhaulted level than what the Bible demands for us to believe.

 

Ray, what is your lilteral interpretation of Jesus's words concerning eating His flesh and drinking His Blood?

Do you literally interpret, "This is my Body"?

If not, why do you get to pick and choose what is literal and what is allegorical?

 

trying2understand,

I think thessalonia asked me the same question. I do see the point you both are making.

I have two options. Either believe that Christ spiritually, multiplies His body and blood in a miracle similar to the multiplication of the loaves and fish, or that these words are symbolic of His body and blood as we view the wine and the wafer/bread. I see what you are saying, that I appear to be inconsistent in my literal view of interpretation.

Everyone has to come down on one side of this issue or the other; pray that someday I will understand, for sure, what is correct in the eyes and thinking of our Lord. This is the best answer that I can give at this time. Do you believe that God miraculously multiplies His Body and blood so that the world of Christians can partake at His table? or do you just accept the words of the Bible as being your only option?

 

"This is the best answer that I can give at this time. Do you believe that God miraculously multiplies His Body and blood so that the world of Christians can partake at His table? or do you just accept the words of the Bible as being your only option? "

Change one thing in your sentence above and I will agree with it. I am sure Ron will also. Catholic minds think alike.

"This is the best answer that I can give at this time. Do you believe that God miraculously multiplies His Body and blood so that the world of Christians can partake at His table? AND do you just accept the words of the Bible as being your only option? "

There is no conflict.

Blessings ray.

 

Christ's body and blood is not limited by time and space. He is true God and true man in one person. Do not impose human limitations on God.

 

Duplicate post