Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: 1000 silverlings; Alamo-Girl; Quix; HarleyD; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; xzins; Gamecock; ...
I'm lagging behind on this excellent undertaking, but has anyone posted William Webster's informative essay?

THE CHURCH FATHERS' INTERPRETATION OF
THE ROCK OF MATTHEW 16:18
An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism
Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys

...An examination of the writings of the fathers does reveal the expression of a consistent viewpoint, but it is not that of the Roman Catholic Church, as the documentation of the major fathers of the East and West in this article will demonstrate. This particular article is strictly historical in nature. Its purpose is to document the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. And the evidence will demonstrate that the Protestant and Orthodox understanding of the text is rooted in this patristic consensus.

From a strictly scriptural point of view, the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is divorced from its proper biblical context. The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is built upon Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching. And in addition, the Roman Catholic interpretation imports a meaning into the Matthew 16 text that is completely absent. This text says absolutely nothing about infallibility or about successors..."


52 posted on 01/28/2007 6:07:57 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Eckleburg

Great. Thanks.


53 posted on 01/28/2007 6:09:12 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE & HIS ENEMIES BE 100% DONE-IN; & ISLAM & TRAITORS FLUSHED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

That was a fascinating article! Thank you so much for contributing it to the research!


56 posted on 01/28/2007 9:00:50 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching.

This is quite correct theology, and is mentioned all over the place by the Church Fathers and by modern theologians if you know what to look for. The "Apostolic College" or the "College of Bishops" is typically how it is referred to.

Yes, both Peter and the college of Apostles (which we see as the bishops) enjoy that prerogative to be part of the rock of foundation. But the two passages differ as well, insofar as *only* Peter gets the keys.

61 posted on 01/29/2007 2:28:32 PM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson