Posted on 11/19/2013 6:10:28 AM PST by Gamecock
The Roman Catholic Church poses several attractions for evangelical Christians. Whether their motivation is Rome’s apparent unifying power, its claims to be semper idem (“always the same”), its so-called historical pedigree, its ornate liturgy, or the belief that only Rome can withstand the onslaught of liberalism and postmodernism, a number of evangelicals have given up their “protest” and made the metaphorical trek across Rome’s Tiber River into the Roman Catholic Church.
Historically, particularly during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods, those who defected back to Rome typically did so out of intense social, political, and ecclesiastical pressure—sometimes even to save themselves from dying for their Protestant beliefs. But today, those who move to Rome are not under that same type of pressure. Thus, we are faced with the haunting reality that people are (apparently) freely moving to Rome.
In understanding why evangelicals turn to Catholicism, we must confess that churches today in the Protestant tradition have much for which to answer. Many evangelical churches today are, practically speaking, dog-and-pony shows. Not only has reverence for a thrice holy God disappeared in our worship, but even the very truths that make us Protestant, truths for which people have died, such as justification by faith alone, have been jettisoned for pithy epithets that would not seem out of place in a Roman Catholic Mass or, indeed, a Jewish synagogue. Our polemics against Rome will be of any lasting value only when Protestant churches return to a vibrant confessional theology, rooted in ongoing exegetical reflection, so that we have something positive to say and practice alongside our very serious objections to Roman Catholic theology.
The attractions of Rome are, however, dubious when closely examined. For example, after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Catholic Church lost not only the claim to be “always the same” but also its claim to be theologically conservative. Besides the great number of changes that took place at Vatican II (for example, the institution of the vernacular Mass), the documents embraced mutually incompatible theologies. Perhaps the most remarkable change that took place in Rome was its view of salvation outside of the church, which amounts to a form of universalism: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (Lumen Gentium 16; hereafter LG). Protestants, who were condemned at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), were now referred to as “separated fellow Christians” (Unitatis Redintegratio 4). Once (and still?) anathematized Protestants are now Christians? This is a contradiction. But even worse, present-day Roman Catholic theologians candidly admit that those who try to be good possess divine, saving grace, even if they do not explicitly trust in Christ.
Such a view of salvation is really the consistent outworking of Rome’s position on justification. So, while the Roman Catholic Church can no longer claim to be “always the same” or theologically conservative, she still holds a view of justification that is antithetical to the classical Protestant view that we are justified by faith alone. Whatever pretended gains one receives from moving to Rome, one thing he most certainly does not receive—in fact, he loses it altogether—is the assurance of faith (Council of Trent 6.9; hereafter CT). It is little wonder that the brilliant Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) once remarked that assurance was the greatest Protestant heresy. If, as Rome maintains, the meritorious cause of justification is our inherent righteousness, then assurance is impossible until the verdict is rendered. For Protestants, that verdict is a present reality; the righteousness of Christ imputed to us is the sole meritorious cause of our entrance into eternal life. But for Roman Catholics—and those outside of the church who “do good”—inherent righteousness is a part of their justification before God (CT 6.7).
The Reformation doctrine of justification was not something about which Protestant theologians could afford to be tentative. At stake is not only the question of how a sinner stands accepted before God and, in connection with that, how he is assured of salvation (1 John 5:13), but also the goodness of God toward His people.
In the end, our controversy with Rome is important because Christ is important. Christ alone—not He and Mary (LG 62)—intercedes between us and the Father; Christ alone—not the pope (LG 22)—is the head of the church and, thus, the supreme judge of our consciences; Christ alone—not pagan “dictates of conscience” (LG 16)—must be the object of faith for salvation; and Christ’s righteousness alone—not ours (LG 40)—is the only hope we have for standing before a God who is both just and the Justifier of the wicked. To move to Rome is not only to give up justification and, thus, assurance— even more so, it is to give up Christ.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Yeshua the Messiah.
The arrogance of spiritual pride displayed on this forum sometimes is breathtaking.
*Thank the Catholic church for ___________!*
Yeah. Right....
Turn your TV channel back to grinning Joel Osteen. He needs your money and God “loves you”.........just make sure you cut that $500 check to “Pastor” Joel.
No thank you. I don’t support ministries that don’t preach the Gospel presented in the Scriptures.
In Ignatius’ time the nicolaitan hell hole you call the catholic church didn’t exist.
There was no pagan pope thugging his way to riches yet.
There was no satanic basilica in Rome yet.
The true believers still worshiped in the manner of the diciples of Yeshua, on the Sabbath and keeping all of Yehova’s fiests in accordance with the Biblical Aviv Barley based calendar.
Life was good!
>> “The arrogance of spiritual pride displayed on this forum sometimes is breathtaking.” <<
.
Actually, I prefer to breath sweeter smelling air! :o)
How dare any man dress like that!
And sporting the bloody red cross of Mithra on his collar.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.
The Catholic Church started when Jesus said “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”. He didn’t say “churches”. One church, for all time. Deal with it. It’s fact.
Jesus said that on this Petra (pebble) He would build his church?
I wouldn’t be so quick to brag that the Catholic church is build on a pebble instead of a good, solid strong foundation.
However, what is NEVER brought up in those same breaths of keys and stones is the actual CONFESSION of Peter which sparks the response from our Lord and Savior. What is also not brought up is what Jesus says how Peter was able to make such a confession.
Matthew 16:
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
It is all about Jesus in the entire passage.
Only for Christ followers.
Pebble? I don’t think so.
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.
Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
It’ doesn’t matter what you think.
It matters what the Greek says.
And *petra* is *pebble*.
*Petros* is bedrock or cliff.
The church was built on petros, not petra (Peter).
This is fun.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “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 an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
Do you know this song?
No doubt Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ rocks! I love brother Peter. I am a lot like him for better and no so better. But he still rocks (no pun intended). The man was the first disciple to “get it” based on The Sovereignty of The Father. Amen, goose bumps. But no vicar.
Simon BarJonah was nicknamed Pebble, its fact, deal with it.
Yeshua HaMashiach is the Rock, its a fact, deal with it.
>> “ Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.” <<
.
Peter had no authority, and the Poop has no authority.
The Catholic ‘church’ is the Whore of Babylon, deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.