Posted on 05/24/2008 7:41:30 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[snip]
‘A church,’ says Dr. Ripley, ‘that came into existence yesterday, in strict conformity to the New Testament principles of membership, far away from any long-existing church or company of churches and therefore unable to trace an outward lineal descent, is a true Church of Christ.
Exactly. The only authority is the Bible, and the God-called pastor of the local church, whose position is established by the Bible.
Good stuff ... and a thought-provoking perspective on the whole apostolic succession and historical continuity thing.
What was the authority before the New Testament came to be?
The Old Testament. As the New Testament was being revealed, and being generally recognised by Spirit-led Christians in local churches, it also obtained to the same level of authority.
Maybe I misstated the question...Who or what was the authority regarding the teachings of Christ (parables, spoken words, passion, death, resurrection) before the New Testament was compiled/recognized?
This is anti-Catholic inflammatory mush, as much as Islam is anti-Jewish writing throughout.
No thanks. I think Jesus meant what he said when he said “Upon this rock...” He knew it was a human church, which he started through Peter (a human with all his less-than-divine limitations).
This article was written by someone who, down deep inside, realizes he has fallen away from the one, true catholic and apostolic church (most Postestant churches pray the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed).
The theme is — “Go, start your own church, call it Christian, and it will be as good as any other church.” That’s not what Jesus intended...
The local churches, as the pillar and grounds of the truth.
My my, a little touchy, aren't we?
Christ started no church on Peter. Peter was the petros, the little stone, and Christ founded His church on the petra, the solid, immovable slab of the truth of His Messiahship.
You mean church, (singular), right?
No
Why not? Isn't there only one Truth?
Well, of course there is, and the same Spirit who directs Christians to the truth (John 14:26, I John 2:20,27) works in each church whose membership is regenerate and living for Him.
Here's a good reference with regard to this question: http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
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."
Here's a good reference with regard to this question: http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
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."
This is what counts as a good reference these days? Seriously? The arguments this site makes are childishly simple to refute.
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.
That's hokum. If Christ meant "Peter" with both words, then why on earth did He need to redundantly repeat Himself, and throw confusion into the mix by doing so? If Christ had meant to say that He was actually building His church on Peter, He would have simply said so. The fact that there is even the "stylistic change" of petra added in shows that Peter was not the intent of Christ's focus at all. What He did was make a play on words - something Christ actually did on several occasions to make a point - and guess what, they all only make sense in GREEK.
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."
This argument doesn't mean anything. The Gospel of Matthew was inspired and revealed in Greek, as the earliest manuscriptual evidences we have for it uniformly verify. The fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic doesn't mean anything. He also spoke Greek (Jesus spoke with Pilate, and Pilate almost assuredly didn't speak Aramaic, and didn't need to since Greek was the lingua franca across the Empire). God gave us the Gospel of Matthew in Greek, and it therefore follows that the meanings He wanted us to derive from it are found in the Greek, not in some hypothetical Aramaic reconstruction with no textual, manuscriptual, or other evidential support. In Matthew 16:18, the meaning He wanted us to derive was that which was found in the play on words relevant to the Greek words of Matthew's gospel.
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. (from your link)
This is simply a silly argument. Not a single one of these "fathers" wrote within a century and a half of Christ, and the last of His Apostles was dead when the first of these fathers was having his diapers changed by his wet-nurse. the theology they (supposedly) represent is not Apostolic, but that which had developed at a much later date. Each one wrote in another language than Greek - languages which do not distinguish gender forms between "rock" and "rock". Relying upon these men's writings as a primary source for argumentation on this issue is simply ludicrous.
Further, Catholics may not want to rest on these men. Tertullian, if you will remember, fell into the Montanist heresy, and started following groups which thought they were getting snazzy new revelations from wild visions of some woman prophet (i.e. they were like a group of ancient hyper-charismatics). Tatian wasn't exactly doctrinally sound, either. Also, these men wrote things that Catholics would DISAGREE with most heartily. For instance, Damasus denied transubstantiation (and that even though he wasa "pope"!). The use of these men as some sort of apostolic, infallible arbiters of Peter's being the foundation of the church appears to be a case of cherry-picking quotes out of context.
Christ did not add the confusion. Men add the confusion because they want the confusion.
If Christ had meant to say that He was actually building His church on Peter, He would have simply said so.
He did.
.
The empty void you feel can be filled.
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.