Posted on 11/06/2007 10:23:55 AM PST by Titanites
Let's look at Matthew 16:13-20:
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
And if you look at the following verse 20 you can see that Jesus still has not changed subject because he is commanding them not to reveal that He is the Christ.
Jesus thus does not declare the primacy of Peter, but rather declares that his church will be built upon the foundation of the revelation of and confession of faith of Jesus as the Christ. The "rock" is our faith in Christ.
It is fitting that this was written by a lawyer. He sets forth all the evidences and then presents a judgement. Wonderfully done. Readers may decide if they subscribe to his analysis and conclusion. As for me, I found it quite compelling, since I have struggled with many of the questions he poses ever since realizing the degree of corruption present in the Protestant apparatus in the U.S. If both the Catholic and Protestant establishments have been corrupted at one time or another by political power, what does that say? Reichert is able to separate the issues of sin and error, and make a distinction between them. It’s illuminatiing, to put it mildly.
My childhood was much as he described: the family expected church attendance, but no one discussed the meaning of it. It's a hard awakening to come to the conclusion that one's rock-ribbed, multi-generational family membership in a given church (in our case, Methodist) was just going through the motions.
I can say, however, that one tradition of Wesleyanism that I have taken with me is the ability to question assumptions until you arrive at the peace that passes understanding about a given topic. For me, understanding is a prelude to peace, and once I have understood, peace arrives; even mindful as I am "not to lean unto my own understanding." Perhaps that passage means to say, "the peace that does not require understanding", but it didn't, so I'm still wondering about that. This is why I often say, "my apostle is Thomas." I really enjoyed this article.
Read Isaiah 22
See the footnotes from BibleGateway.com, where you got the quotations:
c. Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
Ping
My childhood....
I couldn’t have written it better.
See the footnotes from BibleGateway.com, where you got the quotations:
Footnotes:
c. Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
1Corithians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
I do believe God can use what he chooses for a foundation.
I am just curious. What do you believe are the “keys of the kingdom”?
??? Yes, I would call that confusion alright! It is trying to put something that is of the spirit into an intellectual construct. I would call it a state of the heart, not of the mind.
I had come a long way in understanding, or trying to understand, justification and salvation from a Catholic perspective and my own uneasiness with the lack of passion for Christian unity among my Evangelical brothers.
There was a time when unity was a double edged sword. When you have the power to kill or torture those who believe differently than you, you can get a lot of people to confess whatever you tell them they must confess.
The Reformers began down that same error ridden road, but were quickly undone by their own principles. Forced unity is evil, which is why I have a lot more uneasiness with unity than I do with whatever number of divisions result from division that's a product of freedom of conscience.
It must be shown that the Church defected at some time, or over some period of time, from the original deposit of the faith.
Show me Gospel support for torturing and/or killing heretics or even signing off on the state doing it to maintain domestic tranquility. The Church did defect from the original deposit of the faith & I'm not sure She would have rediscovered Her true purpose if She hadn't had it forced on Her.
Why is it that Bible-reading Christians did not "reform" the early Church? If these early Christians could not comprehend the true gospel from reading the Bible in their own language at a time so close to the apostolic era, how is it that Protestants were suddenly able to do so some fifteen centuries later in translation and in a culture remote in time and space from the apostolic age?
People had ready access to Bibles in the early Church? what happened to the argument that Bibles weren't assembled until centuries later & then they were rare, expensive & most people couldn't read anyway?
See Isaiah 22:22. It’s a symbol of authority, specifically the authority of a royal steward under the headship of a Davidic king.
So you believe that Isaiah 22:22 is referring to Peter, and not Christ?
The position of royal steward is the type or foreshadowing of Peter, not of Christ. (cf Luke 12:41ff) The position of king (the steward's boss) is the type of Christ.
Isaiah 22:22
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Revelation 3:7
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
Who is being referred to in Revelation 3:7? Would it not be the same person who was referred to in Isaiah 22:22?
Is 22:22 is referring to Eliakim. Read from verse 20, or even better, from verse 15.
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth
There is no contradiction here, but reinforcement. The keys are the symbol of dynastic power and authority in the Davidic monarchy. They belong to the king, and their power and authority is given by the king to one whom the king designates to act in his behalf.
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.