The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.

We have arrived at ground zero in the Petrine controversy, one of the most bitterly disputed texts in all of sacred scripture. Here the Petrine fact looms most intractably and prominently, resisting all attempts to smooth it over or roll it aside. It is a sad irony that the rock to which Jesus attached such importance has become a stone of stumbling for so many, just as the primacy of Rome, for some an icon, almost a sacrament, of unity, has become a source of division.

At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.

Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: "After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter" (Caragounis 1).

Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:

The pericope begins in Matthew 16:13, in which Jesus asks the Twelve what people are saying about him, and receives a number of different answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

Then comes the crucial question: "But who do you say I am?" As often elsewhere, Peter speaks up for the Twelve: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

The next three verses are a remarkable composition, well capable of bearing all the critical scrutiny they have received. Here is Jesus' reply in full:

The above blocking highlights a point made by Jimmy Akin (I haven't seen it developed in this form by anyone else) regarding the three-part structure of each of the three verses. Each verse starts with a major or leading clause, followed by a supporting couplet, the two clauses of which jointly illuminate and expound upon the major clause.

What is more, in each of the three leading clauses, Jesus both addresses Peter and makes a pronouncement regarding Peter: "1. Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! … 2. And I tell you, you are Petros … 3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." As we will see, each of these pronouncements is in some way unparalleled; each is extraordinary in itself, and all three together are an astonishing manifesto on Peter's behalf.

It is not surprising, then, that each of the three major Petrine pronouncements is followed by a couplet illuminating or commenting upon what Jesus has just said to Peter and about Peter. This is so clear that no one denies this in the first or third verses; everyone recognizes that "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven" is a commentary on "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona", and that "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven / and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" is a commentary on "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Yet sandwiched between those two verses is a verse that follows precisely the same pattern, yet here the pattern has historically been contested by some. It has been argued that "On this rock I will build my church / and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" is not a commentary on "I tell you, you are Petros"; that after saying "You are Petros," Jesus in effect changes the subject from the previous thought, merely punning on Petros in order to talk about some quite distinct petra — only to return to Peter in the following verse.

Start at the beginning. Jesus opens with an unparalleled benediction: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona!" Nowhere else in the Gospels does Jesus pronounce such a blessing on any individual; Peter aside, people are pronounced blessed by Jesus only in groups or classes, in the abstract, or both. To find this singular beatitude at the outset of this crucial Petrine text is itself a notable token of the Petrine fact.

Jesus then goes on to expound upon the benediction of this first remarkable clause in a supporting couplet clarifying Peter's beatitude: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven." Peter's beatitude is not something he achieved himself; it is the gift of the Father.

It must be remembered, too, that the blessing is counter-balanced six verses by the equally singular rebuke, "Get behind me, Satan!" (or "Get behind me, you satan!"). Most of Jesus' maledictions, like his blessings, are aimed at groups ("Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," Matt 23:13ff), and even Herod was only called a fox (Luke 13:32). Peter alone is called by that harsh word, adversary, that denotes the enemy of mankind.

Once again, then, the point is not that Peter was personally uniquely holy or favored only in positive ways; he wasn't. Rather, the point is simply Peter's unique prominence, partly rooted perhaps in his own qualities for good and for ill, but also bound up in Jesus' own choice, resulting in unique privileges but also unique chastenings. "Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48): Peter is singularly blessed and singularly chastised; in either case his position is unique.

Then comes the second leading clause: "And I say to you, you are Petros." The first word, kagõ (a contraction of "And I"), is emphatic (the Greek doesn't require the explicit first-personal pronoun); Jesus underscores that it is he, the Messiah confessed by Peter, who speaks. Jesus may also be counterpointing his own words to the Father's gift to Peter; the Father has revealed Jesus' identity to Peter, and now it is the Son's turn to reveal something to Peter.

"You are Petros." Peter has told Jesus who he is ("You are the Messiah"); now Jesus tells Peter who he is. Is this merely declarative, or performative? Is Jesus making an observation, or giving Peter his new name here and now?

John 1:42 relates Jesus telling Peter at their first meeting, "You will be called Kephas," a saying that could be read as either as an enactment or as a proleptic or prophetic utterance (the future tense could mean either "from this point forward" or "at some point in the future"). In Mark 3 the list of the Twelve begins "Simon whom he surnamed Peter," but ends with "Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him" (Mark 3:15-19). Obviously Judas has not already betrayed Jesus in chapter 3; by the same token, we cannot conclude that Jesus has already surnamed Simon Peter at that point in the narrative.

The Evangelists all use the name Peter early on. In fact, John 1 refers to "Simon Peter" in verse 40, before Jesus and Peter have even met, and Matthew likewise identifies the apostle as "Simon who is called Peter" (Matt 4:18) the moment Jesus sees him, before they have spoken. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels use the name Peter from the start because that is the name readers know him by; it doesn't tell us when he first began to go by that name.

Other than John 1:42, then, there is no clear evidence of Jesus or anyone else calling Peter Kephas or Petros prior to Matthew 16:18. On the contrary, what evidence we have suggests that Jesus continued to use the name Simon (e.g., Matt 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 21:15, the late exception being Luke 22:34). The question, then, is whether Jesus' words to Peter at their meeting — "You will be called Kephas" — are grounds for concluding that henceforth the apostle began to be known by that surname.

It seems an open question. It's possible that Jesus and others began to call Simon Kephas right away, or that the surname caught on at some other point prior to Matthew 16. The Gospels offer scant evidence either way.

On the one hand, there is no indication in John 1 that anyone but Andrew heard the saying; if Jesus himself continued to use Simon's given name, it seems plausible that Peter's brother (and business partners James and John), who had always called him Simon, would similarly continue to call him the name they had always used. On the other hand, it's also plausible that Andrew might at least have told James and John about the strange saying, so that eventually all the Twelve would know the story, and Simon might start to be known as Kephas or Petros without another word from Jesus after John 1:42.

What seems certain is that Matthew 16 describes an event that would certainly have caused the surname to stick if it hadn't already. Not only is it an emphatic, present-tense pronouncement before all the Twelve, the occasion of Peter's confession is the sort of circumstance that elicits surnames from rabbis and other authorities. (For example, Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, was the surname given to Joseph of Cyprus by the apostles in Acts 4:36, possibly in connection with the act described in the next verse, i.e., laying at the apostles' feet the money from the sale of his field. Certainly he was not surnamed Barnabas out of the blue.)

It is also worth noting that the structure of verse 18 is notably similar to the texts in Genesis in which Abram, Sarai and Jacob receive their new names, followed by an exposition of the significance of the new name:

The parallels are most striking in the case of Abraham and Sarah, where the commentary takes the form of an account of the inaugural role they will have in the new stage of God's plan of salvation. Jacob's name change also seems generally indicative of his election for the new stage in God's plan (though this point isn't explicitly drawn out in the commentary on the name).

If Jesus is not effectively renaming Peter in Matthew 16, he seems to be doing something remarkably similar. At the very least, even if Peter already went by his surname, the renewed pronouncement of the surname, in the solemn and emphatic context of the passage, seems to invest it with further significance — significance that almost goes beyond a mere surname, that is more like a new identity and a new mission. (It may even be worth noting here that Jacob's new name Israel is also given twice, in Gen 32:28 and again in Gen 35:10 — and that even after both renamings Israel also continues to be called Jacob both by the sacred writer and even by God, e.g., Gen 46:2-5, etc.)

All of this suggests that the pronouncement of Peter's new name reflects a new role in Jesus' messianic plan, one that seems to call for further explication. As previously noted, efforts have been made, especially in the past, to deny that "upon this rock" constitutes such commentary, to argue that it must refer to some distinct petra. Not until verse 19, on this reading, does Jesus say more about Peter's new role. The effect seems not unlike revising Genesis 17:5-6 to read, "No longer shall your name be Abram [exalted father], but your name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude], and I the Lord shall be exalted among the nations, and a father to my people. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful…"

If "this rock" is not Peter, what is it? There's the rub. Literarily, the demonstrative pronoun "this" implies an antecedent. Some older Protestant writers tried to float the notion that Jesus might have gestured toward himself as he said "this rock" — an exegetical conceit that would reduce Matthew's purpose to merely relating dialogue without conveying meaning (not to mention being difficult to reconcile with sola scriptura, for what that's worth). In the absence of other indication, the Gospel text clearly indicates a continuation of thought, not a change of subject.

The conjunction "and" (kai) links the second clause ("upon this rock") to the main clause ("I say to you, you are Petros"). Peter is the topic of the preceding and following verses. The connection between Petros and petra is unmistakable; even on the theory that Jesus was merely punning on Petros but talking about something else, the pun itself presupposes that Petros is the first thing we think of when we hear petra.

Petros, then, is the obvious antecedent, petra the obvious continuation of thought between "You are Petros" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Only if there were some insurmountable obstacle to identifying Petros as petra would it be feasible to set aside that connection and cast about for more remote, less obvious possible referents: Peter's confession, Peter's faith, the truth about Christ, Christ himself.

The next post will examine proposed obstacles to identifying Peter as the rock, as well as difficulties with alternate proposals. More to come.

NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.

>That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.<

No, as you must well know, for hundreds of years the Pope reigned or sought to reign as a type of Caesar (as Boniface VII distinctly asserted), over those within her body and without, and while you may disagree that the level of exaltation and authority that it claimed (i can supply quotes) and enjoyed when it could constitutes a demi-god, i submit that even having your feet kissed by underlings (which only recently ceased), while seated in a royal palace with its accompaniments, is too close for spiritual comfort, as being contrary to Scripture. That applies to Benney Hinn as well.

I might add that the spiritual manner in which Christ constituted the church, and the commands for it, and its N.T. example, (1Cor. 5:12,13; 1Pt. 2:14; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-01; 10:4) disallows the use of physical punishment in disciplining it members, such as was sanctioned by Rome in the Inquisitions, or establishing theocracies where the church ruled over those with it (even Pilgrims transgressed here), which was what was behind the Crusades, nor the use carnal force to defend or expand its rule.

>If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated.<

Acceptable, but not always in the same manner. The priesthood of the O.T., though not necessarily analogous here, ceased with Christ’s death, with the N.T. priesthood of believers (not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) being the form in which it exists.

Yet the real issue is that an especially infallible and supreme human head of the church is not established, much less its Roman manifestation (the absence of the supernatural signs of an apostle also testifies against the pope). However, (hold on) i think a true to God central authority, as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, could be welcomed by real believers, though this could not be enforced, except by spiritual power, as the original were, and Rome is not even in the running, due to its works-merit gospel, and other manifestly false doctrines.

Moreover, the church being essentially a spiritual entity, its authenticity is not based upon formal ecclesiastical linkage to one organic body, for the authenticity of a true church, like that of a true Jew, (Rm. 2:28,29) is based upon apostolic faith in the gospel, not physical or formal ecclesiastical lineage, for it is by faith in Christ that the church exists, and overcomes, and that souls become part of the body of Christ. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13)

Therefore, unlike the theocratic earthly kingdom of Israel, the body of Christ is not restricted to one formal organic union, and if one of the latter becomes corrupt, or institutionalized, the church that holds to essential salvific doctrine and effectual salvific faith, which the apostles and prophet laid, overcomes by faith in its chief cornerstone and head.

In addition, apostles and prophets were evidently not ordained by men as a line of lineage, like as the Levitical priests were (though Elijah case his mantle upon Elisha: 1Kg. 19:19), or elder/bishops and deacons regularly were, but appear to be sovereigly called and manifest. And if you are able to receive it, i would submit the Luther (among others) was a type of apostle or prophet, imperfect, but used of God to reprove Rome, and lead people into Reformation which has resulted in the great modern increase in the kingdom of Christ, to God be the glory, though it (and i) come much short of the prima N.T. church in purity, power and passion, and for which i need to seek more.

***>That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.<

It does go back for some time. According to New Advent, the probable source of this is Isaiah 49:
22
Thus says the Lord GOD: See, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to the peoples; They shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.
23
Kings shall be your foster fathers, their princesses your nurses; Bowing to the ground, they shall worship you and lick the dust at your feet. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, and those who hope in me shall never be disappointed.

And it is mentioned in Church history early on. We read of it in the first “Ordo Romanus” belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the “Liber Pontificalis” attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope’s foot was spoken of as an ancient one.

It can certainly be misconstrued, I will agree.

***I might add that the spiritual manner in which Christ constituted the church, and the commands for it, and its N.T. example, (1Cor. 5:12,13; 1Pt. 2:14; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-01; 10:4) disallows the use of physical punishment in disciplining it members, such as was sanctioned by Rome in the Inquisitions, or establishing theocracies where the church ruled over those with it (even Pilgrims transgressed here), which was what was behind the Crusades, nor the use carnal force to defend or expand its rule.***

Could you expand on this thought further, please? Remember that Jesus did violence to the moneychangers in the Temple.

***>If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated.<

Agreed. The NT priesthood of believers does not mean that the NT priesthood of ordained men does not exist. That is more than adequately shown by the ordaining of men to replace the first bishops.

***Yet the real issue is that an especially infallible and supreme human head of the church is not established, much less its Roman manifestation (the absence of the supernatural signs of an apostle also testifies against the pope). However, (hold on) i think a true to God central authority, as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, could be welcomed by real believers, though this could not be enforced, except by spiritual power, as the original were, and Rome is not even in the running, due to its works-merit gospel, and other manifestly false doctrines.***

That is where the anti Catholic forces are manifestly wrong. Understanding of the requirements of Judgement are key to the doctrine. If one does not act in a Christian manner according to the teachings of Jesus, then one is thrown into the fiery pit. The wicked servant has to repay all. And so on.

***Therefore, unlike the theocratic earthly kingdom of Israel, the body of Christ is not restricted to one formal organic union, and if one of the latter becomes corrupt, or institutionalized, the church that holds to essential salvific doctrine and effectual salvific faith, which the apostles and prophet laid, overcomes by faith in its chief cornerstone and head.***

I would respectfully disagree with this statement. Jesus mentions His Church as a perpetual institution (until He comes again) and promises His Holy Spirit to guide it.

***And if you are able to receive it, i would submit the Luther (among others) was a type of apostle or prophet, imperfect, but used of God to reprove Rome, and lead people into Reformation which has resulted in the great modern increase in the kingdom of Christ, to God be the glory, though it (and i) come much short of the prima N.T. church in purity, power and passion, and for which i need to seek more.***

Again, I must respectfully disagree. Without the Reformation, entities like the LDS and the Jehovah’s Witnesses could not have been created. Joel Osteen and Rick Warren would have been hucking snake oil and not salvation. Benny Hinn and Jimmy Swaggart would have been dealing three card monte on the streets and not having the souls of the would be faithful detour to possible perdition.

Hi Mark,

>Could you expand on this thought further, please?<

Certainly. As stated, the N.T. church never used physical force in countering its enemies, as this was contrary to its charter and spiritual constitution, nor did they use deceitful means, and instead the church must have spiritual power and integrity to prevail.

Jn. 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

2Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

1Cor. 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

1Pt. 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.

Likewise regarding disciplining its members (using spiritual power and the passive means of disfellowship), nor did it rule over those without:

1Cor. 4:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

>Remember that Jesus did violence to the moneychangers in the Temple.<

Yes, and He also allowed Peter the use of 2 swords. But both these were before the institution of the N.T., or covenant, which occurs by His death (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16)

I also think that the use of precisely 2 swords (not armies) was in condescension to the disciples plight in the interim period of the absence of Jesus and endowment of the Holy Spirit, while the Lord’s use of corporal means of force was also His right, as it was His Father’s house, and yet operated under the Old dispensation. I would like to think that this also allows the use of corporal punishment of one’s own children, as needed (it was on me!), which is the only weak link in my position against outlawing physical force in chastising church members. But at the least such could never be used to enforce doctrinal conformity ala the Inquisitions, while the church is not constituted to rule as a civil power.

Yet abstaining from the use of physical force against the non-elect, in preference to spiritual means, need not outlaw any use of force at all times. Physically stopping a person from jumping off a bridge would be one example where it could be sanctioned, and it is hard to argue against reacting with some force as a last resort against an immediate threat in order to protect the innocent, with a willingness to take their place as the victim. But these are derivative arguments from reason and the intent of the law, but the explicit teaching under the New Covenant is that of only the use of spiritual means to defend and expand the church, and to discipline its members.

I would also hold that nothing prevents a Christian from the just use of force when acting for the government, as the use of the sword by them is explicitly sanctioned.

>Bowing to the ground, they shall worship you and lick the dust at your feet...It can certainly be misconstrued, I will agree.<

The feet kissing objection was, in context, part of the larger situation of one man being high and lifted up as the supreme human head.

Act 10:5 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man

Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Though brethren are to wash each others feet, in more ways than that, those that exalt themselves shall be abased, and the greatest shall be servant of all.

Certainly copelled obeisance will take place, in the context of judgment, but it is not to men who hold out their feet to be kissed.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

>...Understanding of the requirements of Judgement are key to the doctrine....,

It is unclear what precisely you are referring to.

>Jesus mentions His Church as a perpetual institution (until He comes again) and promises His Holy Spirit to guide it.<

Indeed, and what i said is in conformity to it. The point is that the body of Christ is not simply one formal organic union, which Rome since V2 recognizes, though it marginalizes Bible-based evangelicals as “deficient in grace”, compared to Catholics, thorough evidence shows the opposite.

>Again, I must respectfully disagree. Without the Reformation, entities like the LDS and the Jehovah’s Witnesses could not have been created.<

Not so, as heretics always existed, if suppressed. What you have to mean was if Rome had not lost her secular powers by which she suppressed such then they would not have existed. If every Protestant (legitimately or more broadly defined), became Catholic, that that itself would not prevent LDS types from arising. Without secular powers suppressing them, the only way for victory is spiritual superiority in spirit and in doctrine, and it was in that quest that the Reformation began.

As far as political power, if all Catholics became evangelicals that would have more beneficial effect, as consistently studies show that evangelicals are overall more faithful to doctrinal essentials and are more conservative. No that i am satisfied with out present condition.

The true test of spiritual superiority is when there is an even playing field, and even though the deck was overwhelmingly stacked against them, the early church did not overcome the paganism of Rome by the use of secular power, and if the early church had been in the spiritual condition that it was at Luther’s time, then it enemies would have prevailed. Early one it was already showing signs of corruption, and division, as Paul foresaw, and after 313 it was incorporating paganism.

>Joel Osteen and Rick Warren would have been hucking snake oil and not salvation.<

And the litany of wonderfully holy and selfless Protestants would have been suppressed or killed, even as it did to its own Savonarola’s. Matthew Henry’s beloved and extensive practical commentary would not exist, the likes of which, in depth, is not seen in Rome. Likewise many other primary enlightening works (Barnes, Clarke, Gill. Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and other Protestants who even today are the primary voices and soldiers in the war against cults, and false preachers. The multitude of mighty and sacrificial laborers on the mission field who preached the gospel that Peter preached (Acts 10:43-47) would not be found. Absent would the tens of thousands of hymns penned by souls who knew, loved and walked with their Savior, whose glory He shed on their way, (which are such an expression of that relationship, that unless they are all relegated to being psychotic, they are a proof the existence of Christ) and are even sung by Catholics. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.

***Certainly. As stated, the N.T. church never used physical force in countering its enemies, as this was contrary to its charter and spiritual constitution, nor did they use deceitful means, and instead the church must have spiritual power and integrity to prevail.***

Hmm, well, the Church spent most of the first two centuries relatively underground, making extensive use of the Roman catacombs, for instance. I guess that not being extremely visible is not exactly deceitful, so you do have a point.

Yet Augustine did advocate just war, and so have many of the other Church Fathers. Violence in the early Church was rare; certainly.

***Likewise regarding disciplining its members (using spiritual power and the passive means of disfellowship), nor did it rule over those without:***

Jesus made the whole of mankind his business, not just the local church.

***Not so, as heretics always existed, if suppressed. What you have to mean was if Rome had not lost her secular powers by which she suppressed such then they would not have existed. If every Protestant (legitimately or more broadly defined), became Catholic, that that itself would not prevent LDS types from arising. Without secular powers suppressing them, the only way for victory is spiritual superiority in spirit and in doctrine, and it was in that quest that the Reformation began.***

The success of the Reformation was entirely secular, with the German princes seizing on the vehicle of the Reformation with the aim of seizing secular power. Without secular power, and a weakened Church, the Reformation took root and therefore the heresies, relatively unopposed, ran amuck.

***Joel Osteen and Rick Warren would have been hucking snake oil and not salvation.<

If you read up on the first millennium and a half, you will see that the Church dealt quite actively with the heretics and cults and the development of doctrine along with those dealings.

***The multitude of mighty and sacrificial laborers on the mission field who preached the gospel that Peter preached (Acts 10:43-47) would not be found. Absent would the tens of thousands of hymns penned by souls who knew, loved and walked with their Savior, whose glory He shed on their way, (which are such an expression of that relationship, that unless they are all relegated to being psychotic, they are a proof the existence of Christ) and are even sung by Catholics. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.***

I would disagree completely with this last statement. The Church started, and continues to be Apostolic. Scripture is one of the teachings of the Church. Another is the rest of sacred Tradition, which, as John’s Gospel says, goes beyond what is written in Scripture.

>Yet Augustine did advocate just war, and so have many of the other Church Fathers.<

Which is Biblical, but that was not the contention, which is that the use of physical force and the sword of men by the church in subduing enemies, or ruling over those without, or chastising its members is contrary in principal and to precept under the New Covenant.

>Jesus made the whole of mankind his business, not just the local church.<

Certainly, and instituted the New Covenant in His blood, which established the church as spiritual entity, with its organic members using spiritual force to win its battles, and exampling how as seen in Acts, etc.

>If you read up on the first millennium and a half, you will see that the Church dealt quite actively with the heretics and cults and the development of doctrine along with those dealings.<

That is not the issue, but that without its secular power to suppress them Rome would have to deal with LDS types which you blame the Reformation on. Perhaps you agree with sedevacantists that Romes’s more historical position denies freedom of religion.

>The success of the Reformation was entirely secular...<

“Entirely secular” is certainly hyperbole, as while freedom was right and helpful, its success was overall essentially spiritual, and without the people being able to read the Bible the positive aspects of the Reformation would not have happened.

>Without secular power, and a weakened Church, the Reformation took root and therefore the heresies, relatively unopposed, ran amuck.<

You have just advocated suppression by secular means. Actually, early Protestants as Calvin and the Puritans, not totally leaving Rome, had their own type of civil theocracies, and heretics (or those they considered such, like Williams) did not last long in them, but resrting to this only weakened their position. As for what ran amok, Rome itself promotes manifest heresies, which the Reformation was much a reaction against, but in any case, heresies are able be more visible any place where social and civil freedom in matters religious are upheld, which Rome now upholds. (DIGNITATIS HUMANAE) While such freedom is not absolute, and civil secular gov. may restrict such to different degrees, the only way to really counter heresy is by spiritual means, prayer and the preaching and living of the gospel of grace, as exampled by the N.t. church.

>>. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.<<

>I would disagree completely with this last statement. The Church started, and continues to be Apostolic. Scripture is one of the teachings of the Church. Another is the rest of sacred Tradition, which, as John’s Gospel says, goes beyond what is written in Scripture..<<

I did not say to that suppress the Bible would be to fight against God, but that Rome would have suppressed by force or killed souls whose words and lives are overall a compliment to the Christian faith.

As for sacred Tradition, sola scriptura does not hold that all spiritual knowledge is restricted to Scripture, though it may be said to essentially contain all, nor that God cannot speak to believers today (just wait till its time for the offering), or that men cannot speak infallible truth at times, but that all must be subject to the scriptures, which is the only identifiable class of revelation (outside the creation) that is assured to be wholly inspired of God.

To declare oneself infallible, and provide infallible interpretation for this claim, and infallibly define when one is (though being ambiguous enough as to allow confusion) is to effectively exalt oneself above the Scriptures. The sola scriptura means is to hold that the Scriptures are infallible, and to reason with men out of them (Acts 17:2), “not handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” Other supernatural means can also attest. (Rm. 15:18.19) Thus the listeners must and can decide if this is the word of God, (Acts 17:11) and will have more valid and defensible assurance and qualitative unity than by implicit truth in man.

The real point here is that by spiritual power, holiness and consistency with what has likewise already been Divinely manifest as from God, is how the Biblical authority and validity of a person or entity is manifest, and not by self-declarations. Like Moses reliance upon miracles, this allows for some competition, and by which souls are tested as to what they want, but the truth will prevail, and prevail against the sword of men, and those who rely upon it to subdue spiritual enemies or such or self-declarations to gain converts reveal their weakness.

1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

1 Thessalonians 1:5 “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.”

I must seek to be more like such.

I do actually believe that Peter and the apostles began the early churches. Christ did institute the twelve to begin the church.

However, there is no clear record anywhere that the roman catholic church is any kind of successor to Peter. Paul was the one who went to Rome to spread the gospel.

As far as I can tell from history is that constantine handed over his crown to the first pope when he declared that “christianity” is the new religion in rome. However, they just overlayed their feasts over the top of the christian church and called it the Roman Catholic Church.

The church of Jesus Christ is nothing to do with denominations...that is just man’s outward structure that he has given to the what he thinks the church should be. The real church is those who seek to make their heart pure by practising what Jesus asked them to do. If you have any negative feelings towards any human then you are not doing what Jesus asked you to do. We are called to love one another and to love God. To Love God is to believe on Jesus Christ as our King who has atoned for us and washed us of our sin. That is what Christianity is and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you call yourself RC, Anglican or baptist...whatever.

Get your hearts right and stop condemning...Its been a long road for me and I have had to go round the mountain a number of times before I could see this. The bible is a book to convict you in your heart to love God and Jesus. It is not there for any of us to start telling people they are right and wrong. We just spread the gospel...Jesus died for us and wants us to take hold of this fundamental faith so that we can live eternally with God in Jesus Christ who is the heart and word of God our Father in Heaven. Nothing I can do will ever get me into heaven. God is our saviour and sent his mercy through his son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ cleans us of our sin. If you don’t grab hold of this sacrifice with all of your mind and heart then you are probably thinking that your good acts will get you into heaven.

Think of the thief who was on the cross...do you think that he could do any righteous act to get in to heaven once he had asked for forgiveness? No...he couldn’t because he was already condemned to die...what other acts could he have done. He knew that he needed a saviour...he asked for forgiveness from Jesus and Jesus promised him that he would be in paradise with him. That is what it took. If you ask Jesus to wash you and cleanse you he will forgive you and release you from your sin. That is all it takes -

Acknowledge that Jesus Christ is your saviour. The rest is just conjecture and argument and you can file it in the bin from where it came from.

AMEN, Every blessing

Colin

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.