Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 09/09/2020 1:17:58 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:

Childishness, locked

Posters, please review your posts to see what is not allowed in the Religion Forum.



Skip to comments.

Should we Evangelize Protestants ?
The Catholic Thing ^ | August 9th, 2020 | Casey Chalk

Posted on 08/09/2020 7:46:24 AM PDT by MurphsLaw

We should stop trying to evangelize Protestants, some Catholics say. “Let’s get our own house clean first, before we invite our fellow Christians in,” someone commented on a recent article of mine that presented a Catholic rejoinder to a prominent Baptist theologian. Another reader argued that, rather than trying to persuade Protestants to become Catholic, we should “help each other spread God’s love in this world that seems to be falling to pieces before our eyes.” As a convert from Protestantism, actively engaged in ecumenical dialogue, I’ve heard this kind of thinking quite frequently. And it’s dead wrong.

One common argument in favor of scrapping Catholic evangelism towards Protestants is that the Catholic Church, mired in sex-abuse and corruption scandals, liturgical abuses, heretical movements, and uneven catechesis, is such a mess that it is not, at least for the moment, a place suitable for welcoming other Christians.

There are many problems with this. For starters, when has the Church not been plagued by internal crises? In the fourth century, a majority of bishops were deceived by the Arian heresy. The medieval Church suffered under the weight of simony and a lax priesthood, as well as the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, culminating in three men claiming, simultaneously, to be pope. The Counter-Reformation, for all its catechetical, missionary and aesthetic glories, was still marred by corruption and heresies (Jansenism). Catholicism has never been able to escape such trials. That didn’t stop St. Martin of Tours, St. Boniface, St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius Loyola, or St. Teresa of Calcutta from their missionary efforts.

The “Catholics clean house” argument also undermines our own theology. Is the Eucharist the “source and summit of the Christian life,” as Lumen Gentium preaches, or not? If it is, how could we in good conscience not direct other Christians to its salvific power? Jesus Himself declared: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) Was our Lord misrepresenting the Eucharist?

Or what of the fact that most Protestant churches allow contraception, a mortal sin? Or that Protestants have no recourse to the sacraments of penance or last rites? To claim Protestants aren’t in need of these essential parts of the Catholic faith is to implicitly suggest we don’t need them either.

* Moreover, in the generations since the Reformation, Rome has been able to win many Protestants back to the fold who have made incalculable contributions to the Church. St. John Henry Newman’s conversion ushered in a Catholic revival in England, and gave us a robust articulation of the concept of doctrinal development. The conversion of French Lutheran pastor Louis Bouyer influenced the teachings of Vatican II. Biblical scholar Scott Hahn’s conversion in the 1980s revitalized lay study of Holy Scripture.

Another popular argument in favor of limiting evangelization of Protestants involves the culture war. Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants, some claim, share significant common ground on various issues: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, euthanasia, religious freedom, etc. Secularism, the sexual revolution, and anti-religious progressives represent an existential threat to the survival of both Catholics and Protestants, and thus we must work together, not debate one another. “Let’s hold back any criticism of them,” a person commenting on my article wrote. “Believe me, in the times that we are in, we need to all hang together, or we will definitely hang separately on gallows outside our own churches.”

This line of thought certainly has rhetorical force: we don’t have the luxury of debating with Protestants when the progressivists are planning our imminent demise! Ecumenical debate is a distraction from self-preservation. One problem with this argument is that it reduces our Christian witness to a zero-sum game – we have to focus all our efforts on fighting secular progressivism, or we’ll fail. Yet the Church has many missions in the public square – that Catholics invest great energy in the pro-life movement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also focus our efforts on other important matters: health-care, education, ensuring religious freedom, or fighting poverty and environmental degradation. All of these, in different ways, are a part of human flourishing. Even if we consider some questions more urgent than others, none of them should be ignored.

Besides, there is a vast difference between mere polemics and charitable, fruitful discussions aimed at resolving disagreements. The former can certainly cause bad blood. The latter, however, can actually foster unity and clarity regarding our purposes. Consider how much more fruitful our fight against the devastation of the sexual revolution would be if we persuaded Protestants that they need to reject things like contraception and the more permissive stance towards divorce that they have allowed to seep into their churches. Consider how non-Christians could learn from charitable ecumenical conversations that don’t devolve into name-calling and vilification.

Finally, abandoning or minimizing the evangelizing of Protestants is to fail to recognize how their theological and philosophical premises have contributed to the very problems we now confront. As Brad Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation demonstrates, the very nature of Protestantism has contributed to the individualism, secularism, and moral relativism of our age. A crucial component to our Catholic witness, then, is helping Protestants to recognize this, since even when they have the best intentions, their very paradigm undermines their contributions to collaborating with us in the culture war.

I for one am very grateful that Catholics – many of them former Protestants – persuaded me to see the problems inherent to Protestantism, and the indisputable truths of Catholicism. My salvation was at stake. I also found and married a devout Catholic woman, and am raising Catholic children. The Catholic tradition taught me how to pray, worship, and think in an entirely different way. It pains me to think what my life would be like if I hadn’t converted to Catholicism.

Why bother to evangelize devout Protestants? Because they are people like me.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholics; christianity; evangelicals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,341-1,358 next last
To: Elsie

You left out the picture of the UFO in more than one of the photographic plates made on that October day. And you left out the reference to the personal notes from the Parrish priest as he recorded eyewitness accounts of a silver disc which ‘buzzed’ the crowd causing vehicles to burst into flames.


281 posted on 08/12/2020 7:47:37 AM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: MurphsLaw
and there is more...

Yup...


Since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS???

 

NIV Genesis 49:24-25
 24.  But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
 25.  because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty,  who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb.
 
NIV Numbers 20:8
   "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink."
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
  He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
   Jeshurun  grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior.
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
  You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.
 
NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
 30.  How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up?
 31.  For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede.
 
NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
  "There is no one holy  like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
 
NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
 2.  He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
 3.  my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn  of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me.
 
NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
  For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
 
NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
  "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior!
 
NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
 3.  The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
 4.  he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.'
 
NIV Psalms 18:2
  The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn  of my salvation, my stronghold.
 
NIV Psalms 18:31
   For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
 
NIV Psalms 18:46
  The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior!
 
NIV Psalms 19:14
   May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
 
NIV Psalms 28:1
   To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
 
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
 2.  Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me.
 3.  Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me.
 
NIV Psalms 42:9
   I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"
 
NIV Psalms 62:2
   He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.
 
NIV Psalms 62:6
   He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.
 
NIV Psalms 62:7
   My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge.
 
NIV Psalms 71:3
   Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.
 
NIV Psalms 78:35
   They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.
 
NIV Psalms 89:26
   He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'
 
NIV Psalms 92:14-15
 14.  They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green,
 15.  proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."
 
NIV Psalms 95:1
   Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
 
NIV Psalms 144:1
   Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
 
NIV Isaiah 17:10
   You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.
 
NIV Isaiah 26:4
   Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal.
 
NIV Isaiah 30:29
 And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.
 
NIV Isaiah 44:8
   Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." 
 
NIV Habakkuk 1:12
   O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

.....No other rock.............
 
And now you know the Biblical position!


282 posted on 08/12/2020 7:48:19 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; ADSUM
Here is a video discussion of the Fatima event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLP9kjWxcB4

The promoters of this event as if it is The Virgin Mary appearing purposely leave out the descriptions of the first visitations showing a female with a short tunic exposing her thighs ... wouldn't fit the fraud so they leave it out, if they even are aware of the truth.

283 posted on 08/12/2020 7:56:11 AM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD

AMEN!!!


284 posted on 08/12/2020 8:32:03 AM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51; Mom MD
So, if schism is bad, why did Rome split from the EO? In part, because it wanted sole ecclesiastical authority over all of Christendom.

And they are still trying to claim it today, a thousand years later.

285 posted on 08/12/2020 8:33:06 AM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM; Faith Presses On
Jesus only established one Catholic Church and not the protestant versions or established multiple truths so that every protestant can have their own personal opinion of the truth.

Jesus didn't found any Catholic so-called church.

Catholicism has become a den of iniquity and has forfeited any claim or right it feels it has to call itself a church.

Besides, Jesus never said He was going to *found* a church.

Nor did He say He was going to found THE CATHOLIC church. The phrase *Catholic church* is found nowhere in Scripture.

He said He was going t BUILD a church, which is different from founding it.

And besides, JESUS is the Chief Cornerstone on which His church is built.

If Catholicism claims it's built on Peter because he's the rock, then they are not the body of Christ.

286 posted on 08/12/2020 8:37:42 AM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM; Faith Presses On

Are you saying Rome can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholicisms authority? Because Rome calls it *sacred tradition*?


287 posted on 08/12/2020 8:39:50 AM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

Hahaha. No, no, much as you’re trying to deceive me, I’m still telling the truth.

Okay, tell me. When did Catholics finally have an infallable canon of Scripture? What Council set it in stone so that NO dissent was permitted after?

Answer that and you’ll get the day that Catholics first had a Bible.

You won’t like the answer.


288 posted on 08/12/2020 9:35:01 AM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

PS: Why you so angry? I’m providing more evidence for my statements than you are!


289 posted on 08/12/2020 9:36:31 AM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Hey, if Catholics didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all!

But at least it makes them very easy to agitate.


290 posted on 08/12/2020 9:41:11 AM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM
Protestant belief that they have guaranteed assurance of salvation before their death is not God’s Truth

God said it. Christians believe it.

You apparently do not have assurance of salvation.

Nor will church membership - any church - nor rituals, nor supposed sacraments, nor filthy works, nor prayers get you to heaven.

St Paul told us to work out our own salvation (Phil 2:12)

Out not for.

that our final salvation depends on a lifetime of keeping the faith (2 Tim 4:7-8),

Rewards not salvation.

following the commandments (Math 19:17),

Spoken to Jews that were under the Law, not believers in Christ.

preserving in good works (Rom 2:7),

Context dear boy. Study to show yourself approved.

striving for holiness (Heb 12:14),

Salvation is not based on sanctification in this passage - nor any passage. Again, context.

praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17),

Salvation is never based on prayer. Ever.

and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11),

This passage isn't about salvation either.

and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13).

Concerns temporal death, and not eternal death.

Totally incorrect list of passages. This obligation is so serious we pursue with fear and trembling.

291 posted on 08/12/2020 10:04:56 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (I'd rather be anecdotally alive than scientifically dead... f)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; ADSUM

To be fair, he actually did provide evidence this time.

The problem NOW being that he’s completely ignoring all the passages of Scripture that state that we’re NOT saved by our works, on top of all the misinterpretations that you put down. Which is a logical fallacy in and of itself.

So the question once again is, why should we believe ADSUM’s personal interpretation of Scripture instead of what the text plainly says?


292 posted on 08/12/2020 10:15:29 AM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Luircin

“ why should we believe ADSUM’s personal interpretation of Scripture instead of what the text plainly says?”

Absolutely no reason.


293 posted on 08/12/2020 11:16:16 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (I'd rather be anecdotally alive than scientifically dead... f)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Yup... There's ALL kinds of rocks in scripture.. THAT'S what Jesus meant ! He's ALL of those Rocks and there can be no other rocks ! and he's gonna build a Church on himself ! And he's gonna do it from Heaven too !!
-Peter- Hold my beer !!!

WELL........ Here's some Protestant theologians and texts that have come to the Catholic understanding of the Rock.... you should too...courtesy of Dave Armstrong, Convert to the Church

How many Catholics you got ? Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars APRIL 21, 2018 BY DAVE ARMSTRONG 1. Peter as the “Rock” (Matthew 16:18) Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

A. New Bible Dictionary

“. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (4: 972)

B. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)

“The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of `petra’ to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: `On this rock will I build.’ Again, Christ is the great foundation, the `chief cornerstone,’ but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Pet 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

“Equally untenable is the explanation which refers `petra’ to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . .

“The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Gal 1:18.” (11; v.1: 91-92)

C. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985)

“Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.” (1)

D. Wycliffe Bible Commentary

“Another view common among some Protestants (Alford, Broadus, Vincent) is that Peter . . . is the rock.” (7: 959)

E. New Bible Commentary

“Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.” (6: 837)

F. Anchor Bible (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann)

“In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter’s authority to `bind’ or `release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.” (2)

G. Robert McAfee Brown

“Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the `rock’ on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.” (3)

H. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)



“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . .It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be `rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for `rock’, `petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine `petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form `kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the `rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . .

“Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (4)

I. Expositor’s Bible Commentary (D. A. Carson)

“On the basis of the distinction between `petros’ . . . and `petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere`stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the `rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken `rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .

“The Greek makes the distinction between `petros’ and `petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine “petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .

“Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been `lithos’ )`stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun – and that is just the point! . . .

“In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (5)

J. Peter in the New Testament

“Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of `Kepha’/`kepha’, there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference `Petros’/`petra’? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary . . . ; K. Stendahl in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p.787.” (6)

K. Richard Baumann

“Luther . . . took his rejection of the Petrine office from his erroneous interpretation of Christ’s saying in Matthew 16 . . . But today we recognize Luther’s error and give it up. `Anti-Catholic polemic has done violence to the Lord’s saying because it defines the Rock upon which Jesus builds His community not as Peter but as his faith and confession . . . What is spoken of, however, in Matthew 16 is the man to whom Jesus entrusts His work, (7)’ writes the Protestant theologian Adolf Schlatter.” (8)

2. The “Keys of the Kingdom” (Matthew 16:19)

Matthew 16:19 “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

A. New Bible Dictionary

“In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

“So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be `God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p. 205).” (4: 1018)

B. Eerdmans Bible Dictionary

“In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church.” (5: 622)

C. New Bible Commentary

“The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. `And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7).” (6: 837)

D. New Bible Dictionary

“In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is `over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: `epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and `oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from `oikos’ (`house’) and `nemo’ (`to dispense’ or `to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility.” (4: 1216)

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

i) “Master of the palace” JB (188:vs)/ NAB ii) “In charge of the palace” NIV iii) “Master of the household” NRSV iv) “In charge of the royal household” NASB v) “Comptroller of the household” REB vi) “Governor of the palace” MOF

E. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary (On Isaiah 22)

“[The steward is] `the king’s friend,’ or `principal officer of the court’ (1 Ki 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chron 27:33, `the king’s counsellor’) . . .

“Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of `David,’ of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [“. . . and the government shall be upon his shoulder . . .”]. In Revelation 3:7, the same language as the latter clause is found (cf. Job 12:14).” (9: 536)

F. Adam Clarke’s Commentary

“As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet.” (8: 581)

G. New Bible Commentary

“Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called `my servant’ (v.20; cf. `this steward’, v.15); manward, he will be `a father’ to his community (v.21) . . .

“The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The `shutting’ and `opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).” (6: 603)

H. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)

“Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of `keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a `delegation’ of God’s sovereignty.” (11)

I. Oscar

“Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people.” (12)

J. Peter in the New Testament

“The prime minister, more literally `major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew `the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

“The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.” (13)

3. The Power to “Bind and Loose” (Matthew 16:19)

Matthew 16:19 “. . . Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

A. Eerdmans Bible Dictionary

“In conferring upon Peter authority as head of the Church (Matt 16:19), Jesus uses the rabbinical technical terms `to bind’ . . . and `to loose’ . . . In rabbinic usage the terms mean `to forbid’ and `to permit’ with reference to interpretation of the law, and secondarily `to condemn’ or `place under the ban’ and `to acquit.’ Thus, Peter is given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life (by virtue of revelation and the subsequent leading of the Spirit; Jn 16:13) and to demand obedience from the Church, reflecting the authority of the royal chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament (cf. Is 22:22).” (5: 158)

B. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)

“No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of `binding’ and `loosing.’ They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (Jn 20:23) . . .

“`This legislative authority conferred upon Peter can only wear an offensive aspect when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary character, and as being in no way determined by the ethical influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it is regarded as being of an absolute nature, as independent of any connection with the rest of the apostles . . .’ (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).” (11; v.1: 96-97)

C. New Bible Commentary

“Most commentators . . . believe that the keys represent internal authority in the church rather than the power to open it up to outsiders. If this is so it would give Peter, and the apostles associated with him (18:18), not only the power to preach the `kerygma’ [proclamation of the gospel] but also to formulate the `didache’ [doctrine].” (6: 837)

D. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)

“This verse . . . probably refers primarily to a `legislative’ authority in the church, though clearly such decisions must have direct implications as to what may or may not be forgiven . . . An early instance of Peter’s exercise of this authority was when he was chosen to pioneer and authorize the church’s acceptance of Gentile converts (Acts 10-11; cf. Acts 15:7-11) . . . It is not that heaven will ratify Peter’s independent decisions, but that Peter will pass on decisions that have already been made in heaven.” (14)

E. Richard Baumann

“Matthew 16 indicates that the one took precedence, through God’s own intervention and purpose, in revealing the everlasting and orthodox doctrine. Others can never proclaim revealed doctrine contrary to his definition, but only in union with him, no matter how God may give it to them. This is the status and relationship of the one, commanded by God and established in history.” (12: 170) (15)

F. Peter in the New Testament “In Matthew 16:18, when Jesus speaks of building his church, certainly `church’ cannot be interpreted to refer simply to the local Matthean community, in isolation from the other Christian communities . . . But Matthew also knows of `ekklesia’ [`church’] applied to the local community (18:17). It is interesting that the binding/loosing power given to the disciples (18:18) is mentioned in the context of the latter, while the binding/loosing power given to Peter is mentioned in the context of the former.” (16)

4. Peter Commanded to “Feed My Sheep” (John 21:15-17) John 21:15-17 “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. “He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”

A. New Bible Commentary

“There are slight differences . . . in the three exhortations to Peter. The first and third use the word `feed,’ whereas the second uses the word `tend’ (Gk `poimaino’) which involves all the responsibilities of shepherding the sheep.” (6: 966)

B. Adam Clarke’s Commentary

“Our Lord . . . seems to intimate [in v.16] that it is not sufficient merely to offer the Bread of Life to the congregation of the Lord, but he must take care that the sheep be properly collected, attended to, regulated, guided. Every spiritual shepherd of Christ has a flock, composed of lambs – `young converts’ – and sheep – `experienced Christians’ – to feed, guide, regulate, and govern.” (8: 955)

C. Richard Baumann

“In John 21 the form of the order of authority, with the one at the helm, is clearly discernible as a revelation of enduring significance . . . As the `keeper of the keys’ was the successor of King David and the custodian of his everlasting throne, so too the Shepherd is the ruler of the nation forever. The promised Messiah was also described as the one who would feed the people of God (Mt 2:6; Jn 21:15). Jesus therefore handed His pastoral staff to one of the disciples in order that all the redeemed might be one flock under one shepherd. There must be one who guards and protects us all from the devil who is one persecutor. The one must watch over the weak and the small, and direct those who are strong, serving all men so that they may have life and full happiness in the Lord. The shepherd’s service is consequently an act of love, a return of love to Him who first loved Christ and all mankind. It is the bond of Jesus’ love, and of the love of God and the brethren, which holds the entire Church together indissolubly. This all-embracing service of the Shepherd is also extended to his fellow pastors, the priests and bishops of the Church.” (12: 172-173)

D. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (W. E. Vine)

“`Poimaino’: to act as a shepherd . . .(b) metaphorically, to tend, to shepherd; said of Christ, Matt 2:6 . . .; of those who act as spiritual shepherds under Him, John 21:16 . . .; so 1 Pet 5:2; Acts 20:28 . . .

“In John 21:15,16,17, the Lord, addressing Peter, first uses `bosko’ [`feed’] (ver.15), then `poimaino’ (ver.16), and then returns to `bosko’ (ver.17). These are not simply interchangeable (nor are other variations in His remarks); a study of the above notes will show this. Nor, again, is there a progression of ideas. The lesson to be learnt, . . . is that, in the spiritual care of God’s children, the feeding of the flock from the Word of God is the constant and regular necessity . . . The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals . . .” (143; v.2: 87-8)

E. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)

[For 1 Peter 5:2 and Matt 2:6: same word, `poimaino’]

“The verb denotes all that is included in the office of a shepherd – guiding, guarding, folding, no less than feeding . . . There is, doubtless, a reminiscence in the word of Christ’s charge to Peter (Jn 21:15-17).”

“Homer calls kings `the shepherds of the people.’ To David the people said, `The Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed (as a shepherd) my people Israel’ (2 Sam 5:2; cf. Ps 78:70-72). God is often called a shepherd (Gen 48:15; Ps 23:1; 77:20; 80:1; Is 40:11; Ezek 34:11-31). Jesus calls himself the good shepherd (Jn 10:11). Peter, who is bidden by Jesus to shepherd his sheep (Jn 21:16), calls him the Shepherd of Souls (1 Pet 2:25), and the Chief Shepherd (1 Pet 5:4); and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (13:20), he is styled the great Shepherd of the sheep. In Rev 2:27, rule is literally to shepherd (cf. 19:15).” (11; v.1: 665, 20-21)

“Poimaino” is also used of Christ in Rev 7:17: “For the Lamb which is in their midst of the throne shall feed them . . .,” and 12:5: “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

5. St. Peter Charged to “Strengthen Your Brethren” (Lk 22:31-32)

Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

A. Richard Baumann

“It is the adversary who began the aggression, with Satan wanting to disperse the little company of Jesus’ followers. But instead of saying, `I pray for you all’ as might have been expected, Jesus speaks only of His prayer for Peter, the one, that his faith might not fail. For if this faith remains firm because of Jesus’ prayer, then the attack directed against all of them is repelled. They will all be steadfast in the faith, strengthened by the one. In Matthew 16:22-23, we see how very powerfully Satan tempts only this one apostle. Right after Simon had been chosen as `the rock’ he aspired to surpass even Jesus, suggesting that his own will prevail, but Jesus commanded the tempter to leave, and ordered His disciple to take his place behind Him and to follow Him until death.” (12: 170-171)

6. St. Peter and St. Paul A. New Bible Dictionary

“This defection was roundly denounced by Paul; but there is no hint of any theological difference between them, and Paul’s complaint is rather the incompatibility of Peter’s practice with his theory. The old theory . . . of persistent rivalry between Paul and Peter, has little basis in the documents . . . Despite this lapse, the Gentile mission had no truer friend than Peter . . . At the Jerusalem Council [he] is recorded as the first to urge the full acceptance of the Gentiles on faith alone (Acts 15:7 ff.).” (4: 973)

Sources

4. J. D. Douglas, editor, The New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962. 5. Allen C. Myers, editor, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987 (English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975), translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink. 6. D. Guthrie, and J. A. Motyer, editors, The New Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970 (Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary). 7. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Chicago: Moody Press, 1962. 8. Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, abridged one-volume edition by Ralph Earle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967 (orig. 1832, 8 vols.). [Clarke was a Methodist]. 9. Robert Jamieson, Andrew R. Fausset, David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1961 (orig. 1864). [Fausset & Brown were Anglicans, Jamieson Presbyterian]. 10. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1940, four-volumes-in-one edition. 11. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887), 4 volumes. 12. Hans Asmussen, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Assoc., 1961. Footnotes 1. D. W. O’Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturqical & Archaeological Evidence (1969). 2. Anchor Bible, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971, vol. 26, 195, 197-198.

3. In Peter J. McCord, editor, A Pope for all Christians?, New York: Paulist Press, 1976, Introduction, 7. This book is an ecumenical project offering views on the papacy from many perspectives. Brown is a Presbyterian and a very prominent ecumenist.

4. Leon Morris, General Editor., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, R. T. France, 254, 256.

5. Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D. A. Carson), 368. Carson and France are widely regarded as two of the most brilliant Scripture commentators in Protestantism today. Among many others, three preeminent Bible scholars of the past, Anglican Henry Alford (1810-71), and Lutherans Johann Keil (1807-88) and Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948), also held to the same view of Matthew 16:18.

6. Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, editors, Peter in the New Testament, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House / New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 92-93. This is probably the most important ecumenical work on Peter, and is thus cited first in a long bibliography in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars.

7. Der Evangelist Matthaus (Stuttgart, 1929), 507 ff. 8. Richard Baumann, To See Peter, translated by John M. Oesterreicher, New York: David McKay Co., 1953, 105-106. 11. R. T. France, ibid., (#4 above), 256. 12. Oscar Cullmann, St. Peter: Disciple. Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 (French edition), 183-184. 13. R. E. Brown, ibid., (#6 above), 96-97. 14. France, ibid., 256.

15. Richard Baumann was a member of the Sammlung movement (Lit., “gathering”) among Lutherans in Germany in the late 1950s, whose goal was, according to the same book (The Unfinished Reformation, p.xxxv – #12 in Sources, above) to: “reunite a divided Christendom and . . . pray and work in the hope that the reformed Churches, for their own fulfillment and also for the future welfare of the whole Church of God, may find their necessary place within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church . . . A mutual acknowledgment must be made and a new relationship established with the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church . . . only in proportion as we thus take the question of truth seriously can we hope to overcome the differences between the Churches as well as those within Protestantism itself.”

16. R. E. Brown (#6 above), ibid., 100.
294 posted on 08/12/2020 3:14:32 PM PDT by MurphsLaw (“In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti...Amen.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: MurphsLaw
All that foolishness in order to ignore the trypology GOD gave with the Hebrews in the desert and the Rock which gave forth water when struck ONCE, which Moses was supposed to just speak in faith to the second time the Hebrews wandered up to that site later. But Moses in his anger at the grumblers struck the rock again ... water came forth but Moses was thereafter forbidden into the Promised Land.

You are defending a non-Christian cult, an ORG devised by satan and supported by a dead soul priesthood, an Org which teaches blasphemy as truth and herds its adherents to hell via a fraudulent works based sacramental trail. Jesus is coming in the AIR for His Body of Believers (His One True Church, not Roman fictional religion of works, which insults the Grace of God in Christ, empowering a pedophiles and homosexuals deviant priesthood).

Don't take the mark when commanded to you following the Departure of The Body of Christ.

295 posted on 08/12/2020 3:23:03 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Correction: TYPOLOGY not trypology; trypolofy is what Catholicism represents.


296 posted on 08/12/2020 3:24:14 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Placemarker


297 posted on 08/12/2020 5:15:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (I'd rather be anecdotally alive than scientifically dead... f)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Don’t you just love that “unanimous consent of the Fathers”??? Funny how a religion that declares it teaches that Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all (the “Vincentian Canon” is the Latin phrase: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est”) differs from those early church leaders today. I’m sure there are some weasel words that explain it all away. They now claim that doctrines of the faith can change as they “develop”.


298 posted on 08/12/2020 8:35:55 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: metmom; ADSUM; Faith Presses On
Are you saying Rome can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholicisms authority? Because Rome calls it *sacred tradition*?

Yep...pretty much.

299 posted on 08/12/2020 8:38:43 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: MurphsLaw
WELL........ Here's some Protestant theologians and texts that have come to the Catholic understanding of the Rock.... you should too...courtesy of Dave Armstrong, Convert to the Church

Why should I accept what these 'Prots' have to say; when YOU evidently do not believe what your own Early Church Fathers have to say?


You'd better be careful; because relying on what the Bible plainly states is a Prot thing.

Next thing ya know you be quoting Martin Luther to me!

300 posted on 08/13/2020 4:34:44 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,341-1,358 next last

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.

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