"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[FireDragon76]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18

How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?

 

[Gnarwhal]

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying that Protestants argue that they're part of the Church continuity despite the view that the church "ruptured"?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah. In Luther's Larger Catechism on the Apostles Creed he seems to suggest that the Church is a local congregation of believers that gather around the Word rightly preached and Sacraments. OK... but where was the Church in the Middle Ages then? How do Lutherans and the Reformed understand the schism if they claim continuity with the early Church, which in my mind was an organic entity, not a set of doctrines to be mined.

Were Augustine, Jerome, Anselm and Aquinas proto-Lutherans? How about the hundreds of thousands of ordinary, often illiterate people that just went to church to stare at the priest elevating the Host, and maybe receiving the Precious Blood through a fistula (straw) if they were lucky, and praying to the saints and having votive masses for their dead relatives?

I'm just curious because I've spent so much time steeped in Orthodox and Anglican self-understandings, and they stress continuity absolutely, or to a high degree.

 

[Gnarwhal]

If that is indeed a view of Protestants it is logically invalid, both premises would have to be true for their conclusion to be true as well.

I've heard both views, that the church all but died out until the Reformation, or they have apostolic succession. I don't recall any denominations that maintain both. Unless there is a major doctrinal point of Lutheranism that I've missed out on?

 

[FireDragon76]

Do Protestants really think the "deposit of faith" of the Apostles is completely contained in the Bible? There's no pattern of Christian living that they also passed down?

 

[WirSindBettler]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18

How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?

There's a difference between the visible church and the church catholic (the latter of which is the collection of all believers and the communion of saints). The visible church has many denominations, has suffered many schisms and ruptures (many before the Reformation) with some denominations rising and falling. The invisible church, however, lasts through all ages, and there will always be members. People in the Middle Ages were saved in exactly the same way as they are today. By grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, by the gift of God alone.

Yeah. In Luther's Larger Catechism on the Apostles Creed he seems to suggest that the Church is a local congregation of believers that gather around the Word rightly preached and Sacraments.

OK... but where was the Church in the Middle Ages then? How do Lutherans and the Reformed understand the schism if they claim continuity with the early Church, which in my mind was an organic entity, not a set of doctrines to be mined.[/QUOTE]

Luther in this instance is referencing the visible church, and not the church catholic.

OK... but where was the Church in the Middle Ages then? How do Lutherans and the Reformed understand the schism if they claim continuity with the early Church, which in my mind was an organic entity, not a set of doctrines to be mined.

The church catholic was always present, being comprised of all true believers.

Were Augustine, Jerome, Anselm and Aquinas proto-Lutherans? How about the hundreds of thousands of ordinary, often illiterate people that just went to church to stare at the priest elevating the Host, and maybe receiving the Precious Blood through a fistula (straw) if they were lucky, and praying to the saints and having votive masses for their dead relatives?

They are to be held to the same standards as we are held today. Salvation by grace, through faith, alone.

 

[Rick Otto]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18

How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?

Schism points out error on both sides.
The Gates of Hell does not represent error in or of the church.
Error needs to be pointed out so that it can teach us something.

 

[Albion]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18

How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter

I don't see any "continuity of the Church as promised to Peter" in that sentence. Perhaps you should explain your theory on that before we go much further.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Do Protestants really think the "deposit of faith" of the Apostles is completely contained in the Bible? There's no pattern of Christian living that they also passed down?

What the LORD has given His bride to be is infinitely greater than Peter.. It's His very Spirit poured out at Pentecost for whosoever will believe on Him.

We are brought from glory to glory by His Spirit in us, not by Peter or by any church doctrine.

Sometimes I think people worship the body more than its Head.

 

[Albion]

Yeah. In Luther's Larger Catechism on the Apostles Creed he seems to suggest that the Church is a local congregation of believers that gather around the Word rightly preached and Sacraments. OK... but where was the Church in the Middle Ages then? How do Lutherans and the Reformed understand the schism if they claim continuity with the early Church, which in my mind was an organic entity, not a set of doctrines to be mined.

Well, there's your error, then! What's the next topic to be discussed?

 

[seekingsolace]

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

What is the foundation of our belief? Confession of Jesus Christ. There is the rock, our foundation, that's the true Church, the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

1 Corinthians 3:11: For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

You can't physically see the body of Christ because it is a habitation of GOD through the....

You guessed it..

SPIRIT

 

[MoreCoffee]

Matthew 16:13-20 does imply a certain invincibility given to the church. And Matthew 28:16-20 implies continuity of the divine presence in the church. Taken together continuity appears to be implied.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

That's why its impossible for any visible church or assembly to be the one true church. It only magnifies the fact that men don't even know what His church is, never mind be infallible in their conceitedness.

 

[Albion]

Matthew 16:13-20 does imply a certain invincibility given to the church. And Matthew 28:16-20 implies continuity of the divine presence in the church. Taken together continuity appears to be implied.

Agreed, but plugging Peter into all of that is what is contrived...and a revision of church history as well.

 

[seekingsolace]

Acts 2:23-28

Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him:

I foresaw the Lord always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Tellastory]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18

How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?

Jesus was not talking about Peter being that rock, but about what he had said which was not revealed by flesh & blood as if he had come up with this to be mistaken as so rewarded for saying so since the revelation came from the Father instead.

Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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.

It was upon that revelation from the Father that Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and He did it ! After His resurrection, He got the keys to hell and death.

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

How do we know that Jesus was expounding on what was revealed to Peter from the Father instead of on Peter?

#1: The reference to rock in the O.T. has always been referred to deity.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=rock+God&qs_version=KJV

Only one reference in the N.T. confirms that Jesus was referring on what Peter had said.

1 Corinthians 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

#2. Right after that proclamation by Jesus, Peter was overcome by Satan as proof that Jesus was not talking about Peter in citing that rock.

Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

The problem is that readers that had misread Jesus words, also misread verse 19 as if that was given to Peter only.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Verse 20 included to see that He was addressing all of His disciples on this matter. He did it again elsewhere where this blessing of binding and loosing was on all the believers that are His disciples.

Matthew 18: 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So the keys of the kingdom of heaven is based on believing that revelation from the Father that was given through Peter, and all those that believe that revelation has those keys as long as they are abiding in Him & His words as His disciples by His grace & by His help.

 

[Rick Otto]

Matthew 16:13-20 does imply a certain invincibility given to the church. And Matthew 28:16-20 implies continuity of the divine presence in the church. Taken together continuity appears to be implied.

God with us continuously is assured in plenty of places, but like the remnant that Ezekial was unaware of and had to be shown to him by God, it isn't always completely visible. It is God who is in invincible and the reason His church will prevail, not one of the saints would want an iota of credit for that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Agreed, but plugging Peter into all of that is what is contrived...and a revision of church history as well.

Saint Peter is in Matthew 16:13-20. What one makes of that is a matter subject to much debate today.

 

[seekingsolace]

Revelation 1:17-18: And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.