If you believe the Blessed Virgin Mary sinned...

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus renamed Simon as Rock and gave Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom, just to Peter--no other Apostles.

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” Saint Augustine (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Actually, according to an early source, Anacletus was the second bishop after Linus and before Clement.

When Jesus spoke to Peter, about his statement of faith and made the controversial statements about giving the keys to the kingdom, Peter was in Israel and mostly in Jerusalem. Scripture never teaches that Peter visited Rome. The historical evidence that he was martyred in Rome is fairly convincing. Less convincing is that he lived and ruled in Rome.

We should be careful about building an entire theology based on one, and only one, verse. We know from another verse that the binding and loosening mentioned in the Matthew passage applies to all the Apostles. While the "keys" are not there repeated it could be that they too apply to all the Apostles. The "key" to the kingdom is the Gospel and receiving it in faith; the very thing Peter did when he proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah. That key was available to Peter, the Apostles, and even to us. It is an assumption that "key" meant an office such as prime minster and there is no clear tie to the Isaiah passage often mentioned in that light.

We don't have recorded for us any discussion that followed those words. No doubt the Apostles all came to understand what Jesus meant. While the incident is recorded in all four Gospels, only Matthew's gospel mentions the part about Peter and keys. Even Mark's gospel, who got his information from Peter, does not mention it. Peter himself says nothing of it in his epistles. The Book of Acts makes no mention of Peter in a special office and Paul makes no mention of it.

The first person mentioned as the bishop of a city is James as the bishop of Jerusalem. In time leading men in the church were elected bishop by their communities. Thus the bigger cities came to have bishops in time. Paul, in his epistles, uses the same Greek word for what we translate into English as either "elder" or "bishop." The role he describes is not that of a modern-day Catholic bishop who is appointed and not elected. The role Paul prescribes also allows for marriage and children. Peter is never called a bishop in Scripture. Although he resided in Jerusalem for many years after the Lord's death, he was not the bishop of Jerusalem as that was James. It would seem Jerusalem had the first bishop, not Rome.

While Peter may have visited Rome, we do not know for sure he was a bishop there. Even if he were, that does not establish the bishop of Rome as the head of the universal church. Scripture never names Rome as the seat of authority for the church and many cities had bishops over time. Emperor Constantine eventually moved his seat of power to the city he founded - Constantinople. That city was later renamed Istanbul in Turkey. The bishop of Constantinople would have undoubtedly become a major bishop along with the bishop of Rome. Being the lead bishop of the church in a large city though does not qualify one to be the leader of all the church. Scripture does not define an office for Peter nor state he will have successors. That is Catholic tradition. Scripture does not teach that the bishop of Rome will be the head of the church. The disagreement over who was the head of the church led to the Great East-West Schism that divided the Western churches from the Eastern churches. Both churches came from the Apostolic tradition yet the Eastern churches did not recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of all the church. They did not claim that honor belonged to an easter bishop but believed there was no one head of the church and that bishops only had regional authority.

If Peter was the bishop of Rome he would naturally have a successor but that still does not establish an office now called the Papacy. When Paul lists the prominent members of the church in Rome he does not mention Peter or Linus who is supposed to have been Peter's successor:

Phebe, Priscilla, Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Adronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philogus, Julia, Nereus and last, and apparently not the least: Olympas.

Who succeeded who is not the real issue. The real issue is whether or not Jesus established an ongoing office like the later Papacy. I see no evidence that he did. That is a lot to build on one verse with a total lack of other support.

 

[Valletta]

When Jesus spoke to Peter, about his statement of faith and made the controversial statements about giving the keys to the kingdom, Peter was in Israel and mostly in Jerusalem. Scripture never teaches that Peter visited Rome. The historical evidence that he was martyred in Rome is fairly convincing. Less convincing is that he lived and ruled in Rome.

Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah, gave the keys to the kingdom to Rock (Peter). Peter was not a ruler, he was a servant of God. Jesus gave Peter a very special role as a shepherd. The words of Isaiah would have been familiar to Jews who knew their Holy Scripture. The East/West schism is complicated, a disagreement over leavened bread ended up with Cardinal Humbert Patriarch Cerularios excommunicating each other. A number of eastern churches have today reconciled with the Catholic Church.

 

[prodromos]

A number of eastern churches have today reconciled with the Catholic Church.

And some formerly Catholic Churches have reconciled with the Orthodox Church.

 

[prodromos]

The East/West schism is complicated, a disagreement over leavened bread ended up with Cardinal Humbert Patriarch Cerularios excommunicating each other.

Oh good grief! That's one helluva misrepresentation of the reasons behind the schism. Also, Patriarch Micheal Cerularios didn't excommunicate anyone. A synod of bishops in Constantinople excommunicated the three Papal legates.

 

[prodromos]

That city was later renamed Istanbul in Turkey

Fun fact. "Istanbul" is just a variation of how Turks heard Greeks referring to Constantinople. Greeks commonly referred to Constantinople as "the City", and if anyone was going to Constantinople, they said they were going "εις την Πόλη", "to the city", which is pronounced "ees tin POli"

 

[JoeT]

Because some people teach that salvation = faith + works so the word "alone" is added to make clear that Scripture teaches that it is faith alone that saves us. Not faith + anything.

Faith and obedience. [Romans 1:5;16:26] Obedience is a state of being formed by "works". Faith does not stand alone, nor does Scripture teach "faith alone". Instead it teaches "if it have not works, is dead in itself" [James 2:17]

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Faith and obedience. [Romans 1:5;16:26] Obedience is a state of being formed by "works". Faith does not stand alone, nor does Scripture teach "faith alone". Instead it teaches "if it have not works, is dead in itself" [James 2:17]

JoeT

Works follow salvation. In the OT we are told are works are "filthy rags" (literally menstrual rags) before our holy God. Apart from faith, we cannot produce a truly good work. We must first have our nature changed through salvation. Then we walk in good works "prepared beforehand" for us. James's point is that if you claim to be saved, but if your life shows no sign of it, then you have an empty (non-existent) faith. Works always follow salvation but are not the basis of it. Obedience follows salvation but is not the basis of it. We walk in obedience because God gives us a new nature that can obey Him and walk in good works. Salvation is not a strictly legal designation whereby we are declared forgiven. It involves a change of nature and begins the process of sanctification.

Catholics often charge that Protestants think you can be saved and then go on and live like hell. No! If we live like hell then we never had saving faith. We may have mouthed some words and made a public show of things but it meant nothing because it was not sincere. Only God can see the heart which is why there are wheat and tares in the church. You make obedience a requirement for salvation. Obedience is a byproduct of salvation. It will always be present in those who are truly saved but it is not a requirement for salvation.

For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; (Isaiah 64:6)

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)

Emphasis added above.

If God has prepared good works beforehand then He has predestined our faith and changed nature and we walk in an obedience He has provided.

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work among you will complete it by the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)

Who has begun the good work? Who will complete it? God begins it and God completes it. Is that to our credit? No. Our salvation is all due to God's grace and we can take no credit.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah, gave the keys to the kingdom to Rock (Peter). Peter was not a ruler, he was a servant of God. Jesus gave Peter a very special role as a shepherd. The words of Isaiah would have been familiar to Jews who knew their Holy Scripture. The East/West schism is complicated, a disagreement over leavened bread ended up with Cardinal Humbert Patriarch Cerularios excommunicating each other. A number of eastern churches have today reconciled with the Catholic Church.

The account in Isaiah is about a real person who was being elevated in his role due to the failures and attitude of his predecessor. It was a government position as you described. The "key" he was given was nothing new. It was the normal responsibilities that went with that office.

Nothing in this account ties it to Peter and nothing in the Matthew account ties it back to this account except for the mention of keys. If there is a tie to anyone it is to Jesus as seen in Revelation 3:7. It is Jesus who has the key of David, not Peter. Keys can also be used in a non-judicial or administrative sense as I believe is the case in Matthew.

To me (and many others), the understanding of the passage in Matthew is as follows. Peter was the first of the Apostles to understand and confess that Jesus is the Messiah something Jesus credits to God revealing it to him. That profession of faith, and what it implies, is the "key" or basis to becoming a believer. Peter, and the Apostles, disciples, and all of us, have the "key" to opening heaven to unbelievers. That key is the proclamation of the Gospel of which Peter and the other Apostles were the first to use. Peter, due to his great faith, was the first of the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the Jews (on the Day of Pentecost) and the first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (to Cornelius and his family). While he was first, the other Apostles were soon doing the same as the "key" was given to all. Peter was in many ways the leader of the Apostles but not in any formal way. In the same way we see the "loosening and binding" extended to all the Apostles.

In 1 Peter, Peter introduces himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow elder." He does not introduce himself as the head of the church or the highest-ranking Apostle. He says he is a "fellow elder" not putting himself any higher than the men he is writing. I can't imagine any priest or bishop today publicly rebuking the Pope yet Paul did so to Peter when he was being a hypocrite. If Peter was in such an office as you imagine, Paul would certainly not have rebuked him publicly. He might have voiced concern privately but not in front of all to hear. That would show disrespect for Peter's office yet Peter does not charge Paul with disrespect. It was James who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter. We are not even certain Peter ever went to Rome but even if he did that doesn't mean he was ever the bishop of Rome. I cannot imagine such an important office being created and there is not one mention of it by any of the other books in the NT. Similar to Mary's supposed role. How can such important roles go unmentioned?

There are dozens of references in Scripture to Christ being "the rock." Christ Himself said the church was built on the foundation of the prophets and the Apostles with Himself being the chief cornerstone. He did not declare Peter to be the foundation of the church. Peter warned those he wrote who were in leadership not the lord their authority over others. Yet the Pope is addressed as "Holy Father" and Catholics kneel before him and kiss his ring (some his feet). Cardinals are addressed as "Your Eminence." Bishops as "Your Excellency." Jesus most often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" though He could have rightly referred to Himself with any number of royal titles. We see no instructions in Scripture that the Apostles had to bow before Jesus and kiss His hand or feet. Some no doubt did prostrate themselves before the Lord, but because He is God and worthy of our worship. I will not even address a priest as "father." We are told in Scripture to not call anyone father except God or our earthly father. It is not to be used as a title yet it is what the Catholic church calls their priests. Paul wrote about deacons and elders, never priests. That's because priests were tied to the old sacrificial system which was done away with in Christ (read the book of Hebrews). We don't have priests anymore. I think that title was likely adopted because in so many pagan religions and in the OT you have priests. Some felt it was important to reuse that title to gain respect. When I address my pastor, I call him Steve which is his first name. I don't even say "pastor Steve." I have total respect for him and he does not take my calling him Steve as a slight. Where do you read of Peter or Paul wearing robes when teaching or among the faithful? In the OT, the robes and vestments were all part of the symbology done away with in Christ. We may see such things again in heaven, but they are not needed here on earth.

The "key" Peter and the Apostles were given, was the key to unlock heaven through the Gospel. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for having such a key and failing in their use of it. We have no mention of Peter having a special role in the early church. None of the NT writers, including Peter himself, refer to such a role. The Catholic church is overreaching in trying to use one small passage found in one Gospel (and can certainly be understood in other ways) to teach that Peter was installed in an office of the Pope and there are no instructions given that such an office be passed on to successors. I don't believe Catholics believe in the sign gifts like speaking in tongues. Those gifts were used in the birthing of the church but (I don't believe) as an ongoing gift. Peter might have had a prominent role among the Apostles, and also for the birthing of the church. We now have the Scriptures. They are the foundation of our faith and practice. It was men who invented or reused these other titles not found in Scripture. It was men who reinstituted a sacrificial "mass" when Jesus was the once and for-all sacrifice. Heaven is depicted as having twelve stones representing the twelve Apostles. No one stone is higher than the others or given more prestige. Peter was not the first Pope and there is no office of pope in the Bible. He was a godly man, with faults, but whom we can all relate to. He was a humble man who did not dress differently or was addressed by a title and no one had to kneel and kiss anything on him. These are pomp and ceremony added by men when we see nothing like it in the NT. A lot changed with Constantine. Suddenly the bishop of Rome wanted to act like an empower with titles and armies and getting involved in politics. Hardly like the Lord or Peter.

The account in Isaiah 22 is a prophecy concerning a change of office holders. A corrupt and prideful man will be replaced by a godly man named Eliakim. He is told he will have the "key of the house of David" layed on his shoulder. "So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open."

In the Matthew account, Jesus says he will "give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Take note of Isaiah 22:22, as Christ quotes it in the letter to the church at Philadelphia: “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.” Eliakim's authority to “open . . . and shut” results from “the key of the house of David” being put “on his shoulder.” We can compare this with Isaiah 9:6-7, another Messianic prophecy:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Emphasis ours throughout.)
The key of the house of David, then, represents God's governance, specifically His governance over Israel. The Bible even names the royal throne—the throne on which David and Solomon sat—as “the throne of the LORD” (I Chronicles 29:23; see II Chronicles 9:8)! God has sworn that David would always have an heir to sit on that throne (Jeremiah 33:17).
Thus, the key on Eliakim's shoulder represents the power of the government that would ultimately rest on the Messiah's shoulder. It involves the royal line of David and all the authority that resulted from God's covenant and promises to him. The Messiah would come from that same line, and He will sit on that throne when He returns and establishes His Kingdom (Isaiah 9:7).
In his position as second-in-command, Eliakim served as the ultimate gatekeeper, granting or denying access to the house of David at his discretion. He could open the door, and no one could shut it. Having the door opened meant access to the king's presence, and thus to the God-given authority and blessings of the royal line, as well as to all the resources of the treasury and storehouse. But if the steward shut the door, he blocked all of that access, and no one could overrule his decision.
It was a significant position. It is no wonder that God would not tolerate the likes of Shebna in it, who was more interested in his legacy and earthly pomp than fulfilling his office with gravity and faithfulness.

David C. Grabbe
The 'Open Door' of Philadelphia

Eliakim's office was a foreshadowing of Christ's office as the Messiah. In Revelation 3, the key of David is seen as being Christ's:

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.
8 “ ‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut.

It is the Lord who is opening and shutting doors with the key of David. Not Peter. The question in the Matthew passage is what does that key represent? Keys can open many things. Just because Eliakim was in an office like a prime minister does not establish that any reference to a key must relate to that type of office. The clear tie is between Isaiah and Revelation where Eliakim is a sort of prefigure of the Messiah. Jesus told the Apostles (not just Peter) that they had the power to loosen and bind which is different than opening and shutting though both represent authority. In context, Peter is being given a key to opening and shutting heaven by the proclamation of the Gospel. There is no indication he is being given broader powers that apply only to him. Such an understanding would require additional Scriptural support. As pointed out previously, we have not a single additional verse confirming Peter had such powers. He is never depicted as being the head of the early church. No other NT writer describes him as having such authority. Catholics are building an entire theology around one word that lacks additional description and support. It lacks support in the NT.

 

[Valletta]

The account in Isaiah is about a real person who was being elevated in his role due to the failures and attitude of his predecessor. It was a government position as you described. The "key" he was given was nothing new. It was the normal responsibilities that went with that office.

Peter was also a real person. In the Davidic kingdom, as per Isaiah, when the office of prime minister is vacated a new prime minister is chosen. This is not some minor office. The king gives the key of the House of David to his prime minister as a sign to the people of the King's authority. When the king is absent the prime minister's word is as authoritative as that of the king.

Nothing in this account ties it to Peter and nothing in the Matthew account ties it back to this account except for the mention of keys.

Incorrect. Surely the Jews, so familiar with Holy Scripture, would have recognized the parallel of the words of Jesus to those in Isaiah:

"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder - when he opens, no one shall shut; when he shuts, no one shall open."
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

There are dozens of references in Scripture to Christ being "the rock." Christ Himself said the church was built on the foundation of the prophets and the Apostles with Himself being the chief cornerstone. He did not declare Peter to be the foundation of the church.

Yes, as you bring up, there are many references to the word "Rock" being used to describe God. And what does Jesus do? Jesus renames Simon as Rock! Why? And WHEN does Jesus do this? At the same moment he speaks of building His Church. 'Thou art Peter (Rock) and upon this Rock I will build My Church."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Peter was also a real person. In the Davidic kingdom, as per Isaiah, when the office of prime minister is vacated a new prime minister is chosen. This is not some minor office. The king gives the key of the House of David to his prime minister as a sign to the people of the King's authority. When the king is absent the prime minister's word is as authoritative as that of the king.


Incorrect. Surely the Jews, so familiar with Holy Scripture, would have recognized the parallel of the words of Jesus to those in Isaiah:

"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder - when he opens, no one shall shut; when he shuts, no one shall open."
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Yes, as you bring up, there are many references to the word "Rock" being used to describe God. And what does Jesus do? Jesus renames Simon as Rock! Why? And WHEN does Jesus do this? At the same moment he speaks of building His Church. 'Thou art Peter (Rock) and upon this Rock I will build My Church."

I have already written about "keys" so I will not repeat myself now except to say that a Jew who knew his Scripture would have associated the Isaiah passage with the Messiah, not Peter.

As to the timing of Jesus changing his name, Jesus first calls Peter "rock" in John 1:42 when He first meets him. He changes his name there to Kephas (Cephas) which is the Aramaic word for "rock." "Peter" is the Greek equivalent so Jesus did not change his name in the Matthew passage. He also used the neuter form of the preposition "this" ("on this rock I will build my church") not the masculine implying it was not a person upon whom He would build His church.

This only makes sense as elsewhere in Scripture we are taught that Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built. We are also taught it is the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles that forms the foundation (their teaching about the Messiah). What is that teaching? That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God which is what Peter just confessed. It is that confession that is the foundation of the church for it is that confession that makes one a believer.

I believe Jesus was also commending Peter and proclaiming him a leader among his brothers (the fellow Apostles) but not the foundation of the church or putting him in an office like a Pope. We are back to creating an entire theology based on one passage of Scripture that is not repeated or supported anywhere else in Scripture.

 

[Valletta]

I have already written about "keys" so I will not repeat myself now except to say that a Jew who knew his Scripture would have associated the Isaiah passage with the Messiah, not Peter.

As to the timing of Jesus changing his name, Jesus first calls Peter "rock" in John 1:42 when He first meets him. He changes his name there to Kephas (Cephas) which is the Aramaic word for "rock." "Peter" is the Greek equivalent so Jesus did not change his name in the Matthew passage. He also used the neuter form of the preposition "this" ("on this rock I will build my church") not the masculine implying it was not a person upon whom He would build His church.

This only makes sense as elsewhere in Scripture we are taught that Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built. We are also taught it is the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles that forms the foundation (their teaching about the Messiah). What is that teaching? That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God which is what Peter just confessed. It is that confession that is the foundation of the church for it is that confession that makes one a believer.

I believe Jesus was also commending Peter and proclaiming him a leader among his brothers (the fellow Apostles) but not the foundation of the church or putting him in an office like a Pope. We are back to creating an entire theology based on one passage of Scripture that is not repeated or supported anywhere else in Scripture.

There are two people in Matthew and Isaiah, in both the King speaks. I don't think the Jews would think there was only one. As to the timing, Jesus, using the future tense, Jesus did predict in John that Simon would one day be renamed as Rock. That renaming is recorded in Matthew, and also the event is recorded in Luke and Mark. Even if you think it's Peter's confession, that's still Peter. "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church." The entire Catholic theology of Peter as the first pope is NOT based on one scriptural passage, not only are there other supporting passages, but Peter was pope before that passage was written. Catholics never adopted Sola Scriptura, that did not occur with Protestants until over a thousand years later.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There are two people in Matthew and Isaiah, in both the King speaks. I don't think the Jews would think there was only one. As to the timing, Jesus, using the future tense, Jesus did predict in John that Simon would one day be renamed as Rock. That renaming is recorded in Matthew, and also the event is recorded in Luke and Mark. Even if you think it's Peter's confession, that's still Peter. "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church." The entire Catholic theology of Peter as the first pope is NOT based on one scriptural passage, not only are there other supporting passages, but Peter was pope before that passage was written. Catholics never adopted Sola Scriptura, that did not occur with Protestants until over a thousand years later.

And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter). (John 1:42)

Yes, it is in the future tense denoting what Peter would become although in the Gospels he is referred to as Peter starting from that time. Yes, the Gospels were written later but they still could have referred to him by his old name until the events of Matthew 16 but did not. Peter was a rock of faith and a leader but not a pope or head of the church. The keys belong to all the Apostles and to us as well.

It is clear Catholics never adopted sola Scriptura...

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There are two people in Matthew and Isaiah, in both the King speaks. I don't think the Jews would think there was only one. As to the timing, Jesus, using the future tense, Jesus did predict in John that Simon would one day be renamed as Rock. That renaming is recorded in Matthew, and also the event is recorded in Luke and Mark. Even if you think it's Peter's confession, that's still Peter. "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church." The entire Catholic theology of Peter as the first pope is NOT based on one scriptural passage, not only are there other supporting passages, but Peter was pope before that passage was written. Catholics never adopted Sola Scriptura, that did not occur with Protestants until over a thousand years later

There were no Protestants until over a thousand years later... At least not as a movement. There were individuals who believed in Sola Scriptura, though that term had not yet been coined. Most tried to reform the Catholic church from within rather than leave and start something new. Some, like Jan Huss, were burned alive because of it. Luther might have suffered a similar fate had not his king intervened. The idea of trusting in Scripture alone was around before the Reformation.

There are no other supporting passages of Peter being pope. There is no clear teaching on this.

Jesus called Peter a "pebble" and "this rock" was the term for a boulder and used the neuter pronoun which would not have been appropriate if He was referring to Peter. What had just happened? Peter made the confession that Jesus is the Messiah - the Son of the Living God. That is the basis of salvation. Jesus was both praising Peter (although He immediately said that "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in heaven") and proclaiming that the church would be built upon that statement that Jesus is the Messiah. What then follows is the authority He is giving to the church but not just to Peter. He repeats later that all the Apostles are included in binding and loosening and there is no reason to think He did not intend the keys to be for all as well.

 

[Valletta]

Most tried to reform the Catholic church from within rather than leave and start something new. Some, like Jan Huss, were burned alive because of it. Luther might have suffered a similar fate had not his king intervened. The idea of trusting in Scripture alone was around before the Reformation.

Yes, they were brutal in those times, if you did not believe the state religion you could end up tortured or dead. Unfortunately there are still pockets of hatred left over, twice I've been to countries during their celebration of Guy Fawkes Day, which celebrates the torturing and killing of a Catholic named Fawkes. It really gave me a creepy feeling. Catholics too paid a dear price if caught trying to bring the English version of the Bible, the Douay Rheims, from France and distributing it in England. I never saw it at my school growing up, but my mom always remember arriving at her elementary school and seeing the American flag had been taken down and replaced with the Klan flag. I spoke with a lady who told me she had no animosity toward Protestants, but she didn't understand as a girl why they chained the doors of her Catholic Church and they had to worship outside in the rain and the cold. It's encouraging that today they mention at the Tower of London that in the back of their chapel are the graves of both Protestant and Catholic martyrs, and a Beefeater offered regret for the torture. That was encouraging, we're not going to get the full forgiveness Jesus wants us to have until people quit pretending it was all one-sided. I've mentioned before the role of William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua in promoting Scripture alone.

Jesus called Peter a "pebble" and "this rock" was the term for a boulder and used the neuter pronoun which would not have been appropriate if He was referring to Peter.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, and gave Peter the Aramaic name "Kepha" which means "Rock."

 

[JoeT]

Works follow salvation. In the OT we are told are works are "filthy rags" (literally menstrual rags) before our holy God. Apart from faith, we cannot produce a truly good work. We must first have our nature changed through salvation. Then we walk in good works "prepared beforehand" for us. James's point is that if you claim to be saved, but if your life shows no sign of it, then you have an empty (non-existent) faith. Works always follow salvation but are not the basis of it. Obedience follows salvation but is not the basis of it. We walk in obedience because God gives us a new nature that can obey Him and walk in good works. Salvation is not a strictly legal designation whereby we are declared forgiven. It involves a change of nature and begins the process of sanctification.

"All our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman" [Isaias 64:6]. "Our Justices" are works of the Jewish law, the Jewish sacrifices, sacraments, and cleansing ceremonies. Without good works there can be no Salvation. It seems that when you left the Church you left God behind, or found a more likeable god. Citing this verse to mean every work of charity is a "rag of a menstruous woman" illustrates why St. Peter warned of "private interpretation". [2 Peter 1:20] The verse means that works without the grace of God are not meritorious. Merit remains even with a prevenient grace or actual grace. As I've mentioned before, without the justification found in our Baptism every act is an act of deprivation and is without merit,

Catholics often charge that Protestants think you can be saved and then go on and live like hell.

True, because it's built into the Protestant paradigm. "Once Saved Always Save", "Bible Alone", "Faith Alone" are categorical examples of the majority of Protestants fail the "True Faith"

Only God can see the heart which is why there are wheat and tares in the church.

True.

You make obedience a requirement for salvation. Obedience is a byproduct of salvation. It will always be present in those who are truly saved but it is not a requirement for salvation.

What? Are you denying Scripture? St. Paul explicitly states that faith does not stand alone but with the obedience to the faith of Christ. [Romans 1:5;16:26].

For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; (Isaiah 64:6)

I addressed Isaias 64:6 above. Without St. Paul's obedience of faith, there is no work that merits. However obedience to faith moves us to the baptismal founts of the Catholic Church.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)

Emphasis added above.

If God has prepared good works beforehand then He has predestined our faith and changed nature and we walk in an obedience He has provided.

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work among you will complete it by the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)

Who has begun the good work? Who will complete it? God begins it and God completes it. Is that to our credit? No. Our salvation is all due to God's grace and we can take no credit.

Once again, another out of context quote from the bible.The verse does not make your point that somehow works cannot be meritorious falls flat. God's works in our creation is does not merit us. However, failing obedience to His grace in good works fails faith. Mankind has free will, nothing 'makes' us do works of charity, we do so out of our obedience to love of Christ.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

"All our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman" [Isaias 64:6]. "Our Justices" are works of the Jewish law, the Jewish sacrifices, sacraments, and cleansing ceremonies. Without good works there can be no Salvation. It seems that when you left the Church you left God behind, or found a more likeable god. Citing this verse to mean every work of charity is a "rag of a menstruous woman" illustrates why St. Peter warned of "private interpretation". [2 Peter 1:20] The verse means that works without the grace of God are not meritorious. Merit remains even with a prevenient grace or actual grace. As I've mentioned before, without the justification found in our Baptism every act is an act of deprivation and is without merit,

True, because it's built into the Protestant paradigm. "Once Saved Always Save", "Bible Alone", "Faith Alone" are categorical examples of the majority of Protestants fail the "True Faith"

True.

What? Are you denying Scripture? St. Paul explicitly states that faith does not stand alone but with the obedience to the faith of Christ. [Romans 1:5;16:26].

I addressed Isaias 64:6 above. Without St. Paul's obedience of faith, there is no work that merits. However obedience to faith moves us to the baptismal founts of the Catholic Church.

Once again, another out of context quote from the bible.The verse does not make your point that somehow works cannot be meritorious falls flat. God's works in our creation is does not merit us. However, failing obedience to His grace in good works fails faith. Mankind has free will, nothing 'makes' us do works of charity, we do so out of our obedience to love of Christ.

JoeT

Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith

What does the phrase "the obedience that comes from faith" mean? This phrase can be interpreted in one of two ways. The first way is to say it refers to the obedience that faith produces or is its result. The second way is to say the phrase means "unto obedience, the very nature of which is faith" or "faith, which is obedience." The Gospel message is not a suggestion. It is a command to repent and have faith - faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is propositional. We either obey the command of the Gospel or we disobey. What does obedience result in? Faith.

I think both interpretations have merit. Certainly, as James points out in his epistle, faith should and must produce obedience the fruit of that which is good works. "Faith" without obedience is dead faith. True saving faith always results in obedience. We are still sinners and will not always obey but we will intend to obey and be gradually sanctified into increasing obedience. Where does that obedience come from - it comes from faith. Faith gives birth to obedience. Faith precedes obedience.

It is also true that our obedience to the Gospel results in faith. The Gospel is a command, a proposition. If we are obedient to that command we respond in faith. This is not commenting on the source of faith. While we do exercise faith, our faith is itself a gift of God's grace.

The first interpretation does not say that obedience is required for salvation. Paul negated that argument when he wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

This makes clear that salvation is "through faith" and "not as a result of works." How then can anyone say good works are a requirement for salvation? There is no other possible way to understand this verse than to conclude that works have no part in salvation!

Then what about James?

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (James 2:14-17)

Some people use these verses to argue that salvation requires works. We first must understand that Scripture does not contradict itself. God does not say salvation cannot be the result of works then turn around and say salvation requires works! God is not of two minds and God certainly does not contradict Himself. So how do we reconcile what Paul wrote with what James wrote?

James answers the question for us. He contrasts two types of faith. One type of faith is "dead faith." It is an empty faith. It is the faith of someone who might have intellectually agreed with the Gospel but never surrendered their will to the Gospel. The Gospel is more than just a set of facts to be believed. Part of the Gospel is acknowledging that Jesus is Lord and what that implies. If you say Jesus is Lord but do nothing to obey him, your statement is a lie. You do not truly see him as your Lord. If I say I believe that walking in front of a speeding car will kill me and that I have no desire to die but walk in front of a speeding car then I am either out of my mind or did not truly believe walking in front of a speeding car would kill me. The same if I said that drinking poison would kill me then drink poison. In obeying the Gospel we do more than acknowledge Jesus is Lord, we surrender ourselves to his lordship. That is why Jesus said that whoever would follow him must talk up his cross daily. If you just mouth the words acknowledging Jesus is Lord but make no commitment of the will to follow him as Lord, then you don't have saving faith. That is what James calls "dead faith." It is not genuine faith and so it cannot save you.

Salvation is by faith alone but it does not leave us alone (or as James puts it in verse 17 "being by itself") God is not interested in just freeing us from the penalty of sin but freeing us from the power of sin. He wants to make us like Jesus. Jesus was free from the penalty of sin because sin had no power over him. In freeing us from the power of sin, God begins the work of sanctification in our lives by which sin gradually loses its power over us as we cooperate with his grace. To us, this cooperation is a choice but at the same time, it is done by the power of God's grace as He changes us. Sanctification does not begin until after we receive salvation.

If sanctification preceded salvation then salvation would be dependent on works and Paul made it clear that works have no part in salvation. God doesn't wait until we have cleaned up our act before deciding whether or not to save us.

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

No, Christ died for us while we were sinners. Jesus didn't die just to make salvation possible for us. He died to actually save us. Revelation tells us that God's elect had their names written in the Book of Life before the foundations of the world. God chose to save you before He even created you. It is not that God could foresee your choices and act beforehand as a result of them. God knows the future because God wills the future. He foreordains events.

It is God who saves us. We don't save ourselves. God gives us faith and then the grace to obey Him. He does not merely forgive us but changes us. If we say we have faith but our lives show no sign of faith, then we have a dead faith and that is exactly what James addresses. There were people in his time as well as today who call themselves Christians but there is no evidence to support that claim. Such Christians give Christianity a bad name as non-believers meet such people and then conclude Christians are just a bunch of hypocrites who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. There is no friction between what Paul wrote and what James wrote. Salvation is not the result of works. We are saved before we have any good works (our works are as filthy rags). After we are saved, we walk in good works God has prepared beforehand for us.

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)

This verse comes right after Paul writes that salvation comes by faith and not by works. Good works come from God who has prepared them for us beforehand. Why would works be required for salvation if God prepared them beforehand for us? How would that be a test of our worthiness? We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.

Note the order. God gives us grace which produces faith which saves us and then He sanctifies us through good works He has prepared beforehand for us.

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)

James could have made a similar statement (and does but in more words) by saying,

If we say we have faith, but have not works, we are deceiving ourselves and our faith is dead.

There are two kinds of faith, wrote James, real faith that results in good works and dead faith that is alone without any good works. Real faith, wrote Paul, is the result of faith (given to us by grace) and not as the result of works that no man may boast.

 

[JoeT]

Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith

What does the phrase "the obedience that comes from faith" mean? This phrase can be interpreted in one of two ways. The first way is to say it refers to the obedience that faith produces or is its result. The second way is to say the phrase means "unto obedience, the very nature of which is faith" or "faith, which is obedience." The Gospel message is not a suggestion. It is a command to repent and have faith - faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is propositional. We either obey the command of the Gospel or we disobey. What does obedience result in? Faith.

I think both interpretations have merit. Certainly, as James points out in his epistle, faith should and must produce obedience the fruit of that which is good works. "Faith" without obedience is dead faith. True saving faith always results in obedience. We are still sinners and will not always obey but we will intend to obey and be gradually sanctified into increasing obedience. Where does that obedience come from - it comes from faith. Faith gives birth to obedience. Faith precedes obedience.

It is also true that our obedience to the Gospel results in faith. The Gospel is a command, a proposition. If we are obedient to that command we respond in faith. This is not commenting on the source of faith. While we do exercise faith, our faith is itself a gift of God's grace.

The first interpretation does not say that obedience is required for salvation. Paul negated that argument when he wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

This makes clear that salvation is "through faith" and "not as a result of works." How then can anyone say good works are a requirement for salvation? There is no other possible way to understand this verse than to conclude that works have no part in salvation!

Then what about James?

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (James 2:14-17)

Some people use these verses to argue that salvation requires works. We first must understand that Scripture does not contradict itself. God does not say salvation cannot be the result of works then turn around and say salvation requires works! God is not of two minds and God certainly does not contradict Himself. So how do we reconcile what Paul wrote with what James wrote?

James answers the question for us. He contrasts two types of faith. One type of faith is "dead faith." It is an empty faith. It is the faith of someone who might have intellectually agreed with the Gospel but never surrendered their will to the Gospel. The Gospel is more than just a set of facts to be believed. Part of the Gospel is acknowledging that Jesus is Lord and what that implies. If you say Jesus is Lord but do nothing to obey him, your statement is a lie. You do not truly see him as your Lord. If I say I believe that walking in front of a speeding car will kill me and that I have no desire to die but walk in front of a speeding car then I am either out of my mind or did not truly believe walking in front of a speeding car would kill me. The same if I said that drinking poison would kill me then drink poison. In obeying the Gospel we do more than acknowledge Jesus is Lord, we surrender ourselves to his lordship. That is why Jesus said that whoever would follow him must talk up his cross daily. If you just mouth the words acknowledging Jesus is Lord but make no commitment of the will to follow him as Lord, then you don't have saving faith. That is what James calls "dead faith." It is not genuine faith and so it cannot save you.

Salvation is by faith alone but it does not leave us alone (or as James puts it in verse 17 "being by itself") God is not interested in just freeing us from the penalty of sin but freeing us from the power of sin. He wants to make us like Jesus. Jesus was free from the penalty of sin because sin had no power over him. In freeing us from the power of sin, God begins the work of sanctification in our lives by which sin gradually loses its power over us as we cooperate with his grace. To us, this cooperation is a choice but at the same time, it is done by the power of God's grace as He changes us. Sanctification does not begin until after we receive salvation.

If sanctification preceded salvation then salvation would be dependent on works and Paul made it clear that works have no part in salvation. God doesn't wait until we have cleaned up our act before deciding whether or not to save us.

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

No, Christ died for us while we were sinners. Jesus didn't die just to make salvation possible for us. He died to actually save us. Revelation tells us that God's elect had their names written in the Book of Life before the foundations of the world. God chose to save you before He even created you. It is not that God could foresee your choices and act beforehand as a result of them. God knows the future because God wills the future. He foreordains events.

It is God who saves us. We don't save ourselves. God gives us faith and then the grace to obey Him. He does not merely forgive us but changes us. If we say we have faith but our lives show no sign of faith, then we have a dead faith and that is exactly what James addresses. There were people in his time as well as today who call themselves Christians but there is no evidence to support that claim. Such Christians give Christianity a bad name as non-believers meet such people and then conclude Christians are just a bunch of hypocrites who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. There is no friction between what Paul wrote and what James wrote. Salvation is not the result of works. We are saved before we have any good works (our works are as filthy rags). After we are saved, we walk in good works God has prepared beforehand for us.

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)

This verse comes right after Paul writes that salvation comes by faith and not by works. Good works come from God who has prepared them for us beforehand. Why would works be required for salvation if God prepared them beforehand for us? How would that be a test of our worthiness? We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.

Note the order. God gives us grace which produces faith which saves us and then He sanctifies us through good works He has prepared beforehand for us.

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)

James could have made a similar statement (and does but in more words) by saying,

If we say we have faith, but have not works, we are deceiving ourselves and our faith is dead.

There are two kinds of faith, wrote James, real faith that results in good works and dead faith that is alone without any good works. Real faith, wrote Paul, is the result of faith (given to us by grace) and not as the result of works that no man may boast.

I believe St. Paul's message is clear however you take the meaning of obedience.

To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek [Romans 2:7-9]​

​

Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you [Hebrews 13:17]​

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Yes, they were brutal in those times, if you did not believe the state religion you could end up tortured or dead. Unfortunately there are still pockets of hatred left over, twice I've been to countries during their celebration of Guy Fawkes Day, which celebrates the torturing and killing of a Catholic named Fawkes. It really gave me a creepy feeling. Catholics too paid a dear price if caught trying to bring the English version of the Bible, the Douay Rheims, from France and distributing it in England. I never saw it at my school growing up, but my mom always remember arriving at her elementary school and seeing the American flag had been taken down and replaced with the Klan flag. I spoke with a lady who told me she had no animosity toward Protestants, but she didn't understand as a girl why they chained the doors of her Catholic Church and they had to worship outside in the rain and the cold. It's encouraging that today they mention at the Tower of London that in the back of their chapel are the graves of both Protestant and Catholic martyrs, and a Beefeater offered regret for the torture. That was encouraging, we're not going to get the full forgiveness Jesus wants us to have until people quit pretending it was all one-sided. I've mentioned before the role of William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua in promoting Scripture alone.


Jesus spoke Aramaic, and gave Peter the Aramaic name "Kepha" which means "Rock."

I believe St. Paul's message is clear however you take the meaning of obedience.

To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek [Romans 2:7-9]​

​

Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you [Hebrews 13:17]​

JoeT

Those verses do not contradict what I wrote. Faith leads to obedience. Obedience is the fruit of saving faith. You will do good works if you have saving faith. You can't just pull a verse out and make it teach something contrary to the rest of Scripture. What then do you say Paul meant when he said salvation was "not of works?" Here you are saying works are necessary. So which is it? Was Paul wrong? Yes, our works will be judged but not at the Great White Throne judgment which is the judgment concerning salvation. They will be judged for rewards but not for salvation.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

"All our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman" [Isaias 64:6]. "Our Justices" are works of the Jewish law, the Jewish sacrifices, sacraments, and cleansing ceremonies. Without good works there can be no Salvation. It seems that when you left the Church you left God behind, or found a more likeable god. Citing this verse to mean every work of charity is a "rag of a menstruous woman" illustrates why St. Peter warned of "private interpretation". [2 Peter 1:20] The verse means that works without the grace of God are not meritorious. Merit remains even with a prevenient grace or actual grace. As I've mentioned before, without the justification found in our Baptism every act is an act of deprivation and is without merit,

True, because it's built into the Protestant paradigm. "Once Saved Always Save", "Bible Alone", "Faith Alone" are categorical examples of the majority of Protestants fail the "True Faith"

True.

What? Are you denying Scripture? St. Paul explicitly states that faith does not stand alone but with the obedience to the faith of Christ. [Romans 1:5;16:26].

I addressed Isaias 64:6 above. Without St. Paul's obedience of faith, there is no work that merits. However obedience to faith moves us to the baptismal founts of the Catholic Church.

Once again, another out of context quote from the bible.The verse does not make your point that somehow works cannot be meritorious falls flat. God's works in our creation is does not merit us. However, failing obedience to His grace in good works fails faith. Mankind has free will, nothing 'makes' us do works of charity, we do so out of our obedience to love of Christ.

JoeT

Our "free will" is in bondage to our nature. Prior to being regenerate, our nature is one of sinful disobedience. That is why those works are "filthy rags." After salvation we are given a new nature, a nature that can now obey and walk in the good works God has prepared beforehand for us. Those works are not filthy rags. They show our faith was genuine and that the Holy Spirit is at work within us to sanctify us.

Can you not imagine someone doing good works out of obedience and to God's glory without it being a basis for their salvation? Is fear of the loss of salvation the only possible motive to do good works? I don't do good works because my salvation depends on it. I do good works out of love for my Lord who died for me and saved me. He has given me a new nature that wants to please him. It's true faith does not stand alone but faith (and salvation) come before good works and the good works are the outcome of that saving faith.

 

[Valletta]

Our "free will" is in bondage to our nature. Prior to being regenerate, our nature is one of sinful disobedience. That is why those works are "filthy rags." After salvation we are given a new nature, a nature that can now obey and walk in the good works God has prepared beforehand for us. Those works are not filthy rags. They show our faith was genuine and that the Holy Spirit is at work within us to sanctify us.

Can you not imagine someone doing good works out of obedience and to God's glory without it being a basis for their salvation? Is fear of the loss of salvation the only possible motive to do good works? I don't do good works because my salvation depends on it. I do good works out of love for my Lord who died for me and saved me. He has given me a new nature that wants to please him. It's true faith does not stand alone but faith (and salvation) come before good works and the good works are the outcome of that saving faith.

Shining as Lights in the World​

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; RSVCE