Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

[Buzzard3]

Define what you think “all the truth” means?

"all the truth" is the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", which Jesus gave to one man, Peter (Matt 16:18-19).

That is to say, Jesus bestowed upon one man on earth the power to infallibly discern "all the truth" revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church. The "keys" were passed on from Peter to his successors down through the centuries.

Also see Eph 4:11-16 below ...

But Scripture doesn’t claim that the church is the interpreter of all truth that the Holy Spirit is revealing either.

Yes it does ...

"And his [Christ's] gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love." (Eph 4:11-16)

"the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15)

 

[The Righterzpen]

"all the truth" is the "keys of the kingdom of heaven",

Where does Scripture say "all the truth" is the "keys to the kingdom of heaven"?

which Jesus gave to one man, Peter (Matt 16:18-19).

I know this is a common RCC interpretation; but the context of Matthew 16:18-19 is not saying the rock the church is built on is Peter. Compare verse 18 with John 1:42. Cephus means "stone" (#4074) yet in Matthew 16:18 "Peter" and "rock" are two different words. It's not "stone" and "stone" it's ".... you are Peter (stone - #4074) and (also) upon this Rock (bolder - #4073)) I will build my church.

Now comparing Scripture with Scripture; which is what we're told to do to establish doctrine. (Isaiah 28:9-10)

Now look up #4073
Matthew 7:24-25, Matthew 27:51 & 60 (rock in that context are tombs),
Mark 15:46 - also talking about the tomb Jesus was buried in.
Luke 6:48 - he who builds his house on a rock.
Luke 8:6 & 13 - parable of seed falling on rock

Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8 (Epistle Peter himself wrote.) These 3 references state clearly that Christ is the rock. (Peter is a "stone". Jesus is the "Rock".)

Revelation 6:15-16 - Men hiding in the rocks are trying to hide from the wrath of God.

Christ builds His church on Himself, not Peter. Peter can't atone for anyone's sin. Clearly the Rock Jesus is referring to, is Himself.

That is to say, Jesus bestowed upon one man on earth the power to infallibly discern "all the truth" revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church. The "keys" were passed on from Peter to his successors down through the centuries.

Using the same principle; let's compare Bible passages to each other.

There's only two passages where "keys" is plural. One is Matthew 6:19; but the other is Revelation 1:18. Who has the keys to death and hell? (Christ does. It's pretty clear in Revelation 1:18 that he who holds the keys of death and hell is Jesus Christ.)

There's only 4 other places in the NT where the word "key" is used:
Luke 11:52 - Lawyers posses the "key of knowledge" but never enter.
Revelation 3:7 - refers to the "key of David"; which the holder thereof described in that passage, again is clearly Christ
Revelation 9:1 and Revelation 20:1 - both these refer to an "angel" who holds the key to the bottomless pit. Now that "angel" is called "Abaddon"; which is the "angel of destruction"

Now the term "angel of destruction" is used in 2 Samuel 20:16. This "angel of destruction" is the "angel of the Lord". Also 1 Chronicles 21:15 also talks about the "angel of destruction". But was also get the same language about the plagues of Egypt. What's been dubbed "the angel of death". (The angle that passes through the land at midnight and slays all the 1s born who are not in "a house" protected by "the blood of the lamb". Clearly this "angel of destruction" is a personification of God's wrath.

Next detail; this "bottomless pit"? Is this what the "face of the deep" from Genesis becomes? Yet who is the Entity who "moves upon the waters". (That's the Holy Spirit.)

So again, who "holds the keys to the kingdom". (Who's imparted them to Peter; because He rightfully possess them?) Again, that is Christ.

Now when Jesus talks to Peter about things "bound on earth" also being "born din heaven; again, go into the concordance and take a look at the verb tenses. What's "bound on earth" (aorist active subjective) (having already) been bound in heaven; (Passive perfect participle.) If a verb is "perfect tense" it's describing from the "bird's eye" view of completed history. Thus things are "bound on earth" having already been "bound in heaven. Peter is not doing the binding; because he is confined to earthy time. (Just as we all are.)

"And his [Christ's] gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love." (Eph 4:11-16)

Now "apostles", "prophets", "evangelists", "prophets" and "teachers". "... attain to the unity of faith.... knowledge of Son of God.... no longer tossed about by every wind of doctrine....." "... grow up... into him who is the head....".

Who's the head of the church? That's not Peter. It's Christ. (Ephesians 1:22, 4:12, 5:23; Colossians 1:18

"the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15)

Now who really is "the church of God"? Historically, according to Catholicism; anyone who's not part of that church, can't be saved. (Although clearly, the current pope doesn't believe that.) Do you believe that? Do you believe that everyone who's not Catholic is condemned to hell?

So who is the "church of the living God" who is "the foundation of truth"? That would be every person who's been atoned for. All the elect are "the church of God". And this is true regardless of what denomination they are in.

 

[Valletta]

Where does Scripture say "all the truth" is the "keys to the kingdom of heaven"?

I know this is a common RCC interpretation; but the context of Matthew 16:18-19 is not saying the rock the church is built on is Peter. Compare verse 18 with John 1:42. Cephus means "stone" (#4074) yet in Matthew 16:18 "Peter" and "rock" are two different words. It's not "stone" and "stone" it's ".... you are Peter (stone - #4074) and (also) upon this Rock (bolder - #4073)) I will build my church.

The Aramaic word "Kepha" translated into "Cephas" is preserved in the Bible. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. "Kepha" means "Rock" in Aramaic. The Jewish temple was built on rock, and Jesus is our cornerstone. Thus renaming Simon as Rock was extremely important. Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22, where the king gives the keys to his kingdom to his prime minister as a sign of authority. When the king is absent the word of the prime minister is supposed to be taken with the same authority. As the Catholic Church teaches, Jesus is the head of the Church.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The Aramaic word "Kepha" translated into "Cephas" is preserved in the Bible. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. "Kepha" means "Rock" in Aramaic. The Jewish temple was built on rock, and Jesus is our cornerstone. Thus renaming Simon as Rock was extremely important. Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22, where the king gives the keys to his kingdom to his prime minister as a sign of authority. When the king is absent the word of the prime minister is supposed to be taken with the same authority. As the Catholic Church teaches, Jesus is the head of the Church.

Scripture was written in Greek though, not Aramaic. So even if "kepha" does mean "rock" in Aramaic; it's irrelevant. In the Greek "Cephus" means "stone" which is distinctly different than "rock". That's clear in the text.

Now, is there any Scriptural relevance between naming Pete.... well "Peter" and Isaiah 22? You'd have to explain the relevance there; because I'm not seeing the connection. Isaiah 22, historically is taking about the destruction of Jerusalem in relation to the Babylonian captivity.

Multiple people were given names that had metaphoric meanings. That seems to have been somewhat of a cultural thing. It goes back into the OT. Abram, Sari and Jacob all underwent name changes. I believe "Zebedee = "sons of thunder" was another metaphoric name change. Just like Madeline means (something to the effect of "strong tower" (Besides being the name of a town.)

So if the naming of Peter was "very important" what about "son's of thunder" or Sari / Sarah; Abram / Abraham or Jacob / Israel? Sari means "princess" and Sarah means "queen". (Haven't looked up Abram / Abraham so I don't know the differences in the names. And "Jacob" and "Israel". Well, Christ is referred to as "Israel" too.

 

[Valletta]

Scripture was written in Greek though, not Aramaic. So even if "kepha" does mean "rock" in Aramaic; it's irrelevant. In the Greek "Cephus" means "stone" which is distinctly different than "rock". That's clear in the text.

Actually Cephas is the Greek transliteration, or rendition, of the Aramaic name "Kepha." Cephas, which is a proper name, means "Rock."

Isaiah 22:15-23 15 Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, 16 Who has hewn for himself a sepulcher on a height and carved his tomb in the rock: “What are you doing here, and what people have you here, that here you have hewn for yourself a tomb?” 17 The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly 18 And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! 19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. 20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 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. 23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;“

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

[The Righterzpen]

Actually Cephas is the Greek transliteration, or rendition, of the Aramaic name "Kepha." Cephas, which is a proper name, means "Rock."

Isaiah 22:15-23 15 Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, 16 Who has hewn for himself a sepulcher on a height and carved his tomb in the rock: “What are you doing here, and what people have you here, that here you have hewn for yourself a tomb?” 17 The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly 18 And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! 19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. 20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 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. 23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;“


Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Except Scripture itself refutes what you say about the word Cephas.

Isaiah 22:22 is answered in Revelation 3:7. He who possesses the key to the house of David is Christ. Clearly Revelation 3:7 isn't talking about Peter.

 

[Valletta]

Except Scripture itself refutes what you say about the word Cephas.

Isaiah 22:22 is answered in Revelation 3:7. He who possesses the key to the house of David is Christ. Clearly Revelation 3:7 isn't talking about Peter.

It complements what I said. Jesus holds the keys to the kingdom, as shown in Revelation 3:7. Jesus renames Simon as Rock, and gives the keys to the kingdom to Rock. Also in Isaiah, when the office of prime minister is vacated a new prime minister is appointed. That is, Jesus does not take the keys back when a pope dies.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It complements what I said. Jesus holds the keys to the kingdom, as shown in Revelation 3:7. Jesus renames Simon as Rock, and gives the keys to the kingdom to Rock. Also in Isaiah, when the office of prime minister is vacated a new prime minister is appointed. That is, Jesus does not take the keys back when a pope dies.

I know that's what you really want to believe; but that isn't what Scripture says.

 

[Buzzard3]

There's only two passages where "keys" is plural. One is Matthew 6:19; but the other is Revelation 1:18. Who has the keys to death and hell? (Christ does. It's pretty clear in Revelation 1:18 that he who holds the keys of death and hell is Jesus Christ.)

Surely only God can possess "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", yet Jesus said he will give those "keys" to Peter, a mere human being (Matt 16:19). Please explain.

At the very least, by giving him the "keys", Jesus declares Peter the leader of the Church. That is indisputable (which is probably why Protestants never talk about Matt 16:19 - it's too Catholic).

 

[Buzzard3]

I know this is a common RCC interpretation; but the context of Matthew 16:18-19 is not saying the rock the church is built on is Peter. Compare verse 18 with John 1:42. Cephus means "stone" (#4074) yet in Matthew 16:18 "Peter" and "rock" are two different words. It's not "stone" and "stone" it's ".... you are Peter (stone - #4074) and (also) upon this Rock (bolder - #4073)) I will build my church.

John 1:42 describes the very first time Jesus and Simon (Peter) met, including the very first sentence Jesus uttered to Simon, in which Jesus told Simon that he will be called Cephas, which is Aramaic for "rock".
That means Jesus had decided to change Simon's name to "rock" even before they'd met. What is your explanation for that?


Can you see a pattern in the following three points? ...

1. In the NT, Christ is often referred to as the "rock" - yet Jesus gives the name "rock" to Simon (Peter).

2. Only God holds "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" - yet Jesus gives those "keys" to Simon (Peter).

3. Jesus referred to himself as "the good shepherd" - yet he gives the responsibility of shepherding his flock to Peter (John 21).

 

[Dan Perez]

Really? "faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). So you're saying we're saved by "dead" faith?
(By "works", James is referring to obedience.)

Which part of the following verse suggests we're saved by faith alone?:
"a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

1John 2:3-6 says a believer who disobeys God’s commandments doesn't "know" Christ, is a "liar" and "the truth is not in him". Does that sound like a believer who is saved by faith alone? It doesn't to me.

Well lets see what James 2:24 really says !!

And James 2:24 NOT // OV is a Greek DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and that means NOTTTTTTTTTTTTT by Faith ALONE .

Eph 2:8 reads For by GRACE you are HAVING BEEN SAVED // SOZO is in the Greek PERFECT TENSE and that means OSAS , PERIOD !!

#1 James 1:1 is speaking to the 12 tribes SACTTERED ABROAD ,

#2 Eph 2:8 Paul is writing to the BODY OF CHRIST .

# 3 seem to CANCEL each other OUT , so which one is right ?

They BOTH are RIGHT ON , as both have two DIFFERENT AUDIENCES !!

dan p

 

[The Righterzpen]

Surely only God can possess "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", yet Jesus said he will give those "keys" to Peter, a mere human being (Matt 16:19). Please explain.

At the very least, by giving him the "keys", Jesus declares Peter the leader of the Church. That is indisputable (which is probably why Protestants never talk about Matt 16:19 - it's too Catholic).

The Greek word "key(s)" comes from the word "shut" or "shut up".

The phrase "shut up heaven" is used in 3 places besides Matthew 16:19

Matthew 23:13 - the scribes and pharisees "shut up the kingdom of heaven" against men. They won't go in themselves and won't allow others to go in. They essentially "held the keys to the kingdom of heaven". Now what does that mean; that the scribes and pharisees held the keys to the kingdom of heaven before they were given to Peter? (Assuming it had something to do with Israel being the "holders" of the writ of Scripture of the Old Testament.)

Peter was the apostle to the circumcision. (Galatians 2:8) Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. (Galatians 2:8, Romans 11:13) So in this context; it would seem to me that Peter being given the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" which were taken away from the scribes and pharisees has more to do with Peter's role in the dismantling of the Old Testament system than it has anything to do with Peter being "the head of the church".

Luke 4:25 - In the days of Elijah the heavens were shut up 3.5 years; where it didn't rain. Jesus quotes this passage while in Galilee. And what he says fills the townspeople with wrath and they try to throw Jesus off a cliff. So thus the fulfillment of this "shutting up heaven that it not rain for 3.5 years" is right here in regards to Jesus's ministry. And so why is it not raining? Because those who are suppose to be the custodians of the word of God to the Jewish people have shut up the doors of the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus hands those keys to Peter who is the "apostle to the circumcision".

Now fast forward to the crucifixion. Peter states that he will die for Christ. (His "best" human intention is to be a martyr; but he runs away when this girl calls him out as a Galilean. (Keep in mind the "shut of heaven from raining" happened in Galilee.)) And what does Jesus (post resurrection) tell Peter about how Peter will die. (John 21:18) Note too Jesus telling Peter this, happens in Galilee also.

Now over to the Book of Acts. Acts 21 is the description of the event of Paul wanting to go to Jerusalem. Several brothers meet Paul and tell him to stay out of Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit has told them to tell Paul he will be bound and taken out of Jerusalem (by the Romans). Which is exactly what happened.

Question though; why is Paul thinking he should go to Jerusalem? Where's Peter "the apostle to the circumcision"; (who mind you has been in Jerusalem since the resurrection)? Assuming by this point Peter is dead; because after a certain point in the book of Acts we hear nothing more about Peter. We know by what Jesus said to Peter about Peter's own death, that Peter would be crucified. So.... who crucified Peter and where did that happen? (I know that according to the tradition of most Christendom tradition (it's not just the RCC that says this) the belief is that Peter was crucified in Rome; but we have no evidence from Scripture that Peter ever left Judea!)

The closest in era, extra Biblical historical source we have that states Peter was martyred is Clement of Rome. (End of the 1st century.) Clement though doesn't state where Peter was martyred; although he does state that Paul was martyred "far west". We assume it was historically correct that Paul was martyred in Rome because we know from Scripture he was headed for Rome. But the only thing Clement tells us about Peter's martyrdom was that he was killed out of envy and jealousy. Assuming that statement is of the Jews because the Romans had no reason to be jealous of Peter. Clement of Rome also includes Paul as having suffered persecution from the Jews because of envy. Clement gives descriptions we find in the Book of Acts of things that happened to Paul. Clement lastly states that Paul suffered martyrdom under the authority of the prefects (Roman rulers). But he doesn't specifically state that Peter was put to death by the Romans.

Again, I'm aware that it's pretty much universal tradition of Christendom to believe Peter was crucified in Rome; yet we have no Scriptural or 1st century accounts that tell us Peter ever left Judea. The closest we have is Clement of Rome who states Peter was martyred out of envy and jealousy and Paul also suffered persecution on account of envy and jealousy; although Paul was executed by the Roman authorities. Thus I conclude that it was the apostate "circumcision" who actually put Peter (the apostle to the circumcision) to death out of (as Clement states) "envy and jealousy".

Philip Schaff: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Tertullian and Origen are the first people to state Peter was in Rome. These two church fathers were contemporaries of each other; one was "western" (Assuming Rome) and the other was "eastern" (assuming Constantinople).

John 1:42 describes the very first time Jesus and Simon (Peter) met, including the very first sentence Jesus uttered to Simon, in which Jesus told Simon that he will be called Cephas, which is Aramaic for "rock".
That means Jesus had decided to change Simon's name to "rock" even before they'd met. What is your explanation for that?


Can you see a pattern in the following three points? ...

1. In the NT, Christ is often referred to as the "rock" - yet Jesus gives the name "rock" to Simon (Peter).

2. Only God holds "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" - yet Jesus gives those "keys" to Simon (Peter).

3. Jesus referred to himself as "the good shepherd" - yet he gives the responsibility of shepherding his flock to Peter (John 21).

So getting back to this statement in Matthew 16:19 about Peter and the keys to the kingdom.

Seeing how he was "the apostle to the circumcision"; the "keys to the kingdom" were likely limited to the point where Peter was martyred. That was the end of Judaism as a religion God recognized as relevant to the redemption plan.

Not to say that people today who follow the Jewish religion can't be saved. They certainly can be. Yet, they come to redemption "under the auspice of gentile" because they are not genetic descendants of Judah or Benjamin. About 85% of people who claim modern Judaism as their religion, aren't even Semitic. Only about 3% of those who follow Judaism today have enough genetic markers to be considered Semitic. And that population is generally those who never left the Middle-East. Now..... the next question is; are they Semitic through the line of Ishmael or Esau? Genetically, there's no way of knowing, because they have the same Semitic genetic markers that just about everyone else who lives in the region has; including Persians, Eastern Africans and some Europeans. Those who were left of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin who had not converted to Christianly and left the region; were destroyed by the Roman army by the beginning of the 2nd century.

Which the notion of "bound on earth; having already been bound in heaven" and "loosed on earth / loosed in heaven" given historical context Scripture itself describes of the scribes and pharisees; does not apply to the church.

There's an interesting phrase in Luke 16:9 about making friends with the unrighteous mammon "for when you fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations". Now there's an interesting statement that's in the context of a parable about a steward who failed the master. The Jewish believers were absorbed into the gentile church once the Jewish system was destroyed. Paul also makes reference to this saying he'd been made a minister according to the dispensation God had given him. (Colossians 1:25) The word "dispensation" literally means the female steward of the master's household.

Compare this to Revelation 1:18. He who is the head of the church of Philadelphia holds the keys to death and hell.

 

[Buzzard3]

So who is the "church of the living God" who is "the foundation of truth"? That would be every person who's been atoned for. All the elect are "the church of God". And this is true regardless of what denomination they are in.

How can that possibly be the "the foundation of the truth"? For starters, the Catholic version of the "truth" is not the Protestant version of the "truth".

Moreover, in Protestantism, every individual has a different version of the "truth", according to their own interpretation of the Bible, resulting in potentially millions of different versions of the "truth" that are often conflicting ... and you claim this discordant and confusing mess is "the foundation of the truth"? You must be joking!

Whatever the "the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1Tim 3:15) is, it certainly doesn't produce conflicting doctrines and different versions of the "truth".

Eph 4:11-16 says Christ gave us the
the Church to provide "unity of the faith" and "the knowledge of the Son of God ... so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine". That is not the Church you describe in your post, which is a sure-fire recipe for disunity; chaos and confusion.

 

[Buzzard3]

Thus things are "bound on earth" having already been "bound in heaven. Peter is not doing the binding

That's right ... God does the binding, but he expresses it through Peter. And this process is infallible, otherwise Peter will err in guiding the Church "into all the truth" (John 16:13).

This is not something new - God used the same process to express his will and truth through the OT prophets.

 

[The Righterzpen]

How can that possibly be the "the foundation of the truth"? For starters, the Catholic version of the "truth" is not the Protestant version of the "truth".

Moreover, in Protestantism, every individual has a different version of the "truth", according to their own interpretation of the Bible, resulting in potentially millions of different versions of the "truth" that are often conflicting ... and you claim this discordant and confusing mess is "the foundation of the truth"? You must be joking!

Whatever the "the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1Tim 3:15) is, it certainly doesn't produce conflicting doctrines and different versions of the "truth".

Eph 4:11-16 says Christ gave us the
the Church to provide "unity of the faith" and "the knowledge of the Son of God ... so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine". That is not the Church you describe in your post, which is a sure-fire recipe for disunity; chaos and confusion.

1 Timothy 3:15 is not saying the church is the foundation of truth. It's actually saying God is the foundation of truth. The church consists of all the elect who've been atoned for. And the elect who've been atoned for can be in any church. Despite the fact that because of sin; all churches have error.

Now read Ephesians 4:12 "...For the perfecting of the saints..... (vs 13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

When are the saints "perfected", "come into the unity of the faith", "unto a perfected man", "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

That doesn't happen this side of the grave. (Not in totality at least.)

So yes, because on earth there is still sin and no one has the full command of the truth; there will be differing perceptions of what people think truth is.

Yet to what ever extent any individual in their own section of Christendom gets closer to "unity of faith", the "perfected man", and "the measure of the stature of Christ" (beyond what we might call consistent basic morality); God is only really the One who can qualify how far along the path any individual comes. There will always be some degree of ambiguity of human ability to measure in that realm. And the reason for that is because none of us can see the real heart, intentions and motivations of someone else.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That's right ... God does the binding, but he expresses it through Peter. And this process is infallible, otherwise Peter will err in guiding the Church "into all the truth" (John 16:13).

This is not something new - God used the same process to express his will and truth through the OT prophets.

Was Peter or any of the OT prophets without sin? (No, they weren't without sin.) And since we know this is the case; how can your assertion here be true?

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's right ... God does the binding, but he expresses it through Peter. And this process is infallible, otherwise Peter will err in guiding the Church "into all the truth" (John 16:13).

This is not something new - God used the same process to express his will and truth through the OT prophets.

That is extremely curious. If what you say is true, then the disagreement between Peter and Paul concerning the role of the Law, as recorded in Galatians 2, leads to some bizarre conclusions.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

If Peter (Cephas) was infallible, then Paul was in grave error and ought to have been excommunicated for promulgating heresy. However, we do not have a scintilla of evidence that such was the case. Rather, we have a large body of Paul's letters included in the New Testament as infallible, inerrant scripture, including the letter to the Galatians. In fact, even Peter recognized Paul's inspiration in his own letter.

Your assertion concerning Peter's infallibility does not stand up to the evidence of holy scripture.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That is extremely curious. If what you say is true, then the disagreement between Peter and Paul concerning the role of the Law, as recorded in Galatians 2, leads to some bizarre conclusions.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

If Peter (Cephas) was infallible, then Paul was in grave error and ought to have been excommunicated for promulgating heresy. However, we do not have a scintilla of evidence that such was the case. Rather, we have a large body of Paul's letters included in the New Testament as infallible, inerrant scripture, including the letter to the Galatians. In fact, even Peter recognized Paul's inspiration in his own letter.

Your assertion concerning Peter's infallibility does not stand up to the evidence of holy scripture.

That's a good point; considering Paul basically had told Peter that if Peter continues in the path he's on; than basically he'd be reprobate of the faith.

 

[Buzzard3]

I know this is a common RCC interpretation; but the context of Matthew 16:18-19 is not saying the rock the church is built on is Peter. Compare verse 18 with John 1:42. Cephus means "stone" (#4074) yet in Matthew 16:18 "Peter" and "rock" are two different words. It's not "stone" and "stone" it's ".... you are Peter (stone - #4074) and (also) upon this Rock (bolder - #4073)) I will build my church.

That seems to be only half correct - according to the Bible Hub interlinear NT, "petra" (4074) can mean "stone" or "boulder".

Have a look at a French Bible - in Matt 16:18, "Peter" and "rock" are exactly the same word ("Pierre"). Did those French translators get it wrong?

If by, "this rock", in Matt 18:16, Jesus is referring to himself, why does he begin the sentence with "And I tell you, you are Peter"? Why would Jesus specifically address Peter, but then talk about himself? Grammatically, that makes no sense.
Furthermore, in v.19, Jesus is obviously referring to Peter, but he doesn't address Peter by name, because there's no need to - Jesus already did that in v.18. The logically conclusion is, in verses 18 and 19, Jesus is referring to Peter.

 

[Buzzard3]

That is extremely curious. If what you say is true, then the disagreement between Peter and Paul concerning the role of the Law, as recorded in Galatians 2, leads to some bizarre conclusions.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

If Peter (Cephas) was infallible, then Paul was in grave error and ought to have been excommunicated for promulgating heresy. However, we do not have a scintilla of evidence that such was the case. Rather, we have a large body of Paul's letters included in the New Testament as infallible, inerrant scripture, including the letter to the Galatians. In fact, even Peter recognized Paul's inspiration in his own letter.

Your assertion concerning Peter's infallibility does not stand up to the evidence of holy scripture.

Like most Protestants, you evidently don't understand what Peter's infallibility means. It doesn't mean Peter will be perfect in his behaviour or in his leadership on a personal level - as is evident from his error at Antioch.

Jesus gave Peter authority over the Church when Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19), which includes authority over what the Church teaches. Peter's infallibility means that what he allows the Church to teach as dogma (aka "all the truth" - John 16:13) will be infallibly correct. Even if Peter turned out to be the worst sinner on earth, the Holy Spirit will still ensure that what Peter allows the Chucrh to teach as dogma will be infallibly correct.