The Harlot: Part Four: By Faith Rahab Hid the Spies

Hebrews 11:30-31 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.

John 16:1-4 “These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them."

Joshua 2
Rahab Hides the Spies
1 Now Joshua the son of Nun sent out two men from Acacia Grove to spy secretly, saying, “Go, view the land, especially Jericho.”
So they went, and came to the house of a harlot named Rahab, and lodged there. 2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, “Behold, men have come here tonight from the children of Israel to search out the country.”
3 So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country.”
4 Then the woman took the two men and hid them. So she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. 5 And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them.” 6 (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.) 7 Then the men pursued them by the road to the Jordan, to the fords. And as soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate.
8 Now before they lay down, she came up to them on the roof, 9 and said to the men: “I know that the LORD has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you. 10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were on the other side of the Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. 11 And as soon as we heard these things, our hearts melted; neither did there remain any more courage in anyone because of you, for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath. 12 Now therefore, I beg you, swear to me by the LORD, since I have shown you kindness, that you also will show kindness to my father’s house, and give me a true token, 13 and spare my father, my mother, my brothers, my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.”
14 So the men answered her, “Our lives for yours, if none of you tell this business of ours. And it shall be, when the LORD has given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you.”
15 Then she let them down by a rope through the window, for her house was on the city wall; she dwelt on the wall. 16 And she said to them, “Get to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you. Hide there three days, until the pursuers have returned. Afterward you may go your way.”
17 So the men said to her: “We will be blameless of this oath of yours which you have made us swear, 18 unless, when we come into the land, you bind this line of scarlet cord in the window through which you let us down, and unless you bring your father, your mother, your brothers, and all your father’s household to your own home. 19 So it shall be that whoever goes outside the doors of your house into the street, his blood shall be on his own head, and we will be guiltless. And whoever is with you in the house, his blood shall be on our head if a hand is laid on him. 20 And if you tell this business of ours, then we will be free from your oath which you made us swear.”
21 Then she said, “According to your words, so be it.” And she sent them away, and they departed. And she bound the scarlet cord in the window.
22 They departed and went to the mountain, and stayed there three days until the pursuers returned. The pursuers sought them all along the way, but did not find them. 23 So the two men returned, descended from the mountain, and crossed over; and they came to Joshua the son of Nun, and told him all that had befallen them. 24 And they said to Joshua, “Truly the LORD has delivered all the land into our hands, for indeed all the inhabitants of the country are fainthearted because of us.”


Matthew 25
The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”



Joshua 6

20 So the people shouted when the priests blew the trumpets. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
22 But Joshua had said to the two men who had spied out the country, “Go into the harlot’s house, and from there bring out the woman and all that she has, as you swore to her.” 23 And the young men who had been spies went in and brought out Rahab, her father, her mother, her brothers, and all that she had. So they brought out all her relatives and left them outside the camp of Israel. 24 But they burned the city and all that was in it with fire. Only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. 25 And Joshua spared Rahab the harlot, her father’s household, and all that she had. So she dwells in Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
26 Then Joshua charged them at that time, saying, “Cursed be the man before the LORD who rises up and builds this city Jericho; he shall lay its foundation with his firstborn, and with his youngest he shall set up its gates.”

"Catholic But Not Roman Catholic" series: Introduction

Note: The following is the introduction from a study by a Research Analyst for NTRMin named Jason Engwer, who posted a series on the NTRMin Discussion Board called "Catholic But Not Roman Catholic" which studies different theological areas taught by the Early Church Fathers and compares them to the teachings of Roman Catholicism. I found it very helpful so I'm posting parts of it so others can read it.

Catholic But Not Roman Catholic: Introduction
Evangelicals and Catholics have radically different views of church history. Evangelicals believe that a revelation was given to us by God through the apostles, and that each generation since that time is responsible for following that revelation. Some people are more faithful than others in doing so. We view the church fathers as people who taught a combination of truth and error that doesn't completely align with any modern belief system. The evangelical view of church history is similar to what we read about in 2 Kings 22:8-13, where the original revelation is what must be followed, even if our forefathers failed to do so. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that there's been one worldwide denomination centered in Rome since the time of the apostles. They believe that the church fathers were members of that denomination, and that all of the teachings of the apostles were passed on in an unbroken succession.

I've decided to begin a new series of posts titled "Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic". What I want to do is post, daily, a quote of a church father contradicting Roman Catholic teaching or disagreeing with a popular argument used by Roman Catholic apologists. Sometimes I'll include some explanatory comments with the quote, if I think it's appropriate, and other times I won't. I may miss a day here or there because of being sick, being away from home, etc., but I'll try to post a quote every day. If anybody has any ideas for a quote, or wants to send me a quote, you can e-mail me at jengwer@ntrmin.org. When I include a quote somebody else has sent me, I'll give that person credit for it. You can also e-mail me, or post a response here, if you have any reasonable objections to the quote I've posted. I would expect the large majority of the quotes to be clear examples of the church fathers contradicting modern Roman Catholic beliefs. But I'm fallible, and even when I'm not wrong! to include a quote, I may still be unclear about why I included it. I'm willing to consider any reasonable criticisms. Let me give an example.

Let's say that I post a quote of a church father referring to Mary as a sinner. Here are some examples of unreasonable objections:

Quoting some other church father referring to Mary as sinless. Evangelicals believe that the church fathers held a wide variety of beliefs, so we don't expect as much consistency as the Catholic view of church history would require. Catholics believe that there was one worldwide denomination that taught the same things the apostles taught in an unbroken succession. If church father A denied that Mary was sinless, while church father B said that she was sinless, that's supportive of the evangelical view of church history, not the Roman Catholic view. Quoting what some other church father said isn't enough to validate the Roman Catholic view of church history.
Quoting the church father saying elsewhere that Mary is a Second Eve. You can view Mary as a Second Eve and a sinner at the same time. Just because modern Roman Catholics view the Second Eve concept as involving sinlessness, that doesn't mean the church father in question did.
Claiming that the church fathers were allowed to disagree with modern Catholic teaching at that time, since no infallible ruling had been made on the issue yet. By that reasoning, we would conclude that Christians could believe anything during the first 300 years of church history, since there was no infallible papal decree or ecumenical council during that time. If apostolic teaching was being passed down in an unbroken succession, there isn't any reason to expect any bishop, much less a large number of bishops, to be ignorant of it, regardless of whether any allegedly infallible ruling had been passed on the subject. Saying that people had freedom to disagree with the RCC at that time doesn't change the fact that the doctrine is being contradicted, and that it should have been known across the Christian world if it was one of the apostolic teachings being passed down in the presence of many witnesses (2 Timothy 2:2).
So, if any Catholic wants to object to my quotes, I'm going to expect the objection to be reasonable. If I quote John Chrysostom referring to Mary as a sinner, I don't consider it reasonable for a Catholic to respond by saying, "Here's what Augustine said...", "Here's John Chrysostom referring to Mary as a Second Eve...", "John Chrysostom was allowed to disagree with the doctrine at that time, since no infallible ruling had been passed yet...", etc. If the RCC is going to claim to be fulfilling 2 Timothy 2:2 in an unbroken succession, and Pope Pius IX is going to claim that the sinlessness of Mary was always taught and believed by the Christian church, then Catholic objections to a quote from John Chrysostom aren't valid if they're like the objections I've described above.

In closing, I want to explain some of the reasons why I'm calling this series "Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic":

I often see Catholics quoting somebody like Ignatius using the word "catholic", as though the term can only mean "Roman Catholic". Obviously, "catholic" and "Roman Catholic" aren't equivalent. Just as people like Chuck Colson and Hank Hanegraaff will refer to "the church" believing such and such or how "the church" should do something, that sort of terminology was also used by the church fathers. To quote somebody like Cyprian or Athanasius referring to "the church", then assume that he must have believed in a worldwide denomination centered in Rome, is about as reasonable as doing the same thing with somebody like Chuck Colson or Hank Hanegraaff. People can refer to "the church", "the catholic church", "the authority of the church", etc. without being a Roman Catholic.
Just as the church fathers could disagree with the RCC and with each other on many issues, yet still call themselves and each other "catholic" and part of the "catholic church", evangelicals can do the same.

Tony Bartolucci: Drowning in the Tiber--Part 12 is finally here!

Part 12 in Pastor Tony Bartolucci's series 'Drowning in the Tiber' is available for listening. It is the final installment of the series and is called 'The Reformation, Theology, and the Theology of the Reformation.' I'm looking forward to listening to it. Then I need to go back and listen to the whole series again to review it.

'Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood' by Evangelist Mike Gendron

Here is an article by evangelist Mike Gendron about the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6, which teaches that Jesus was talking about transubstantiation when He said “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Gendron gives 'seven convincing biblical reasons why this passage is to be taken figuratively.'

Discussion on Apostolic succession at Visits to Candyland blog

There's an interesting discussion going on over at Visits to Candyland.

The Harlot: a prophetic explanation

Revelation 17:1-6 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”
So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

Joshua 6:2-5 And the LORD said to Joshua: “See! I have given Jericho into your hand, its king, and the mighty men of valor. You shall march around the city, all you men of war; you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days. And seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark. But the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets. It shall come to pass, when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, that all the people shall shout with a great shout; then the wall of the city will fall down flat. And the people shall go up every man straight before him.”

The Harlot of Revelation 17 is a picture of a false church system that once was a faithful church, or came from a faithful church. Now she has prostituted herself to another government instead of being faithful, dependent, and obedient to her betrothed husband, the Lord Jesus Christ. This Harlot church is in a co-dependent relationship with a beast government that hates God and God's people. The Harlot church, since she is unfaithful to her Lord, hates those that are faithful and persecutes them. She hates them also because they will not submit to her authority. The prophecy of Revelation 17 has been partially and continuously fulfilled throughout the history of the church, mainly by the Roman Catholic Church, which became co-dependent first with the government of the Roman Empire, and then with the governments of Europe later on. Instead of fulfilling the commission of her Lord, she began to seek power and wealth and to persecute those who opposed her, especially those who remained faithful to the Lord Jesus. At the end of this present age when Jesus is about to return the Harlot will be judged and destroyed. This is described in Revelation 18 and appears to take the form of the destruction of the city or cities that are controlled by the Harlot system.
I believe that the story of Jericho, while being a historical account, is also a prophetic foreshadow of the judgment throughout history, and then the final destruction, of the Harlot system. This harlot religious system has existed in some form all through history since creation and has been judged in every age since then. The final judgment is yet to come. Notice in the passage from Joshua 6 above that the LORD tells Joshua to have the people march around the city once every day for six days. According to calculations from scripture, the world has existed for 6,000 years so far, and scripture says 'with the Lord 1,000 years is as a day', so it occurred to me that the six days may represent the six ages before Christ returns as King. In Revelation 20 scripture tells us that Christ will return and rule on earth with the saints for 1,000 years. This will be the 7th millenium.
I believe the 7th day in the story of Jericho represents the 7th millenium. This millenium will begin with 7 years of tribulation which are described in the book of Revelation and other prophetic books in scripture. I believe the 7 years are represented by the Israelites marching 7 times around the city. Revelation 18, as I said, shows the Harlot system being judged at the end of the 7 year tribulation period.
With this in mind, remember that Rahab of Jericho is described as a harlot. I believe the city of Jericho represents the Harlot system, and Rahab represents a group within this system that recognizes the judgment that is coming and that repents of their sin in being a part of this rebellious system. I will show more about this in my next post.

(Note: Archbishop James Ussher is one who made calculations according to scriptural information to determine the date of creation; he was Archbishop of the Church of Ireland, not a part of the Roman Catholic Church)

Joshua the son of Nun = Yeshua the Son of Life

Since I was writing about Jericho and Joshua, and I believe Joshua is a foreshadow of Jesus (Yeshua), I was curious about what the name of Joshua's father, Nun, might mean. I looked it up and found several interesting pages. One of the pages is from a website called Hebrew for Christians, that has a description of each letter of the Hebrew alphabet with the significance of the symbols and how it is used in inspired scripture. It is amazing the meaning that is packed into even each letter and each part of the letter symbol. Even each stroke and dot in the scripture has meaning. The page for the letter 'Nun' is very interesting. One of the things I found was that nun' in aramaic means 'fish' which is a symbol of life and activity; so 'son of Nun' also means 'Son of Life', which is fitting for Yeshua the Messiah. Please take the time to read the page about the letter 'nun' and click the arrows at the top left of the page to go back and forth to the other letters of the alphabet, if you like.

The Harlot: Part Three: Rahab In Jericho

"Jericho's name is pronounced by its local Palestinian inhabitants Ariha (Arabic أريحا /ʔæˈriːħɑː/), which means "fragrant" and derives from the Canaanite (as well as Arabic and Hebrew) word Reah, of the same meaning. Jericho is also pronounced Yəriḥo ( יְרִיחוֹ) in Hebrew, and an alternate theory holds that it is it derived from the word meaning "moon" (Yareah) in Canaanite and Hebrew, as the city was an early center of worship for lunar deities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

Pope Pius XII, in the Marian Year in which he proclaimed the Assumption of Mary, said,

Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty and impelled by the anxiety of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, O, immaculate mother of Jesus, and our mother, Mary. God crowned you Queen of the Universe. O, crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with eternal truths; O, FRAGRANT LILY OF HOLINESS, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume. O, conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep rise from every heart in this year dedicated to you. Convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed. Comfort the poor and the humble. Quench hatred. Sweeten harshness. In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize they are all brothers. And, finally, happy with you we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars: You are all beautiful, O, Mary, you are the glory: you are the joy: you are the honor of our people. (Walter Martin, The Roman Catholic Church in History (Livingston, NJ: Christian Research Institute, Inc., 1960), pp. 45-46.) found here: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC1204W3.htm Emphasis mine.

'She is called the "Star of Morning."
FAIRER THAN THE MOON, we say,
Stronger than a mighty army
Set in battle's long array.
Hence I love the starlit heavens,
And the brilliant Queen of Night,
For I see in gazing upward,
Through that pathless field of light,
THE NAME OF MARY.'
From a poem, 'The Name of Mary', found here: http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/name-mary.htm Emphasis in the second line is mine.

Joshua 2:
1 Now Joshua the son of Nun sent out two men from Acacia Grove to spy secretly, saying, “Go, view the land, especially Jericho.”
So they went, and came to the house of a harlot named Rahab, and lodged there. 2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, “Behold, men have come here tonight from the children of Israel to search out the country.”
3 So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country.”
4 Then the woman took the two men and hid them.

“Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho”
Joshua 6:26
Since he was cursed who rebuilt Jericho, much more the man who labours to restore Popery among us. In our father’s days the gigantic walls of Popery fell by the power of their faith, the perseverance of their efforts, and the blast of their gospel trumpets: and now there are some who would rebuild that accursed system upon its old foundations. O Lord, be pleased to thwart their unrighteous endeavours, and pull down every stone which they build. It should be a serious business with us to be thoroughly purged of every error which may have a tendency to foster the spirit of Popery, and when we have made a clean sweep at home we should seek in every way to oppose its all too rapid spread abroad in the church and in the world. This last can be done in secret by fervent prayer, and in public by decided testimony. We must warn with judicious boldness those who are inclined towards the errors of Rome; we must instruct the young in Gospel truth, and tell them of the black doings of Popery in the olden times. We must aid in spreading the light more thoroughly through the land, for priests, like owls, hate the daylight. Are we doing all we can for Jesus and the Gospel? If not, our negligence plays into the hands of priestcraft. What are we doing to spread the Bible, which is the Pope’s bane and poison? Are we casting abroad good, sound Gospel writings? Luther once said, “The devil hates goose quills,” and doubtless, he has good reason; for ready writers, by the Holy Spirit’s blessing, have done his kingdom much damage. If the thousands who will read this short word will do all they can to hinder the rebuilding of this accursed Jericho, the Lord’s glory shall speed among the sons of men. Reader, what can you do? What will you do?
-C. H. Spurgeon, from Morning and Evening

Proverbs 22:17-21: Sola Scriptura and the Perspicuity of Scripture

Proverbs 22:

17 Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise,
And apply your heart to my knowledge;
18 For it is a pleasant thing if you keep them within you;
Let them all be fixed upon your lips,
19 So that your trust may be in the LORD;
I have instructed you today, even you.
20 Have I not written to you excellent things
Of counsels and knowledge,
21 That I may make you know the certainty of the words of truth,
That you may answer words of truth
To those who send to you?

The writer of this passage of scripture is instructing the reader to listen to the words of the wise with his ears, to take them to heart and apply them, to keep them within him to speak them constantly, so he may trust in the LORD. The writer of scripture also says he has written the reader excellent things of counsels and knowledge so he can know the certainty of the words of truth and also answer words of truth to those who ask of him.

It seems that the words the reader must listen to are the same words that the writer has written for his instruction. He can both listen to them aloud and also read them and study them. Since the writer is writing inspired scripture, it is actually the LORD Himself who is speaking through the writer. It is His truth, knowledge, and wisdom that we are to listen to and read.

It says 'I have instructed you today, even you.' This means that He has instructed each of us by His word directly when we listen to and read it. It says 'that I may make you know the certainty of the words of truth.' This means that we who trust in His word can understand His word. It is designed by Him to be understandable by us. He, by His Spirit, teaches us directly as we seek Him in scripture.

'The perspicuity of scripture' means that the scripture is understandable by the common reader who is seeking the truth and who is trusting in God.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Introduction to God from the Psalms

Here's a great post from Thoughts of Francis Turretin (aka TurretinFan).

Finally Here! Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith

My eagerly anticipated birthday present, the three volume set 'Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith' arrived yesterday, and I wanted to share the very first page, which all by itself makes the books worth having, as a summary of the necessity of the doctrine of 'sola scriptura.' It is doubly exciting because the page is an excerpt from a work by William Chillingworth, a nineteenth century protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism and then back again to protestantism. Here he gives some of his reasoning in a sort of overview.
Please follow the link for the page above. It is actually part of a page from Chillingworth's book 'The Religion of Protestants'. If you begin reading page 463 where it begins 'The Bible, I say, the Bible.... and end where it says 'and to live according to it' you will have read what was included in the excerpt.
I especially like the part where he says:

"I...do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see plainly, and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. Traditive interpretations of scripture are pretended; but there are few or none to be found: no tradition but only of scripture, can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in, in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of scripture only for any considering man to build upon. This therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe: this will I profess, according to this will I live, and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, but even gladly lose my life, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me."

Peter: the first rock built upon the Rock

In the Visits to Candyland blog post I linked to in my last post I made some comments about Peter that I want to keep a record of, so I am making them into a new post. Please read my earlier post and the ones I linked to there, including the one about St. Francis de Sales by Kelly on Visits to Candyland. Following are my comments.

Very interesting, Kelly.
I agree with many of St. Francis de Sales' points about Peter. I don't agree with his assessment of Luther and Calvin's interpretation of Matt. 16:17-19. I don't agree with the implication that Peter's 'primacy' (I think there is a better word for Peter's position) is the beginning of a succession of a single line of apostolic authority. I know that is not the subject of this but it is implied.
I am doing some reading and will have more to say about the post, if I am permitted.
Here is my recent post called 'Who is the Rock?' about the Matthew 16 passage: http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2009/10/who-is-rock.html In my post there are some quotes from Augustine that give good understanding of the passage.

---------------------------------


OK. One or two thoughts. If in Matt. 16 Jesus IS calling Peter the rock upon which the church is built, is He not also including the other Apostles in this while singling Peter out as the one who is a leader in doing the things that all the Apostles will do, and that indeed the whole church will do in the future as it grows? For example, as we said in the last post, Peter was given the lead in first giving the gospel to each major group: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles. He was the spokesman, the one everyone could see out front, showing the boldness, authority and power of Christ, not his own authority and power. This is shown again as he, along with John, encounter the lame man at the Gate of the Temple and Peter heals him just as Jesus would have done, in Jesus' name. Then when all the people come running, he boldly preaches the gospel, glorifying Christ and convicting of sin, showing he is full of the Spirit. He and John are arrested by the Sanhedrin and Peter boldly preaches to them. He always points to Jesus, giving God the glory, and reflecting the person of Christ in his behavior. The only other person we see in scripture who is shown this way in detail (though I believe the other Apostles behaved with this authority and boldness and had healing power from the Spirit as well) is Paul. Peter is the spokesman, the one who goes first, and has the privilege of preaching first, laying the foundation.

Another thought, If Jesus IS NOT calling Peter 'the rock' (Petra), Jesus may still be giving him this first privileged office of being the head spokesman and example of Christ for the church and the world. I believe that Jesus was referring to Himself as petra, but laying Peter down as the first stone built upon Him. All future bishops and people would look to Peter as their example in boldness and Spirit-filled preaching of the gospel, and in always giving Christ the glory.

-----------------------------------

I just thought of something based on what I said in the last comment about Peter preaching first and laying the foundation. In a way Peter, in preaching the gospel in Acts 2 and beginning the Church (in Christ's name and power) is laying down Christ to the people as the cornerstone, and Peter laid down himself by faith as the first stone built upon Christ when he made the confession in Matthew 16 that Jesus is the Christ. He was the spokesman for the Apostles who all believed this (except Judas) and he was given the privilege to continue this office and be the first to preach it to his fellow men. Peter, after Christ, is our first example of Christ-likeness.

------------------------------------


In my post 'Who is the Rock?' I quoted from the following passages from Augustine which came from an article by William Webster which has a link on my post.
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.1

Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.13

Augustine, I think, is saying that Peter represents the church or stands for the whole church, what he was given is also given to the whole church,(and here's my addition to Augustine) but he is the first; the example; the spokesman.

Here is a passage from 1 Peter that adds to this idea: 1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Here Peter is saying that all believers are stewards of God's grace, not just one man as was mentioned in an earlier post about Peter and the popes. He says that if any believer speaks,'let him speak as the oracles of God', so each believer can speak God's word boldly by the power of the Spirit. I believe we are all successors of Peter, and he is our first spokesman and example.

Here is another passage from 1 Peter in which he says all believers are living stones coming to the first living stone, Christ. Peter doesn't set himself apart from the other stones built upon Christ, but always points to Christ.

1 Peter 2:
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,


“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,


“ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

8 and


“ A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

----------------------------------

I guess I should add to what I already said that based on what I have read in scripture I don't agree with de Sales on what he said about Peter's authority:
Thus they were foundations of the Church equally with him as to the conversion of souls and as to doctrine; but as to the authority of governing, they were so unequally, as S. Peter was the ordinary head not only of the rest of the whole Church but of the Apostles also. For Our Lord had built on him the whole of his Church, of which they were not only parts but the principal and noble parts.

I believe Peter's gift from the Lord in Matt. 16 was to be the first stone built on Christ AND the first to build upon the foundation of Christ in preaching the Word. I don't see any authority over the other Apostles or bishops exercised by Peter in scripture that was not exercised by the other Apostles and even by the other elders like James the brother of the Lord. I see the authority and boldness of preaching the gospel.

The Foundation: Visits to Candyland

Kelly at Visits to Candyland has a new post up with an article written by St. Francis de Sales, a Catholic Saint who lived in the 16th and 17th centuries. De Sales wrote about Peter as the foundation of the Church. Please also see my earlier post called 'Who is the Rock?' for more on this subject.

The Primacy of Peter: Visits to Candyland

There's a good discussion going on over at Visits to Candyland about the Primacy of Peter.

Slovakia, the Gospel, and False Ecumenism: Berean Beacon video

Berean Beacon has a new video in which Richard Bennett interviews 2 men from Slovakia about their personal testimonies, the gospel, and how false ecumenism of the Roman Catholic church is affecting their nation. The men's testimonies are powerful and moving, showing the power of the gospel to convict of sin by the Holy Spirit and God's word.

The Tale of the Fisherman and His Wife: Part Two

Because 'The Tale of the Fisherman and His Wife' is a 'fairy tale' and it's origin is unknown, it is certainly not to be considered in the same light as a scriptural parable; yet it seems to have been created by someone who had an understanding of the Bible and of what the desire for power and wealth can do in a person and in the church of God. It is not giving a direct point-for-point comparison to Christ and His church, yet I think the intent was to say something about both. Certainly the fisherman does not fully correspond to Christ in his character, yet in some points he does, especially in the way that He must sorrow over the choices made by those who call themselves His followers and the way He allows them to fail and take the consequences for it. The fisherman's wife then, I believe, corresponds to the one who is the Bride of Christ, the church. In scripture the Bride is shown in two ways, both described as a 'woman'; she is shown as a faithful yet persecuted woman, and she is also shown as a faithless and persecuting woman. This fairy tale gives a good description of how and why a church could become a faithless and persecuting wife: because of a selfish and prideful lust for wealth and power.


The following historical information is taken from 'The Spirit of Roman Catholicism' by Mary Anne Collins, Chapter 8, pp. 31-33. The author describes a contrast between two historical bishops of Rome and what happened to cause this change in mindset in the leadership of the church.

A TALE OF TWO BISHOPS

The degree of change which Constantine caused in the Church can be illustrated by looking at the lives of two Bishops of Rome. So let’s go back in history for about 100 years before Christianity became “politically correct,” to look at the life of Bishop Pontian. Then we will compare Pontian’s life with the life of Bishop Silvester, who lived during the time of Emperor Constantine.

(The following information about Bishops Pontian and Silvester comes from Malachi Martin, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,” pages 19-38.)

Pontian became the Bishop of Rome in the year 230 A.D. He was made bishop suddenly and unexpectedly when his predecessor was arrested and killed by Roman authorities.

On September 27, 235 A.D., Emperor Maximinus decreed that all Christian leaders were to be arrested. Christian buildings were burned, Christian cemeteries were closed, and the personal wealth of Christians was confiscated.

Bishop Pontian was arrested the same day. He was put in the Mamertine Prison, where he was tortured for ten days. Then he was sent to work in the lead mines of Sardinia.

When prisoners arrived at Sardinia, their left eye was gouged out and a number was branded on their forehead. Iron rings were soldered around their ankles, linked together with a six-inch chain which hobbled them. A tight chain around their waist was fastened to their ankle-chain in such a way that they were permanently bent over.

The prisoners worked for 20 hours a day, with four one-hour breaks for sleep. They had one meal of bread and water per day. Most prisoners died within six to fourteen months from exhaustion, malnutrition, disease, beatings, infection, or violence. Some went insane or committed suicide.

Pontian only lasted four months. In January, 236 A.D., Pontian was killed and his body was thrown into the cesspool.

What happened to Pontian was not unusual. Many Christians were sent to the Sardinian lead mines, or persecuted in other ways. If a man accepted the position of being a Christian leader, he knew that his life from that time on was likely to be short and painful. There were 14 Bishops of Rome in the 79 years between Pontian and Silvester.

Then along came Constantine.

In 314 A.D., Emperor Constantine crowned Silvester as Bishop of Rome. Silvester lived in luxury, with servants waiting on him. Constantine confessed his sins to Silvester and asked for his advice. Silvester presided over worldwide Church councils. He had a splendid palace and a sumptuous cathedral. He had power, prestige, wealth, pomp, and the favor of the Emperor.

Churchmen wore purple robes, reflecting the purple of Constantine’s court. That was an external change. The most important change was an internal one. The Church took on the mentality of Rome. Under Silvester, the internal structure of the Church took on the form and practice and pomp of Rome.

Silvester died in December, 336 A.D. He died peacefully, in a clean, comfortable bed, in the Roman Lateran Palace. He died surrounded by well dressed bishops and priests, and attended by Roman guards. His body was dressed in ceremonial robes, put in an elegant casket, and carried through the streets of Rome in a solemn procession. He was buried with honor and ceremony, attended by leading members of Roman society.

It is understandable that many Christians would have preferred an officially approved status for the Church. But what was the result?

Before Constantine, the church was a band of heroic men and women who were so committed to serve the Lord Jesus Christ that they would endure any hardship. After 314 A.D., the Church became infiltrated by opportunists who were seeking power and political advancement. Church leaders were no longer in danger of persecution. Rather, they enjoyed power, prestige and luxury.

Did the Roman Empire surrender to Christianity? Or did Christianity prostitute itself in order to gain benefits from the Roman Empire? [Note 9]

The temptation for an ungodly alliance with the Roman Empire was very great. But at what cost?

Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. 24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

Luke 22:24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

John 13:12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

2 Corinthians 11:24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation?

Hebrew 11:
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again.
Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

The Tale of the Fisherman and His Wife

I remember reading a story in a fairy tale book many times when I was young. For some reason the story fascinated me; it was 'The Tale of the Fisherman and His Wife' from the Brothers Grimm. I have thought about this story sometimes while I have been studying Roman Catholicism and wondered if it was written as a morality tale against the striving for earthly and spiritual power that characterized many of the Roman Catholic popes of the middle ages and onward. I found a web page that retells the story with some interesting commentary on the meaning of it.
Here is the story as excerpted from the webpage. Please click on the link to read the whole page and find out the possible meaning of the twist at the end of the tale.

The Fisherman and His Wife
By Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

Once upon a time there were a fisherman and his wife who lived together in a filthy shack near the sea. Every day the fisherman went out fishing, and he fished, and he fished. Once he was sitting there fishing and looking into the clear water, and he sat, and he sat. Then his hook went to the bottom, deep down, and when he pulled it out, he had caught a large flounder.

Then the flounder said to him, "Listen, fisherman, I beg you to let me live.

I am not an ordinary flounder, but an enchanted prince. How will it help you to kill me? I would not taste good to you. Put me back into the water, and let me swim."

So he put it back into the clear water, and the flounder disappeared. Then the fisherman got up and went home to his wife in the filthy shack.

"Husband," said the woman, "didn't you catch anything today?"

"I caught a flounder," said the fisherman, "But he told me that he was an enchanted prince, so I let him swim away."

"Didn't you ask for anything first?" said his wife.

"No," said the fisherman. "What should I have asked for?"

"Oh," said the woman. "It is terrible living in this shack. You should have asked for a little cottage. Go back and tell him that we want a little cottage."

The fisherman tried to talk her out of it, but the wife insisted, "Go back and tell the flounder that we want a cottage."

So the fisherman went back to the sea. When he arrived it was no longer clear, but yellow and green. He stood there and said:

"Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!

Flounder, flounder, in the sea!

Ilsobell, my willful wife,

Does not want my way of life."

The flounder swam up and said, "What does she want then?"
"She wants a cottage," said the fisherman.

"Go home," said the flounder. "She already has it."

The man went home, and his wife was standing in the door of a cottage. "You have a cottage. Be happy now, wife," he said.

"We shall see," the wife replied.

Everything went well for a week or two, and then the woman said, "Listen, husband. This cottage is too small. Go back to the flounder and tell him to give us a stone palace."

The fisherman tried to talk her out of it, but the wife insisted, "Go back and tell the flounder that we want a stone palace."

The fisherman's heart was heavy, and he did not want to go. Yet he went back to the sea. When he arrived the water was purple and dark blue and gray and dense, and no longer green and yellow. He stood there and said:

"Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!

Flounder, flounder, in the sea!

Ilsobell, my willful wife,

Does not want my way of life."

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"She wants a stone palace," said the fisherman.

"Go home. She already has it," said the flounder.
The man went home, and his wife was standing in the door of a stone palace. "You have a stone palace. Be happy now, wife," he said.

"We shall see," the wife replied.

Everything went well for a week or two, and then the woman said, "Listen, husband. This palace is not enough. Go back to the flounder and tell him that I want to be king."

The fisherman tried to talk her out of it, but the wife insisted, "Go back and tell the flounder to make me king."

The fisherman's heart was heavy, and he did not want to go. Yet he went back to the sea. When he arrived it was dark gray, and the water heaved up from below and had a foul smell. He stood there and said:

"Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!

Flounder, flounder, in the sea!

Ilsobell, my willful wife,

Does not want my way of life."

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"She wants to be king," said the fisherman.

"Go home. She already is," said the flounder.

Then the man went home, and when he arrived there, the palace had become much larger, and his wife was indeed the king. "You are king. Be happy now, wife," he said.

"We shall see," the wife replied.

Everything went well for a week or two, and then the woman said, "Listen, husband. Being king is not enough. Go back to the flounder and tell him that I want to be Emperor."

The fisherman tried to talk her out of it, but the wife insisted, "I am king and you are only my husband. Go back and tell the flounder to make me Emperor."

The fisherman's heart was heavy, and he did not want to go. Yet he went back to the sea. When he arrived water was all black and dense and boiling up from within. A strong wind blew over him that curdled the water. He stood there and said:

"Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!

Flounder, flounder, in the sea!

Ilsobell, my willful wife,

Does not want my way of life."

"What does she want then?" said the flounder

"She wants to be Emperor," said the fisherman.

"Go home. She already is," said the flounder.

Then the man went home, and when he arrived there, the palace was even larger and more ornate and his wife was indeed Emperor. "You are Emperor. Be happy now, wife," he said.

"We shall see," the wife replied.

Everything went well for a week or two, and then the woman said, "Listen, husband. Being Emperor is not enough. Go back to the flounder and tell him that I want to be Pope."

The fisherman tried to talk her out of it, but the wife insisted, "I am Emperor and you are only my husband. Go back and tell the flounder to make me Pope."

The fisherman's heart was heavy, and he did not want to go. Yet he went back to the sea. When he arrived the wind was blowing over the land, and clouds flew by as the darkness of evening fell. Leaves blew from the trees, and the water roared and boiled as it crashed onto the shore. There was a little blue in the middle of the sky, but on all sides it had turned red, as in a terrible lightning storm. Full of despair he stood there and said.

"Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!

Flounder, flounder, in the sea!

Ilsobell, my willful wife,

Does not want my way of life."

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"She wants to be Pope," said the fisherman.

"Go home. She already is," said the flounder.

Then the fisherman went home, and when he arrived there, he found a large church surrounded by palaces. He forced his way through the crowd. Inside everything was illuminated with thousands and thousands of lights, and his wife was clothed in pure gold and sitting on a high throne. She was wearing three large golden crowns. She was surrounded with church-like splendor, and at her sides there were two banks of candles. The largest was as thick and as tall as the largest tower, down to the smallest kitchen candle. And all the emperors and kings were kneeling before her kissing her slipper. "You are Pope. Be happy now, wife," he said.

"We shall see," the wife replied.

Everything went well for a week or two, and then the woman said, "Listen, husband. Being Pope is not enough. Go back to the flounder and tell him that I want to be like God.

The fisherman shook with fear and he tried to talk her out of it, but the wife insisted, "I am Pope and you are only my husband. Go back and tell the flounder to make me like God."

The fisherman's heart was heavy, and he did not want to go. Yet he went back to the sea. Such a storm was raging that he could hardly stand on his feet. Houses and trees were blowing over. The mountains were shaking, and boulders were rolling from the cliffs into the sea. The sky was as black as pitch. There was thunder and lightning. In the sea there were great black waves as high as church towers and mountains, all capped with crowns of white foam. He stood there and said:

"Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!

Flounder, flounder, in the sea!

Ilsobell, my willful wife,

Does not want my way of life."

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"She wants to be like God," said the fisherman.

"Go home. She is sitting in her filthy shack again."

And they are still there even today.

Here is the link to Part Two: http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2009/10/tale-of-fishermans-wife-part-two.htmlbbbb

Out of the mouths of babes

In the past couple of weeks I've had the privilege of hearing several (unintentionally) funny lines from songs and one Bible verse; the songs were sung by my two year old, and the Bible verse was recited by a young 5 year old girl from our church.
My two year old loves to sing and is pretty good at remembering the words, but sometimes she makes substitutions that are very amusing. Last week she was singing a song she knows well because we sing it as a bedtime song; she sang her own version one morning at breakfast:

'Grama loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so!'

At Wednesday night church last week I was in the children's class because my four year old didn't want to go by herself. The teacher asked if anyone wanted to recite a favorite Bible verse, and a 5 year old girl said she wanted to say John 3:16. Here is her version:

'For God so loved the world that He forgave His only forgotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

Today while I was changing my two year old she started singing the first verse of Amazing Grace, which is her favorite song right now. She came out with:

'Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like (substitute 14 year old sister's name)!'

We all had a good laugh over that. She apparently had enough understanding of the song to know that a name needed to go there, but had grown tired of saying 'me' so she decided someone else needed to be the subject this time.

Just thinking though, I wonder if God thinks it's so funny when I mentally make substitutions like that, unintentionally of course, when I read the Bible or sing a song. I need to be sure I put God and myself and others in the right place in my heart and mind; being sure God is always remembered and exalted above all, and I examine myself before I examine others. Oh boy....

From Polish Catholicism to Trusting Christ Alone: Berean Beacon video

Berean Beacon has a video testimony by Peter Slomski, who is also in the earlier video post here on my blog, telling of how he was raised as a Roman Catholic and later came to faith in Jesus Christ by being convicted of his sins by the Holy Spirit through God's word; he realized that it is Christ's righteousness alone that saves, not his own, and not the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.

Psalm 119:41-48; Christian Liberty and Sola Scriptura

Continuing with the idea of Biblical Christianity bringing liberty, here is a passage from Psalm 119 that combines that idea with the concept of Sola Scriptura, that God's inspired word is the supreme and final rule of faith and practice for Christians.

Psalm 119:
41 Let Your mercies come also to me, O LORD—
Your salvation according to Your word.
42 So shall I have an answer for him who reproaches me,
For I trust in Your word.
43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,
For I have hoped in Your ordinances.
44 So shall I keep Your law continually,
Forever and ever.
45 And I will walk at liberty,
For I seek Your precepts.
46 I will speak of Your testimonies also before kings,
And will not be ashamed.
47 And I will delight myself in Your commandments,
Which I love.
48 My hands also I will lift up to Your commandments,
Which I love,
And I will meditate on Your statutes.

History of the Biblical Faith in Poland: The Berean Beacon

The website, bereanbeacon.org, has a new video called True Polish Christian History in which Richard Bennett interviews Peter Slomski, a Christian whose parents came from Poland to England, where Peter was raised. They discuss the history of Biblical faith in Poland beginning in the middle ages.

Who is the Rock?

On Elena's blog, Visits to Candyland, we were having a discussion about Scott Hahn's view, as a Roman Catholic convert, of the papacy, which they claim is founded on Matthew 16:17-19 in which the RCC thinks Jesus is founding His church upon Peter. In the comment thread, I made some comments that I wanted to keep a record of, so I am reposting them here.

I'm not going to have much time to comment this weekend after this, as we've got a conference tonight and tomorrow and church on Sunday, but after so far reading half of Scott Hahn's article on the papacy, a couple of things occur to me.
First, if Jesus is specifically referring to Peter as the rock and giving him the keys, which I don't think is clear, how does this lead to the Bishop of Rome being the only successor of Peter? The Apostles appointed many pastors (bishops) and planted many churches all over the known world. Peter was in Jerusalem for many years and then I believe in Antioch, and then it is controversial whether he was even in Rome, or if he was, for how long. If Peter was in Rome at the end of his life, for some have added up the years and it couldn't have been long, it may have only been like Paul who was brougt there as a prisoner to be tried and then executed. Why is the claim of the Roman bishops any better than any other bishop?
Secondly, Hahn makes the point at the beginning of his article that the church is like a family rather than just a 'people'. If indeed Peter is established as a father (though I think this is debatable) how does this translate to there always being only one successor? Adam was the father of the human race, but there was not just one successor but many fathers came from him and had many children, who in turn became fathers/mothers as well. Peter and the Apostles appointed many bishops and led many to Christ and those in turn led many more until a great and constantly growing family was established. It is a building with a foundation upon which many stones are being added. I don't see anything that supports the idea of one successor or especially that it has to be the Roman bishop.
There is much more that could be said about infallibility, and how for instance one knows which statements of the pope are infallible and which are faulty. I hope someone else has time to address this, because I have to go.

--------------------------

In the Augustine passage in the Webster article I linked to above, Augustine seems to see a parallel between the raising of Lazarus and the Matthew 16 passage about Peter, the rock, and the keys.
Here is the passage from Augustine:
Let those who are bound fear, those who are loosed fear. Let those who are loosed be afraid of being bound; those who are bound pray to be loosed. 'Each one is tied up in the thread of his own sins' (Prv 5:22). And apart from the Church, nothing is loosed. One four days dead is told, 'Lazarus, come forth in the open' (Jn 11:43), and he came forth from the tomb tied hand and foot with bandages. The Lord rouses him, so that the dead man may come forth from the tomb; this means he touches the heart, so that the confession of sin may come out in the open. But that's not enough, he's still bound. So after Lazarus had come out of the tomb, the Lord turned to his disciples, whom he had told, 'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' and said, 'Loose him, and let him go' (Jn 11:44). He roused him by himself, he loosed him through the disciples.

Here are the two Bible passages:
John 11:38 Then Jesus, again groaning in Himself, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”
Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”
40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” 41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.” 43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” 44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.”

Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I 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.”

These passages are parallel because they both show Christ, the Head, the Rock, the Cornerstone as the one who stands before the gates of Hades (death) and calls forth the one who is dead, and death cannot withstand Him. He calls the dead forth by His word in the power of the Spirit, and the dead obey His word. He then tells His people, the believers, the church, the disciples, to 'loose him and let him go.' Peter represents all the church, and all the church has the commission to share the gospel (remove the stone and let the dead hear His word) and to take off the graveclothes when the dead is called to life.

Jesus is the Head and the Rock upon which the Church, represented by Peter, is built. Peter himself said this: 1 Peter 2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,


“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

Here are the quotes I used earlier from Augustine:
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.1

Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.13

Augustine said in the same passage as above:
None of us lacks Christ. He is complete in all of us, and still there is more of his body waiting for him. Those disciples believed, through them many inhabitants of Jerusalem came to believe, Judea came to believe, Samaria came to believe. Let the members join the body, the building attach itself to the foundation. For no other foundation can anyone lay, says the apostle, except what has been laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11).30

That Jerusalem of ours, though, still in exile, is being built in heaven. That's why Christ, its foundation, preceded it into heaven. That, you see, is where our foundation is, and the head of the Church, because a foundation too is also called a head; and indeed that is what it is. Because the head of a building too is its foundation; its head isn't where it is finished, but where it starts growing upward from. The tops of earthly buildings are raised up high; yet they set their head firmly in the solid ground. In the same sort of way the head of the Church has gone ahead into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Just as men go about their work, when for laying foundations they bring along suitable material to make a solid base, to ensure the security of the mass that is going to be placed on top of it in construction of the edifice to be; so in the same sort of way, by all those things that took place in Christ, being born, growing up, being arrested, enduring abuse, being scourged, crucified, killed, dying, being buried, it was like material being brought along for the heavenly foundations.

---------------------------

Going back to our original discussion about the papacy, and Peter as the rock, I have been trying to get the ideas in scripture organized in my mind for the last several days and finally I have it clearly in my mind.
I don't want to go into a long discourse, but just summarize the way it all seems to fit together.
First of all, the idea that God (Christ) is the first, unshakeable, foundational Rock is one of the overarching themes of scripture from beginning to end. Because some mere mortals are referred to as rocks as well, such as Abraham and Peter, doesn’t mean that they are the first bedrock stone, the ‘Head of the Corner’ type of stone that Christ is. They are only worth anything as stones because they are built upon Christ who upholds everything by the power of His word. In the New Testament, Christ is always Petra, the cornerstone. One of the rules of interpretation is that obscure passages must be interpreted in light of what is known for sure. We know for sure that Jesus is the One foundational stone upon which all other stones are laid. The Matthew 16 passage has been debated for centuries. Even in the 4th century there was not agreement on it , as we have already seen, though many then saw it as protestants do.
Along with this are many scriptures that support the idea that Christ is the one cornerstone, and the Apostles are together the 12 foundation stones built upon Him, along with the OT prophets. Then the other stones (believers) are built upon these. See 1 Peter 2:4-8 and Revelation 21:14. Revelation shows all the Apostles as the foundations of the New Jerusalem, which is the Bride. The Apostles are part of the moveable stones built upon the immovable Rock of Christ.
Remember also the Rock in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, and Elijah in the cleft of the Rock, and Moses and the water from the Rock, and Isaiah 32:2 ‘the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.’
Secondly, if you look at the story of the raising of Lazarus as a parallel passage to Matthew 16, as Augustine did, which I quoted in an earlier comment, you will see that it is Christ who stands before the gates of Death and by His word and Spirit brings the dead to life, showing that the gates of Hades cannot withstand Him who is the Rock, the Head of the Church who is built upon Him. If we are standing upon Him, and His word, death will not stand before us, His church. We speak His word by the Spirit and people will be set free. I believe it is the Rock of Christ first, and THEN the church built upon Him which the gates of death cannot withstand.
Thirdly, as I said at the beginning of this thread, where are the scriptures that show a that a single succession from Peter as the authority for the Church is what was established? Where is the proof that Rome is that succession, and not all the other bishops who descended from the Apostles? There is not agreement on this universally, and it is not in scripture, and not supported by the Fathers.

---------------------------


Also, Augustine brought out in that same passage I quoted earlier from Webster, that Peter represents all the Apostles, and all the church. We are all his successors if we are built upon Christ and His word, as taught by the Apostles, by faith.

----------------------------
Here again is the link to Webster.
----------------------------

Except I don't agree with Augustine and others that it is Peter's confession that is the Rock upon which the church is built, but the One Whom Peter confessed.

-------------------------------

Also,
the story of Lazarus shows that the moveable stones (us) have to be moved out of the way so the immovable Rock can do His work, so the dead can hear His voice. That means Peter and all believers have to bow to Him and move out of the way.

Here are some other helpful links: These first two links were provided by Paul, who also commented on Elena's blog and mine: An article by William Webster on Forgeries and the Papacy and an article from New Advent on Liber Pontificalis, a document that is referred to in Webster's article. In view of Webster's article, which shows the faulty foundation of forgery upon which the modern Roman Catholic view of the papacy is built, I believe much of what today's Roman Catholic apologists say on this subject should be held as suspect.
There is much information on the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church on Webster's website, christiantruth.com. Other good sources are bereanbeacon.org, and aomin.org.