DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
... Yes, Paul is probably the first and he was part of the same Church as Peter. If Peter was the first Pope, then Paul was another Catholic Priest.

May I enquire have you read Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews recently?

Do you think there are still sacrifices to be made by earthly priests for sin?

I have not seen you on here for a year or two. I was away from here for a long time but recently came back through divine providence. I ran into Bert on the CBC news forums under a news item related to the RCC and found that we couldn't debate adequately on there because comments must be checked by a censor and don't appear for hours or sometimes not until next day. Sometimes they do not allow comments through. Theology is best discussed here.

Anyway here we are. I trust the Lord has been working graciously with you as He has with me.

Your interpretation of Matt. 16:18 is interesting; I had never heard of it before, but then there are many things I haven't heard. As I mentioned to Bert, I believe the main Protestant interpretation of the rock (upon this rock) is that it refers to Christ, that the church would be built on Christ. Eph. 2:20

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Other issues like salvation by faith AND works are Biblical.

Sounds to me like works has no place in salvation. "not of works" should be clear enough!

One cannot be a child of God unless one is predestinated by God's good pleasure. "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Ephesians 1:11 Notice it is God who predestinates after the council of his own will.

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Eph.1:5,6 It is entirely by God's grace; there is no room for one's own self efforts or works. Such a claim is a lie of the devil.

Did we find agreement on the sin nature or fallen nature being transmitted from Adam through the fathers? This could be the only possible explanation for the necessity of the virgiin birth of Jesus. Do you agree with this?

This might help in understanding why every person is born in sin and an enemy of God and needs to be born again from above (John ch3).

"Ques. 1. What is your only comfort in life and in death?" - from Heidelberg Catechism. What is your answer?

Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 16:19

But in Chap.18, Jesus gives the same power, the thing symbolized by the keys, to all the disciples. Matt. 18:1 shows Jesus was speaking to the disciples in that chapter and in vs 18 Jesus gives the power to bind and loose to all of them. So if they all have the same power to bind and loose as Peter, the keys has no special relevance to Peter only but is symbolic of what they all received.

What does binding and loosing refer to?
The preaching of the gospel. Those who believe in Christ as Saviour will receive remission of sins and eternal life. Those who not believe, will not receive it.(Acts 3:19)

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43

Michael Hranek wrote:
Recently I went to my Mother's Roman Catholic Funeral ...

"I waited patiently for the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.

He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock and established by goings.

The other apostles did not recognize Peter as their chief. They sent Peter to Samaria to preach. (Acts 8:14)

The Apostle Paul did not believe Peter was the chief apostle.

Paul mentioned Peter but never with any special title, such as Vicar or Pope or above any of the other apostles.

Paul taught that those who follow Peter or any other persons were guilty of causing division.

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor. 1:12, 13

Paul was an apostle to Rome, not Peter. (Paul's Epistle to the Romans)
see Romans 1:5-7

Paul said "for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders and mighty deeds." 2 Cor.12:11b, 12.

The apostles Paul and Barnabas also performed signs and wonders. "...and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands," Acts 14:3b

Paul healed a crippled man at Lystra. (Acts 14:8-10)

Paul clearly denied Peter was a Pope and maintained what Peter was to the Jews, he was to the Gentiles. (Gal.2:7,8)

A pamphlet possibly presented to the Fathers in a Vatican Council said there were five different interpretations believed by church Fathers in early centuries. The first was the word "rock" referred to Peter was believed by seventeen ancient church Fathers. The second was that the word rock referred to all the apostles, whom Peter represented. This was followed by eight Fathers. The third interpretation was rock referred to the faith of Peter which he had professed. This was the weightiest with forty-four. The fourth was that Christ was the rock. This was followed by sixteen Fathers and doctors of the early church.

There never was unanimous consent among RC church Fathers and doctors on what the rock referred to. They were deeply divided. It is doubtful that the claim that there must be unanimous consent ever existed in the RCC.

Christ gave the same thing symbolized by the keys to all of the disciples. "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 18:18

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:

But, have a look at [URL=http://users.stargate.net/~elcore/kephas.htm]]]this link[/URL] to get some idea of why we believe that Jesus was referring to Peter.

I had a brief look at that website and will check it closer tomorrow. Those protestant theologians(using the term loosely) who agree with Rome (minority) that the second rock refers to Peter have either not done their homework or may have ulterior reasons for their interpretation. It certainly does not fit in with the verses I quoted you and many other verses and doctrine.

If Peter was to lead the entire church, why wasn't this brought out in other places in the N.T?

You would think such an important doctrine would be clearly taught in other places, but it isn't. The apostles never spoke of anyone but Christ as the cornerstone on which the Church would be built. Even the Old Testament believers looked to the Lord as the Rock. (Deut. 32:4,31; Psalm 78:35)

Barry from KY. wrote:
Just wondering guys. I have been reading thru my bible and can't find water boarding or sleep deprivation in there, can you give me chapter and verse?

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Jesus is the Head of His Church on earth! And Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His Church.

Rome has built a vast earthly religious/political empire and deceived hundreds of millions of people with it's system. I urge you to dig into this question as much and sincerely as possible to get at the truth. Your eternal destiny depends on what you believe about Jesus and His Word. The RC church claims Jesus gave them authority to set up the system of Popes with absolute rule and a system of sacrifices, sacraments to give grace only through their priests. None of this is authorized in the Bible. This is a false system which will not lead to salvation. Don't let this deception continue Bert. May God give you wisdom and knowledge of the truth through His Word.

There is simply not enough space here to go into all the details or even much of why Peter was never a Pope. Check out this website concerning the question whether the Bible teaches Peter was the first Pope.

http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php

In Matt. 16:18, the second rock was not referring to Peter.

Many RC church fathers thought it was the confession Peter made; others church fathers thought Jesus was pointing to himself, meaning the church would be built on Jesus as the Rock.

The apostles made it clear the rock upon which the church is built is Christ. "He is the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone." Acts 4:11 RC New American Bible.

"..for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11
RC Bible

"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone." Ephesians 2:19,20

This verse shows clearly the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (the Holy Scriptures written by them) with Jesus as the capstone.

The apostles never spoke of anyone other than Christ that the church would be built on.

Check the Interlinear bible website I gave you.

petros = Peter

petra = rock

The second word, petra, has a different meaning.

I seem to hit a wrong key and lose all my work on here.

The Reformation happened by divine providence. Scripture teaches everything happens by divine providence. As to whether it is bibilical, check 2 Corinthians Ch.6 vs 14 to 18. Christians are commanded to come out of system of false worship. The Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, in many cases were Catholic priests who believed that the Catholic church had departed from the apostolic teachings of the Bible and they wished to return to this apostolic faith. So yes, if you come to the conclusion that what they said and taught was biblical, you will have to conclude it was a work of God.

The use of images and statues, etc. is wrong because it is against the second commandment. It creates a false impression of who God is. The Bible says God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The home page for the online Greek - English interlinear N.T. is:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
It would be interesting to find out what the original text said.

You can Google "interlinear New Testament" and find the original Greek and corresponding English words for Romans Chapter 5 vs. 14. "..death reigned from Adam to Moses". Romans speaks about of the offence of one (Adam). Click on this and you will have a Greek/English interlinear on line. Scroll down to verse 14 and you will see "Adam" is in the original Greek.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom5.pdf

Remember the rule of interpretation of scripture. If something is not clear in one verse or passage, we have to seek clarification through another passage or verse (scripture interprets scripture). That is true of these verses in Romans. While some verses use the word "human", other verses make it clear that Adam is the man by which sin entered the world (vs.12).

Lance Eccles wrote:
Lyn, one day you will realize that, were it not for the constant Masses being said, a continuous re-offering of the One Sacrifice, you would not have been saved.
And Michael, many people need time off for stress. A nun is just as human as the next person.

Since that time 2000 years ago, Christ has gone "into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" Heb. 9:24

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall be appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Heb. 9:28 Again it says ONCE.

Guinness wrote:
Wayne,
The constitution is based upon precedent. It is unprecedented for a Prime Minister to ask for a prorogation of Parliament simply to avoid a confidence vote. Therefore it is unconstitutional.

1873, Macdonald feared a non-confidence vote and asked Dufferin to prorogue the House rather than allowing a vote on adjournment."

After much agonizing and advice, Dufferin accepted Macdonald's advice and prorogued the House. This was similar to Harper's prorogation in that both were done to avoid a defeat in the house, although nothing illegal was alleged this time.