Chapter
Three : The Substructure Of The Church - Part 2
As for the disparaging dissimilarities between the Pope and Christ, ad
infinitum, for the doctrines and practices of papalism are as alien to
New Testament Christology as that of contemporary cultism. This is not
to say, that Romanism has either orally or in print denied the deity of
Christ, but it is to say; Rome's multiplying of mediators between God and
man has made Christ at best one among many deities which intercede between
God and man. According to Romanist teaching the parish Priest, Residential
Bishop, the jurisdictional Cardinal, the Pope, canonized saints, good angels,
the Virgin Mary, are not merely mediators between God and man, but also
have the power to absolve the confessee of sins. (My Catholic Faith, pages
33, 39, 97,199). Over and against these soul damning doctrines of Romanism,
the Bible emphatically declares, there is "ONE MEDIATOR" between God
and man ..." (I Timothy 2:5), and "To the Lord our God belong
mercies and forgiveness ..." (Daniel 9:9). Priestly intercession
and the remission of sins is the blessed and exclusive work of the nail
scarred Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Lord.
Exegesis Of
Matthew 16:18
"And
I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew
16:18).
It is taken for granted by Catholicism, Protestantism and Baptists, and
rightly so, that a correct identification of the "rock" of Matthew 16:18
is absolutely essential to an ecclesiology that meets the Divine standard.
It is not enough to say, "Jesus is the Rock referred to in the text," and
then own as true churches of Christ those who have malidentified the "Rock".
This truth demands more than mere lip service, it calls for a strong and
positive emphasis, and a clear renunciation of all erroneous exegesis of
the text. The text allows for only one interpretation, and that is: Jesus
refers to Himself as the "Rock" foundation of His church and any understanding
to the contrary is fallacious.
The word "Peter" in Matthew 16:18 is translated from the Greek word
"petros", which means a small stone, a pebble, a movable fragment of stone,
and is therefore; owing to its size and instability, utterly inadequate
as a foundation stone. Conversely, the Greek word "petra", which is translated
"rock", means a ledge of rock of substantial size and great strength, a
giant bedrock, a foundation stone. The translation given the Greek words
"petros" and "petra" are not merely alleged or supposed by me, but the
translation and definition as herein stated is supported by an innumerable
host of profound Greek scholars and authorities of various church affiliations,
of whom I will mention but a few: 'K. S. Wuest - The New Testament, An
Expanded Translation, Page 42'. 'A. T. Robertson -Word Pictures In The
New Testament, Vol. 1- Page 131'. 'W. E.Vine - An Expository Dictionary
Of New Testament Words, Page 302'. 'The Interlinear Greek English New Testament,
By: George R. Berry, Page 45'. Etc.
To say the above stated position is that of the majority of Greek scholars
would be to mis-state the case. But we can say, and that without reticence;
If the rules which govern etymological research and translation as applies
to our study (Ascertain the original Greek word, and give a literal rendering
of that word) would be strictly adhered to, there would be far less opposition
to the interpretation enunciated in the two previous paragraphs. (See rules
of translation of the Greek text on page 46 of Dr. W. A. Jarrell's Book
Titled: BAPTIZO-DIP-ONLY). The high principles of scripture translation
demands a tenacious adherence to the above stated rules, and if the Anglican
translators (KJV-1611) had honored these rules, and translated the Greek
term "Baptizo" by using its English equivalent "dip" or "immerse" rather
than transliterating it, their great work would not have been perfect,
but it would have prevented a particular and hurtful stigma from attaching
itself to their translation efforts. This stigma or scar on the prominent
part of their translation labors has given impetus to the Romanistic error
of effusion, and the Protestant error of sprinkling for baptism. Moreover,
this one monumental departure in revision by the KJV translators has distorted
the figure of Christ's redemptive work, and has thereby greatly diminished
the quality of the whole of their translative diction. Oh' what great harm
can be wrought by a single deviation from a code of honor, and never more
so than in the instance of the Church of England transliteration of the
word "Baptizo".
To properly identify the foundational rock of Matthew 16:18 is essential
to a correct ecclesiastical relationship with Christ in this present evil
world, and in the heavenly world to come. The degree of a saved person's
intimacy with Christ in this earth will be revealed at the mercy seat of
Christ (I Corinthians 3:13), and will determine the believers measure
of intimacy with Christ in heaven's glorious and endless ages to come.
Spiritual obedience to Christ in this dark and evil world begets intimacy
with Him (James 4:8), and faithfulness to Christ is infinitely enhanced
by membership in one of His blood bought churches, for it was to His church
He gave the evangelistic commission and the keeping of His ordinances (Matthew
28:19,20; I Corinthians 11:2). Hence, the door which leads unto obedience
is immeasurably wider in the Lord's church than in the family of God (Ephesians
3:15), apart from the church (Ephesians 3:10,21).
Baptist churches have never in their aggregate sum, nor in any measure
approaching a majority ever claimed that all spiritual utility is confined
to their churches, or that the church has a preemptory and exclusive priesthood,
but this position is a vital part of the Roman Catholic dogma, and is based
on the errant concept that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic
church (MY CATHOLIC FAITH, Page 150). The Romanists having ill assumed
that Christ made Peter the foundation and infallible Head of His church,
and that their popes are the apostolic successors of Peter, having the
same primacy and infallibility that Peter had, have become a theological
law factory. This law factory has produced and dogmatized an endless number
of heresies, a few of which are: The worship of Mary, the doctrine of purgatory,
Papal and church infallibility, celibacy of the priesthood, sacramental
salvation, etc., etc., etc.
Christ did not appoint Peter to the headship of His church, nor bestow
on him any degree of superiority over the other apostles, and it is seen
from Scripture that Peter was not infallible in word, nor in church matters
(Matthew 26:74; Galatians 2:11-14). The scriptures explicitly
and irrefutably teach that salvation from sin is by the sovereign, free
and irresistible grace of God, and that this saving grace was merited by
the sacrificial blood of Christ. This great and glorious truth is amply
iterated in Scripture, and has for the last two thousand years been attested
to by the supremest theological minds. Based on this God honoring and church
edifying truth, I ask: Where is the wisdom that allows for Peter through
the means of his (supposed) successors to dogmatize doctrine that contradicts
the gospel of free grace?
Peter, speaking of the salvational grace of God, declares it to be the
fruit of Christ's suffering (I Peter 1:10,11; 5:10-12). Seeing that
Peter's words are divinely inspired, I ask: "Where is the wisdom that allows
Peter's first, interim, and umpteenth successor (?) to dogmatize
doctrines that contravene Peter's testimony regarding grace?" The Lord
did not endow Peter with inerrant ability, but did tell His infant church
of which the apostles were a primary part, that its pronouncements of His
decrees on earth, would be sanctioned in heaven (Matthew 18:18).
The Burden
Of Proof
The
burden of proof which rests on the Romanistic contention that Peter is
the foundational "rock" of Matthew 16:18 is exceedingly heavy, yea,
so much so that it is unobtainable; and that for the simple reason it does
not exist. Delineated in the following paragraphs of this chapter are some
of the mooted and absurd claims of Romanism as relates to Peter. We shall
examine these claims in the light of the inspired, eternal, and inerrant
word of God.
However, the long and dark history of the Roman Catholic Church reveals
that the lack of Scripture evidence has not in the least deterred it in
the formulation of its dogma and practice. The Papacy claims an inspiration
that allows it to by-pass Scripture evidence, and to off set or negate
the evidence. It is easy for the Roman church to conjure up a miracle,
which directly supports their claim. And who is it that is so crass as
to question a doctrine that has a miracle as its adjunct? (???). Romanism
from its inception has suffered from a fatal lack of Holy Spirit inspired
truth, but human logic asks: "Who needs inspired truth when miracles are
ever at hand?" According to Romish claims it takes at least four miracles
for the canonization of a saint. Two miracles must be performed by the
saint before his canonization, and two subsequent to it. Multiply four
by the large number of their canonized saints, and it will be readily seen
why so little attention is given to the sacred record of God's Son, by
the Romish church.
In order for the Roman Catholic Church to prove their claims regarding
Peter, it must be shown from Scripture:
1.)
That
Christ made Peter the first Pope of His blood bought Church and that Peter
first exercised his Papal Bishopric in the church at Rome. There is NO
Scripture evidence for the Papal office, and it cannot be established from
Scripture nor from the first century of secular or ecclesiastical history
that Peter was ever at any time in the imperial city of Rome.
The words addressed to Peter by the Lord in Matthew 16:18 did not
designate Peter as the head and foundation of His church, nor did they
bestow on Peter an ecclesiastical primacy over the other apostles. This
assertion is attested to many times in the Acts and the Epistles, but I
will at this time refer the reader to two scriptural events which unequivocally
show that the Romish claim of Petrine Papacy is ridiculously unsound. The
first event I refer to is the first church council, the account of which
is recorded in Acts 15. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas address the council,
but there is no particular superiority exercised over the council by any
of them. There is no ex cathedra voice heard in this council, nor any Papal
decrees issued, but it is James, the Lord's brother, a non apostolic leader,
and Pastor of the church at Jerusalem whose "sentence", or more correctly
"judgment" that is accepted by the council. (Vss. 6-22).
2.)
The
second event I call the reader's attention to is recorded in Galatians
2:11-16, wherein Paul charges Peter with dissimulation and spiritual
weakness (Vs. 13). Paul says: "But when Peter was come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed ... I said
unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner
of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to
live as do the Jews?" (Vss. 11 & 14).
There is not one word of remonstrance by Peter against Paul, for Peter
knew Paul's charge against him was correct and justified, and we know the
account of this event given by Paul is inspired of the Holy Spirit. In
view of the awesome power which the Pope has in the Roman Catholic church
("To him belongs the last appeal in all cases."), is it not most difficult
to conceive of a subordinate rebuking him to his face, and that before
an official assembly in the Vatican. Then too, in light of Papal history,
where is the principled person who can believe the Pope would refer to
his humiliating detractor as "beloved brother"? (II Peter 3:15).
3.)
The
third thing the Romish church must show to prove that Peter was the first
Pope is: That his supposed bishopric at Rome was transferred to the highest
official in the church at Rome at the time of Peter's death in a.d. 69.
The dubiety of this ill founded notion is greatly compounded in that it
utterly ignores the apostle John, and makes him a disciplinary subject
for more than twenty years to Peter's imagined successor. The beloved John
died sometime between 90 and 100 a.d. without knowing he had an infallible
and Supreme Pontiff in Rome (???) However, this lack of knowledge on the
part of the great apostle did not disturb him, for a person cannot be disturbed
over something which the person knows does not exist. And John knew from
the very outset that the apostolic office would reach its terminus in spite
of Satan's efforts to counterfeit it (Revelation 2:2).
4.)
The
fourth thing the Romish church must unambiguously set forth in its allusion
to Peter as the first Pope is: That Peter claimed to be the Vicar of Christ.
This Romish contention is too ABSURD to dwell upon, so our comment will
be brief. It does despite to the Holy Spirit, Who is the true Vicegerent
of Christ on earth. "But the Comforter (Paraclete), which is
the Holy Ghost, Whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you
all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have
said unto you ..." (John 14:26). "Howbeit when He, the Spirit
of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak
of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will
show you things to come" (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is the
Author and interpreter of God's word, and the Lord has graciously blessed
His church with the institutional indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts
2:1-4),
whereby all ancillaries and traditions of men are made null
and void. A general study of the character of the popes (264 to date, 1990)
from the origin of the apostate church (303 a.d. at the very earliest)
will reveal that the appellation "false prophet" insuperably applies to
these pretended successors of Peter.
Return
To Index
Next
Chapter
Return
To O. B. Mink Page
Return
To PBC Home