Chapter
Three : The Substructure Of The Church - Part 3
"... if
so be have tasted that the Lord is gracious, Whom coming, as unto a living
stone, disallowed in deed of men, but chosen of God, and precious."
(I Peter 2:3-4)
Romanism Further
Examined
In
the article immediately preceding this one, it was irrefutably proven,
that the Romish Pope IS NOT the foundation of the Lord's spiritual house,
i.e. His church. However, in addition I submit for the reader's evaluation
and edification, a few other comments which are relevant to the subject
under consideration.
The foundation of the New Testament church is in heaven, not in Rome, and
bodily He has never been in Rome. The Romish claim, that Christ in Matthew
16:18 bestowed upon Peter apostolic supremacy, and made him the head
and foundation of His church, is proven false by Peter's words in the above
text. Peter refers to Christ as a "living stone," and in so doing
he brings to view the eternally and immortality of Christ. Peter was neither
eternal, nor immortal, and declared his fallibility by saying: "... I
am a sinful man" (Luke 5:8). Peter's finiteness and sinfulness
made him at best, a feeble stone, and ill qualified for the foundation
and headship of the church. The foundation of the church must be impervious
and perfect, able to bruise the head of Satan, and stem the church hating
tides of hell (Genesis 3:15; Matthew 16:18). So, it inextricably
follows, when Jesus said: "Upon this Rock, I will build My church,"
He referred to Himself (Matthew 16:18).
Christ is the living manna which came down out of heaven (John 6:58),
of Whom Peter said: to "taste" is to find Him "gracious". The word "taste"
as used by Peter in the above text is a metaphorical reference to the word
and doctrine of Christ, and upon first learning (tasting) that salvation
of the soul is wholly the fruit of Christ's merit, the joyous conclusion
is: "The Lord is precious."
It should be the consensus of all redeemed souls, that Jesus Christ is
both perfect and precious, and that He is the source and provider of all
spiritual food. Peter, as well as all of the apostles, and all of the divinely
appointed undershepherds are stewards of the manifold grace of God, but
they everyone, including Peter, must go to the "Good," "Great," and "Chief
Shepherd," for their own spiritual sustenance and that of the sheep (John
10:11; Hebrews 13:20; I Peter 5:4). Peter was not the only apostle
whom the Lord sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew
19:5,6), and no man knew better how to feed the lambs and sheep of
the Lord, than Paul. As to sheep feeding ability, it appears as if Paul
excelled all men, for he knew the spiritual diet sheet called for the whole
counsel of God, and he was an expert with heaven's milk and meat (I
Corinthians 3:2). Paul admonished the elders of Ephesus, saying: "...
Feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood
..." (Acts 20:28), and they were to do the bidding of Paul without
consulting Peter.
Moses incessantly reminded the nation of Israel that God was their Rock,
and that their spiritual and physical nourishment came freely to them from
the Rock of their salvation. Moses said unto Israel: "...Ascribe ye
greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all of
His ways are judgement: a God of truth and with out iniquity, just and
right is He" (Deuteronomy 32:4). The beloved apostle Peter misses
the description which Moses gave of the Rock of Israel by an infinite distance,
and to say that Peter is the Rock foundation of the Lord's church, is not
merely to say, the foundation of the church is inferior to the Rock of
Israel, but that it is tenuous, flawed, and prone to God debasing failures
(Matthew 26:56,69,70; John 21:3; Galatians 2:11).
The claim of the Roman Catholic church that Peter is their rock, is a declaration
that their rock is not the Rock of the New Testament, and places them on
a par with apostate Israel, for Peter said: "...The stone which the
builders (Israel) disallowed, the same is made the Head of the corner,
and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble
at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed"
(I Peter 2:7,8). God has mercifully said unto His elect people within
the dark and perilous caverns of Romanism: "... Come out of her My people,
that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues
..." (Revelation 18:4). Thanks be unto God, many of His people
have heeded this loving and gracious call, and have come out of Romanism,
leaving behind them the superstitions and haughtiness of the papal church
and have found a safe and God honoring haven in churches where Jesus is
the foundation and Head. Let us now consider Protestantism and some of
its heterodoxy.
1. Protestant
Ecclesiology
Protestant
churches claim to have come out of harlot Rome, but it is seen by the doctrine
and practice of Protestantism, that their claim in this matter is glaringly
fallacious. As to ecclesiology concerning the foundation of the church,
there is no vital difference between Roman sin and Protestantism. Someone
at this juncture, may say: "I take exception to that statement, for Protestantism
does not claim that Peter is the foundation of the church, but that Peter's
confession that Jesus was the Christ is the foundation of the church."
The "exception" is well stated, and the point clearly made, but it is abstruse,
and more untenable than the Roman Catholic theory; not withstanding, both
theories are utterly destitute of Scripture proof.
It was unavoidably incumbent upon the would be reformers to invent a diverse
ecclesiology from that of Rome, especially so as to the foundation of the
church, for to agree that Peter was the foundation of the church, was to
own the authority of the Pope; and thereby leave them without a basis or
authority for their reformation efforts.
Luther, Calvin, and the other dissenting priests allied with them in the
reformation venture, knew that the doctrine regarding Papal authority was:
"When Peter speaks, the issue is settled." Therefore, to avoid the invalidation
of their baptisms (affusions), and ordinations, they MUST find a different
foundation for the church. However, they knew to utterly disassociate Peter
from the foundation of the church, would inflict havoc, not only on their
ecclesiology, but also on their soteriology, for their whole theological
system had been built on the ill assumed Peter and his supposed to be papal
successors.
Hence, the would be reformers knowing that it was necessary to have Peter
in some large way connected with their new theory of the church, and yet
at the same time be at variance with Rome in this matter, developed the
hypothesis that Peter's confession that Jesus was the Son of God (Matthew
16:16) was the foundation of the church. The insuperable arguments
in my foregoing articles raised against the Roman Catholic theory that
Peter is the foundation of the church, equally apply to the Protestant
scheme concerning the foundation of the church. Nevertheless, I will, at
the risk of being redundant, raise them again, at least in an abbreviated
way.
A.)
Peter is not the only apostle who confessed that Jesus was the Christ,
the Son of God. On the contrary, all of the apostles confessed that Jesus
was the Christ, the Son of the living God (John 6:67,68,69).
Thomas
confessed that Jesus was both Lord and God (John 20:28).
Martha,
the sister of Lazarus, confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of
God (John 11:27). Many others made this confession (John
4:42; Acts 8:37; etc.). In fact, Peter was not the first apostle to
confess that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ of God. It was Andrew, Simon
Peter's brother, that brought him to Jesus with the words: "We have
found the Messias, which is being interpreted, the Christ." (John
1:41).
To own that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah of God, is to confess that
Jesus was the deity which came down out of heaven from God, and that He
was God incarnate, for the Messiah was both perfect man and eternal God.
Isaiah speaks of the Messiah, Who was to come, saying: "...His name
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). When the Lord asked
His disciples, saying: "Whom say ye that I am?" (Matthew 16:15);
He is in essence asking for a confession that He is the Jewish Messiah
whose coming was many times foretold by the Old Testament prophets. An
honest admission of His Messiaship, was to also own the correspondent truth,
that He was as Isaiah prophesied, "The Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6).
In asking the question concerning His Messiaship, the Lord used the plural
pronoun "ye" (Matthew 16:15), meaning all of the apostles,
and when Peter replied to the question, he was answering for all of the
apostles. So, it was not merely Peter's conclusion, but that of all the
apostles. However, the would be reformers have distorted this truth, and
have built their church upon a spurious and deformed foundation.
B.)
Peter's confession considered in the light of his later denial of Christ,
wherein he said with cursing and swearing: "I know not the man"
(Matthew
26:74), bespeaks unstableness, vacillation, and unsuitability as the
foundation of the Lord's church. Peter's threefold disavowal of Christ,
wherein he steadfastly denied knowing Christ, and in two of his denials
referred to Christ as mere man, is in itself sufficient ground to question
the Protestant claim that Peter's confession is the foundation of the church.
C.)
Israel's concept of the Messiah left no room for the sufferings of Christ,
and thus it was, Christ became a stumblingstone unto Israel, and Peter
at the time of his confession (Matthew 16:16) was an adherent to
the traditional view that the Messiah of Israel would be a scarless conqueror.
The fact that Peter's conception of the Messiah accorded with the view
held by Israel is attested to in Peter's words immediately following his
confession. It was on the occasion of Peter's confession, the Lord for
the first time apprised the disciples of His forthcoming humiliation, sufferings,
and death. Whereupon: "... Peter began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it
far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But He turned, and said
unto Peter, Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for
thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men"
(Matthew 16:22,23). Peter's confession was correct as far as it
went, and drew the commendation of the Lord, but the confession did not
comprehend the crucial aspect of the Messiah's work, as is manifested by
Peter himself. Peter's malformed impression of the Messiah's first coming
to earth precluded His substitutionary suffering, and for this cardinal
omission, Peter was scathingly rebuked by the Lord.
Protestantism's zealous struggle to find a foundation for their church
was not any more successful than that of Romanism, for both foundations
go wanting for the support of Scripture, and are therefore, equally artificial.
All ecclesiastical foundations, other than the person of Christ, are laid
by men, are from beneath, and are allied with the "gates of hell"
against the church which Jesus bought with His own blood. The Protestant
theory that Peter's confession is the foundation of the church, is at best
an anomaly, and for the honor of Christ, it must be condemned.
The ecclesiastical harlot of Rome is effectually wooing her Protestant
daughters, beseeching them to cast off their appelative misnomer, Protestant,
and once again own the superlative designation: Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The spirit of acquiescence toward Rome is now sweeping through Protestantism
and the reunion between them is imminent. The mergence of the two bodies
will be nothing more than the compounding of darkness, for in due season
it shall be revealed that Protestantism was never more than an ancillary
of Rome, and Protestantism's separation from Rome was superficial and a
satanic diversion intended to distract attention from the real issue, which
was: salvation by the grace of God apart from ecclesiastical sacraments.
While Protestants are becoming more submissive to their harlot mother,
and exult over the prospect of reunion with her, Baptists raise their hand
in loving gesture away from Rome; for they know Religious unity without
Christ as the foundation is built upon sand and will in the end be a nemesis
to all who subscribe to it. But the credulous person asks: "Why would Baptists
do this, don't they want to get along with other religious bodies?" Baptists
know there can be no genuine or lasting unity without the truth as it is
in Christ, and they also know God has called them to be a distinct and
separate people in the world and that they cannot unite with nor have fellowship
with any organized religious body that does not give Jesus the preeminence
in the church. Hence, Baptists can have no affinity with Romanism or Protestantism,
for both systems deny that Christ is the foundation, and Head of His church.
The cost of this age long separation by Baptists has been excruciatingly
great, but Baptists suffer this cost with joy, being motivated by an insatiable
desire to please Him Who bought them with His own precious blood. Simply,
they had rather suffer for the honor of Christ, than to please men. Notwithstanding,
the walls of the Lord's superstructure is often made tremulous by the fiery
winds of hell brought against it, but being anchored in Christ, the immutable
and unindentable foundation, it will yet stand, and Christ will at last
"Present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle,
or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish"
(Ephesians 5:27).
Return
To Index
Next
Chapter
Return
To O. B. Mink Page
Return
To PBC Home