our God?” (2 Sam. 22:2,32). Of the Lord, David prays, “ lead me to the rock that is higher than I” (Psa. 61: 2 ); “For thou art my rock and my fortress” (Psa. 31:3). Paul records that the Israelites “ drank of that spir itual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). In Daniel, Christ is the “ stone cut out without hands” (Dan. 2:34,35,45). In Isaiah, Christ is “ a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure founda tion” (Isa. 28:16). Paul adds the weight of his clear testimony when he says that the church is built “up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief comer stone” (Eph. 2:20). Thus it seems abundantly clear that the petra upon which.the church is built is not Peter, the “movable stone,” so weak and vacillating, but upon Christ, the only Sure Founda tion upon which could be built a church redeemed with His blood. Added, then, to the many other reasons prev iou sly considered why we cannot make a Pope out of Peter is this universal testimony of the Word of God that Christ alone is the Rock upon which the church is found ed. However, lest any read these lines who have been steeped in Roman tra dition from infancy, let Peter himself be the final authority in the matter. In Acts 4:11, it is Peter, “ filled with the Holy Ghost,” who identifies Jesus Christ of Nazareth as “ the stone . . . which is become the head nf the cor ner.” In First Peter 2:8 the testimony is even more devastating to the claims of Rome when Peter speaks of Christ as “a rock of offence” to the disobedient, using the identical word petra from Matthew 16:18 and iden tifying it with Christ! As to the use of the “ keys” committed to Peter in Matthew 16:19, without going into the explanation of this passage it should be sufficient to note that the power of “binding and loosing” was also committed to all of the disciples (Matt. 18:18; John 20:19-23), and that “ the keys of hell and of death” belong to no man, but to Christ (Rev. 1:18). Therefore we conclude that Peter was never commissioned to be the foundation stone of the church, for that prerogative is Christ’s alone. Ro man power is built upon a false premise,' for in the words of Paul, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, wh ich is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Wise is the man who trusts in Christ and in Him alone ,for his eternal salvation, cut ting through the vain traditions and empty ordinances of men, rooting his faith only in that which God has been pleased to reveal in His Word.
Doctrinal Pointers by Gerald B. Stanton, Th. D. Prof, of Systematic Theology, Talbot Theological Seminary Was Peter the First Pope ? Part Three
T he most important passage used by Rome to support the supposed su premacy of Peter is for.nd in Mat thew 16:13-20, particularly the eight eenth verse. In answer to the clear testimony of Peter in respect to His deity, Christ said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barj on a: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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.” At this point there is a footnote in the Douay (C a th o lic ) Version, stating: As St. Peter, by divine revela tion, here made a solemn profes sion of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: namely, that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the Church; in which b u ild in g he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in qual ity of chief pastor, ruler, and gov ernor, signified' by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It is the assured tenet of Roman theology that Peter was chosen above all other men to be the foundation stone upon which the entire church, visible and invisible, was to be built. It is assumed that this “ Petrine su premacy” has been passed down to the bishops of Rome in undiminished power so that they speak for God as His undisputed representatives upon earth. Sentiments such as the follow ing have often been expressed by the Roman Church: “Whom the Pope blesses is blessed forever; whom the Pope curses is cursed forever” ; and, “The Pope is not only the represent ative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ that speaks!” It is here contended that all such claims
are fallacy and fraud, and that Mat thew 16:18 can give no comfort to those who seek some small Biblical support to bolster the traditions of men (see Col. 2:8). There are four views as to the iden tity of the rock upon wh ich the church is built. (1) The Roman view is that the rock is Peter, for the name Peter itself means rock. However, this completely ignores the fact that two entirely separate words for rock are used in this verse. Christ said, Thou art petros (a piece of rock; a movable stone), but the church will be built upon a petra (a mass of rock; a ledge, or cliff; a firm founda tion). Instead of proving the identity of Peter with the rock upon which the church is built, this change of words makes it utterly impossible for Peter to be that rock. (2) Another view is that the group of Apostles comprise the rock, but if this were true, Christ would have used the plu ral “ye are . . . and upon you,” which is in no wise the case. This view like wise has nothing to commend it. (3) The third view is that the statement of Christ’s deity is itself the rock up on which the church is founded, and (4) the fourth view is that Christ Himself is the Rock. Whereas Rome claims the unanimous agreement of the Fathers in support of the first view, the truth is that about eighteen support this view, seven Fathers the second, forty-four Fathers the third, and seventeen Fathers the fourth. Augustine held that the rock is the confession, while O rigin supported the view that the Rock is Christ. While the third view is not objection able and may be the true one (the first and second views having no sup port whatsoever), it is believed that the identification of the foundation stone with Christ- has much more to commend it. Christ was speaking to Jews who knew the symbolism of a rock, for had not Moses written of God as “ the Rock of his salvation” (Deut. 32:15; cf. 4, 18) ? Did not David write clear ly, “The Lord is my rock, and my fortress . . . and who is a rock, save
33
N O V E M B E R 1 9 5 3
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online