Like I said, I don't have a Bible with me, but Jesus tells Peter you are the Rock for which I will be my church upon. Again, Catholics consider Peter the first Pope. I'm not making that up.
I know full well which verse you're referring to, I'm just saying that is the most mis-interpreted scripture in the Bible. Jesus is not referring to Peter the individual when he says 'on this rock I will build My church". Jesus is referring to the answer that Peter just gave to his question "But who do you say that I am?" The answer is ""You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." It is on the belief that Jesus is the Christ, God's Son, that is the rock where Jesus will build His church. Matthew 16:13-20 13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 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[4] in heaven." 20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
For what it's worth, here are some of my notes on Romans 13. I didn't take the time to separate what might be pertinent to this discussion from what obviously isn't. For those who get offended by religious statements, please understand that I'm just trying to help with a passage brought up in this discussion. These notes were taken with the intent of presenting them in a class of people who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. The most immediate contextual connection of this passage is with the preceding paragraph (12:17-21). The teaching concerning the role of government (13:3-4) seems to deliberately complement the teaching about not taking personal revenge. In a sense, these doctrines are just different sides of the same coin, which makes the chapter division unfortunate. Perhaps Paul wanted to make it clear that the prohibition against personal vengeance doesn’t mean that evildoers are free to do all the harm they please, without restraint and without fear of any kind of punishment at all. While individuals aren’t allowed to take their own vengeance against those who do them wrong, God has established civil government to be His earthly agent to see that justice is carried out. This obedience to the governing authorities is not without limitations, and neither is the sense in which a governing authority can be called “God’s minister” (13:4 NKJV) or “God’s servant” (13:4 ESV). As far as our obedience is concerned, we’re to obey these governing authorities unless doing so requires us to disobey God. When Peter and John were commanded not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus, they said, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge” (Acts 4:19). Later on, when all the apostles were arrested, they said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That principle is always true, and Paul’s words were never intended to teach otherwise. He was doing what is good as opposed to doing what is evil (13:3-4). Peter taught the same thing (1 Peter 2:13-15). As far as the governing authorities are concerned, they are God’s servants to the extent that they uphold justice, which includes the protection of citizens and the punishment of evildoers. Look at what Paul said again. First of all, he said that “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil” (13:3). A ruler “brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (13:4). Peter said that governors are supposed “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14). When those things are turned around, I seriously doubt the governing authorities are functioning as “a minister of God to you for good” (13:4). Read the book of Revelation some time to see how the Roman Empire is described during a time when it was persecuting people who were just trying to do right and serve God. It certainly wasn’t functioning as God’s servant in that case. Paul wasn’t dealing with a situation like that in this letter, what we might call an exception to the general rule. He was dealing with the general rule itself. Generally speaking, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities” (13:1). Paul was addressing Christians here, but really this principle applies to every person. The reason we ought to submit to these governing authorities is because “there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (13:1). I don’t think Paul was trying to say that God hand-picks individual rulers, although He has done that at various times. I believe that God is firmly in control of the nations, because His word indicates as much over and over again. I don’t believe that’s changed. But I don’t believe for a moment that God has set in place every blood-thirsty tyrant, every genocidal dictator, every anti-Christian regime, every crooked politician and judge, every cruel sheriff and police officer, and every immoral and bribe-taking public official who now exists, has ever existed, and ever will exist. I don’t believe that was Paul’s point. People have often taken those words that way, and history is littered with examples of people who have used those words to justify every form tyranny and to coerce citizens into blind obedience to the most degrading, not to mention anti-biblical, demands. I believe it was passages like this upon which concepts like the divine right of kings were built. One person has said, “These seven verses have caused more unhappiness and misery in the Christian East and West than any other seven verses in the New Testament.” What I believe he meant is that the abuse of these seven verses has caused more misery wherever “Christianity” has gone than any other seven verses in the New Testament. It seems to me that Paul’s point wasn’t that God hand-picks each and every authority figure, but rather that God has established the various forms of authority, including that of government. Really, in the second part of this verse, Paul stated a general principle, not just one that applies to governing authorities: “there is no authority except that which God has established” (13:1 NIV). The sense of it is that there’s no authority of any kind except that which God has established. The last clause in this verse is simply a positive restatement of the previous one: “those which exist have been instituted by God” (13:1 ESV). This is true of all existing authority relationships, including but not limited to governmental authority.
Yes! Jeff gettin into the spirit of the Simpson's 300th episode in a religious politician thread! Homer, Ralph, Kodos/Kang quotes... Got any from Flanders or Rev Lovejoy??
"And I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" I understand this as Jesus passing authority down to Peter, because Jesus knows he is about to b crucified.
NOT THE CHURCH!!! That's where Jesus lives! - Rev. Lovejoy Homer: Aw, is this about Jesus? Lovejoy: ALL things are about Jesus, Homer. Homer, I'm as permissive as the next parent. Why, just yesterday I let Todd buy a box of red hots with a cartoon devil on the front... - Ned Flanders
He gave the keys to the kingdom to anyone who understood the answer to the question, that He "is the Christ, the Son of the living God." As with any book, you have to use context when trying to interpret a statement. The entire New Testament describes that only through Jesus will people be saved. Jesus said ""I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6) Nowhere do I see anything about Peter, just Jesus. Christ didn't pass authority to Peter, He could not have because He says so. "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."" (Matthew 28:18)
1. I don't know why we're talking about the passage about subordinating yourself to political authority. It doesn't apply to any war in Iraq. That passage is about a citizen's relationship to his government. There is no relationship of authority between Bush and Hussein or the US and Iraq. Bush does not have any sort of Biblical justification from the quoted passage to "execute wrath on him who practices evil," because Hussein does not fall within Bush's umbrella of authority. It doesn't apply between nations. If we were talking about the UN and Iraq, it might be a bit different. 2. There is a lot of disagreement since the Great Schism on the meaning of Jesus giving Peter his name. Don't pretend like the matter is settled and you just need to educate your fellow posters about the true interpretation of that passage. If the best theologian minds of the past 1,000 years couldn't come to an agreement on it, I don't think it will get cleared up on a basketball BBS. Catholics read that as a passing of the mantle of the Church. Orthodox don't see it that way; they see the Pope as equal with the archbishops of the Orthodox Church. Most Protestants don't see it that way either (if it were true, how could they have ever left the Catholic Church?). A minister at my church (PCA Presbyterian: conservative, reformed, Protestant) is of the opinion that this non-Catholic interpretation Hammer cited is mostly an anti-papist piece of Protestant propaganda used to try to undercut the legitimacy of the Pope. He does remain Protestant though. 3. As for the allegation that the Bible can say what you want it to say, that's just ridiculous. I had the same opinion, in fact... until I read it. It isn't an easy and explicit thing; you can misinterpret things; but, you can't really use it as a justification for everything without doing violence to the text. 4. I don't think the turning the other cheek passage can really be applied to governments the same way it is applied to individuals. Governments have their own set of responsibilities they should not shirk. I personally think this necessitates that the individuals who make up that government commit sins, but then you weren't going to get through this life sinless anyway. 5. I don't know what to think about Bush's religiosity. When he was elected, I figured he was a shallow, nominal Christian. Now I wonder if his faith is actually deeper than that. Honestly, I don't think it much matters. In my own opinion, the corruptive influences of government probably completely mask his own personality.
Good post, Juan Valdez. I hope I didn't come off as sounding like I have all the answers, because I'm certain I don't. I think it is every person's responsibility to study the matter for themself, and draw their own conclusions and not take anyone else's word (mine included) for it. I have not given much thought to the relationship to authority you brought up in your first point now. That is definitely a thought that I will consider. I don't really appreciate you calling my previous post 'propaganda', so I will ask you the one question. When has God ever advocated taking any of His divine power and sharing it with a human, other than the brief time Christ walked the earth?
Donald Rumsfield said he would consider using nuclear weapon on Iraq. What about the innocent civilians of Iraq? Millions of civilians of Iraq qould killed if America used a nuclear weapon on Iraq.
Sorry, I got carried away with all the Ps. The minister had a much more diplomatic way of putting it, but that was the long and the short of it when you boil his argument down. He said looking at the language (like other places the same word is used) and the context, he couldn't justify the common Protestant interpreation. Please don't take offense; I meant it as more of an aside to show that there are disagreements of interpretation within the church. Calling something propaganda is not an argument in itself anyway; I can't even regurgitate the argument he did make. And, I don't know what my own position is on the interpretation, myself. As for your question, I think it misconstrues what the Catholic position is. I don't think they think the Pope has any of God's power. They see it as an inheritance of the office of head of Christ's Church only. Catholics are only supposed to obey the Pope, not deify him.
Where did he say that? I heard him say (or was it Powell?) something like, "We haven't used nukes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other war since World War II. That should tell you something about how we feel about using them."
I'm by no means an expert on Catholocism, so if I say something that's incorrect, someone please correct me. But, I think the Pope is supposed to be seen as having at least some degree of deity. I did a rudimentary seach of the Catholic Catechism, and came up with this regarding 'Papal Infallibility': What I get from that is that if the Pope (the Church through its supreme Magisterium) proposes a doctrine, it must be adhered to with the obedience of faith, as though it were God's inspired word. It also says that the Pope assumes the 'infallibility of God'.
JV "2. There is a lot of disagreement since the Great Schism on the meaning of Jesus giving Peter his name. Don't pretend like the matter is settled and you just need to educate your fellow posters about the true interpretation of that passage. If the best theologian minds of the past 1,000 years couldn't come to an agreement on it, I don't think it will get cleared up on a basketball BBS. Catholics read that as a passing of the mantle of the Church. Orthodox don't see it that way; they see the Pope as equal with the archbishops of the Orthodox Church. Most Protestants don't see it that way either (if it were true, how could they have ever left the Catholic Church?). A minister at my church (PCA Presbyterian: conservative, reformed, Protestant) is of the opinion that this non-Catholic interpretation Hammer cited is mostly an anti-papist piece of Protestant propaganda used to try to undercut the legitimacy of the Pope. He does remain Protestant though. 3. As for the allegation that the Bible can say what you want it to say, that's just ridiculous. I had the same opinion, in fact... until I read it. It isn't an easy and explicit thing; you can misinterpret things; but, you can't really use it as a justification for everything without doing violence to the text." Doesn't paragraph 2 contradict paragraph 3. I mean that's not a simple misinterpretation, as you stated, if everyone interpreted the same way as Catholics, there would probably be only one Christian Church.
I'm not JV, but I'll jump in here anyways. The way things should be and the way things are are two entirely different situations. The reason things have become the way they are is men, for a plurality of reasons. Humans always manage to screw things up. Personal fame and fortune, Wanting to do the right thing in man's eyes, etc. have gotten the church off the track it should be on. Again, in my opinion.
