Church: Person, Place, or Thing?
Mt 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. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}"
One could say that Peter was the Church's first "rock" star.
Let us start off this blog with a brief "Pop Quiz" (one of those adrenaline stoking tools in a teacher's assessment arsenal...only effective on kids who care about learning and their grade).
Q. Is the Church Jesus is referring to a:
A. (1) Place (2) Thing (3) People
Astute students sometimes can answer a question correctly by looking at the question for clues. The fact that Jesus says that He is going to build "my church" on Peter conclusively points to "people" being the correct answer. I kind of made it easy when I left this reference in: {Peter: this name signifies a rock}" There is another specific English word that should be used for a physical lodging and gathering place (a thing). That word is "building." Although Peter sometimes has rocks in his head, Jesus is not speaking of stacking bodies like bricks to build a church with Peter as the corner-corpse.
Catholics have it right when they say that God did build His church on Peter, not just Peter's faith confession. God is relational and this verse joins together the "Two Great Commandments to Love God and to Love People."
Yet, lest our Roman brethren get a big head--especially the Pope--when he wears an even bigger hat, let us not forget the verse a few inches down in Matthew when Peter gets in his high chair rebuking Jesus of talking of his (Jesus) death where Jesus rebukes Peter back (23)
"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."
Not that I agree with apostolic succession anyway from Peter to Pope. Makes the below doctrine of "ex cathedra" pretty indefensible too:
"The Catholic Church teaches, that Pope/Roman pontiff when he speaks "ex cathedra", that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
It is interesting that the Catholic Dogma would end this definition with "irreformable." Believe you me, that word use is highly intentional. Basically, this states, that the teaching of the Pope, when in his Pope role, is never wrong. Tradition can be "truth" whether it is "True." Many traditions in the Catholic faith have been elevated to doctrine with little or no Biblical support.
With all the talk of the serpent of "Post-Modernism," "Did God really say?" seduction, we seem to be entering another phase in Church History where Biblical teaching is in danger of being subverted under another authority. In the 16th century it was the Pope, now it is the Pop (as in popular culture).
The early Reformers, especially Martin Luther, were very aware of the faith and practice corruptions in the Roman Catholic Church. They were raised Catholics. The best critic is always an insider. Martin Luther was an MVP Monk is there ever was one who strove mightily as a man to be obedient to his Church until he was overwhelmed with the conviction that the Roman Catholic Church herself was no longer faithful to her first love, Jesus Christ. Instead, she was a worldly-woman looking for all of the accoutrements and idols of a lady of means...and was defiled by such pageantries of pride and sinful status.
So, why does this matter today? Let me conclude. The Reformers were not motivated by the dream of having their own Joel Osteen-sized congregation or their own soaring Cathedrals whose spires touched the stars. They didn't want to be rock stars who were ticked that the Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops and Priests got all the glory...and then wanted some of that themselves...so they created their own rap Def Jam doctrine. All that bling, baubles, and bricks, were not for them. They instead saw the masses of people being oppressed by a corrupt religious system who only awarded salvation to those who ponied up indulgences to the plate to build St. Peters.
Ironic that the Catholic Church named her finest building St. Peter's is it not? Doctrine, the systematic teaching of the Word of God, are the bricks that God uses to buttress and build our souls. You are the Church...not some building! In coming Posts, I will speak to how "Reformed" has in some ways become "Deformed." As an ex-Catholic, I am only to aware of the theological and practical failings of the faith system of my youth. Yet, as an adult, I am not totally blind as to the flaws in the Reformed faith. That we call it the "Reformed" faith at all is the first clue that we are seriously off-track. And, I am a "rock-head" about this much more than Peter.
"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. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}"
One could say that Peter was the Church's first "rock" star.
Let us start off this blog with a brief "Pop Quiz" (one of those adrenaline stoking tools in a teacher's assessment arsenal...only effective on kids who care about learning and their grade).
Q. Is the Church Jesus is referring to a:
A. (1) Place (2) Thing (3) People
Astute students sometimes can answer a question correctly by looking at the question for clues. The fact that Jesus says that He is going to build "my church" on Peter conclusively points to "people" being the correct answer. I kind of made it easy when I left this reference in: {Peter: this name signifies a rock}" There is another specific English word that should be used for a physical lodging and gathering place (a thing). That word is "building." Although Peter sometimes has rocks in his head, Jesus is not speaking of stacking bodies like bricks to build a church with Peter as the corner-corpse.
Catholics have it right when they say that God did build His church on Peter, not just Peter's faith confession. God is relational and this verse joins together the "Two Great Commandments to Love God and to Love People."
Yet, lest our Roman brethren get a big head--especially the Pope--when he wears an even bigger hat, let us not forget the verse a few inches down in Matthew when Peter gets in his high chair rebuking Jesus of talking of his (Jesus) death where Jesus rebukes Peter back (23)
"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."
Not that I agree with apostolic succession anyway from Peter to Pope. Makes the below doctrine of "ex cathedra" pretty indefensible too:
"The Catholic Church teaches, that Pope/Roman pontiff when he speaks "ex cathedra", that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
It is interesting that the Catholic Dogma would end this definition with "irreformable." Believe you me, that word use is highly intentional. Basically, this states, that the teaching of the Pope, when in his Pope role, is never wrong. Tradition can be "truth" whether it is "True." Many traditions in the Catholic faith have been elevated to doctrine with little or no Biblical support.
With all the talk of the serpent of "Post-Modernism," "Did God really say?" seduction, we seem to be entering another phase in Church History where Biblical teaching is in danger of being subverted under another authority. In the 16th century it was the Pope, now it is the Pop (as in popular culture).
The early Reformers, especially Martin Luther, were very aware of the faith and practice corruptions in the Roman Catholic Church. They were raised Catholics. The best critic is always an insider. Martin Luther was an MVP Monk is there ever was one who strove mightily as a man to be obedient to his Church until he was overwhelmed with the conviction that the Roman Catholic Church herself was no longer faithful to her first love, Jesus Christ. Instead, she was a worldly-woman looking for all of the accoutrements and idols of a lady of means...and was defiled by such pageantries of pride and sinful status.
So, why does this matter today? Let me conclude. The Reformers were not motivated by the dream of having their own Joel Osteen-sized congregation or their own soaring Cathedrals whose spires touched the stars. They didn't want to be rock stars who were ticked that the Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops and Priests got all the glory...and then wanted some of that themselves...so they created their own rap Def Jam doctrine. All that bling, baubles, and bricks, were not for them. They instead saw the masses of people being oppressed by a corrupt religious system who only awarded salvation to those who ponied up indulgences to the plate to build St. Peters.
Ironic that the Catholic Church named her finest building St. Peter's is it not? Doctrine, the systematic teaching of the Word of God, are the bricks that God uses to buttress and build our souls. You are the Church...not some building! In coming Posts, I will speak to how "Reformed" has in some ways become "Deformed." As an ex-Catholic, I am only to aware of the theological and practical failings of the faith system of my youth. Yet, as an adult, I am not totally blind as to the flaws in the Reformed faith. That we call it the "Reformed" faith at all is the first clue that we are seriously off-track. And, I am a "rock-head" about this much more than Peter.
Comments