I am studying for my exam history of the middle ages. What I think is very strange is that the Catholic church in Europe was very dominant. Now i was thinking to myself, was this church ever God s church? I mean, almost all the Europeans were Catholics. I am struggling with an issue now about some things Jesus said to Peter:

Seventh-day Adventists contend that the idea of Peter being the first Pope is based on a misinterpretation. Evidence is as follows: "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:"
In this passage, the Greek word for rock is 'petra', which means a large foundation type rock on which a house would be built. The foundation symbolizes the sayings of Jesus.

This controversial discussion between Jesus and Peter is found in .

Jesus asks his disciples what people were saying about him, and when he asked their personal opinion, Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answering, said: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"

The Greek word for Peter is 'petros', which they interpret as a small stone, such as are used in the construction of buildings, such as a church. A 'petros' is a stone that can be moved around in contrast to an immovable foundation stone (petra). The word, 'petra', is again used here in the phrase: "upon this rock."

This contrast points out that Peter was in need of a firm foundation to gain a sense of stability, as Peter was noted for his great zeal, but instability:


In Peter went out to walk on water, but then sank because of doubt.
In and Peter dramatically swears that he will not deny his Lord even on pain of death, but he denied Jesus with cursing and swearing.
, , , are a few examples of Peter being the first to answer.
Peter jumping into the water to meet his Lord.
The statement: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" represents the "testimony of Jesus", which is the foundation of the Christian faith. This is the stone foundation (petra) upon which Jesus built His church. Not Peter, but the testimony that Peter gave.

Peter's acts are recorded in all of the gospels, and the book of Acts, and his writings were included in the bible, and are used by Christians today. In this sense Peter was used in the building of the Lord's church, as a small stone (petros) would be used.

Furthermore, the idea of making a single man the whole foundation of the church would go against the principle taught in although in Jesus clearly tells "The Beloved Disciple" to feed and tend his sheep, and the ability to loose and bind is given to every disciple of Christ. ()

Personally i think it would be strange to give so much authority in the hands of just one man, Jesus Christ should be our only true authority. However i cannot deny the fact that it SEEMS like Jesus supports the Catholic church in this verse, but i geuss that is just the subtility of the snake.

HEY TRUTHSEEKER007
there seems to beb to questions here what is Peters
role in the church and was the catholic church good.

I guess we could all speculate about the beginnings
of the catholic church as to whether it started out
good as a church of GOD.

I am sure that as the church started that is wanted to
do GOD'S WILL. AND I am sure that many of the priests were
very sincere and GODLY men. Also I am sure that the
missionaries did good things for th people.
but like any organizations if left to human beings alone
it will become corrupt and then a power grab will begin.

as for Peter's role in the church I AGREE with you why
would Jesus put a man in charge when HE(JESUS) was to be
the only way to GOD THE FATHER.

just some throughts

dgrimm60

If you're not already familiar with it, please check out the book The Great Controversy, especially the first for or five chapters. It answers most of your questions.

http://www.ellengwhite.org/ It's under Online books.

The argument you mention is all based on the assumption that Peter was the first pope and that he was a leader of the church in Rome. The fact is there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome or that he was ever a bishop there.

Even if Peter had been in Rome, there is no Bible evidence that authority of that nature is to be passed from one individual to another, despite all other conditions, such as whether a leader is in apostasy or rebellion against truth or not. It's the Holy Spirit and obedience and proclamation to the gospel that constitutes the church, not the mere fact of being in direct line to Peter.

I would certainly not deny that at some time in history, the Catholic Church was a good church. Most Christians at one time identified themselves as members of that church. And even today there are many good and sincere Christians who are Catholics. It's the system, especially the Papal system, and many of its doctrines, that are opposed to Christ.

It's important to remember that the Bible itself predicted that the church would experience apostasy. This "falling away from truth" had its beginning even before the apostles died, but once they died, the falling away began in earnest. For instance, by the end of the second century, the church at Alexandria had already accepted Infant Baptism, and about the same time, Sunday worship in place of the Sabbath. Those things came in despite the fact there is no Bible support for them, but they came in because people stopped insisting on a "thus saith the Lord" and were satisfied with church tradition. False doctrine enters the church very subtly and very gradually.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

Surely all the Greek scholars on the forum will help out here. Isn't Jesus speaking of Himself as the Rock upon which His church will be built?

In Matt. 16: 18, Jesus, speaking to Peter, says, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros, a detached stone), but upon this rock (i.e., Jesus Christ, who is petra, bedrock, foundation) I shall build My church, and the gates of hades will not overcome it."

Other Bible verses make it plain that Jesus is the chief corner-stone and foundation upon which the church is built. See 1 Peter 2: 7; Eph. 2: 20.



Regards.
"John 3: 17"

Thanks everybody, i ve just red the first 5 chapters of Ellen White and they indeed talk about the same things I have to know about my exam. But what I think is a little bit strange is the following thing: In the first centuries there were many miracles that convinced the people. There were many stories of people getting healed by relics etc. This must have been the deceptive power of satan. But what bothers me is the fact that i believe that every human being on this planet should have an equal chance to learn the truth, so they can repent and live a holy life. This is one of the main arguments of dawkins, religion is mostly determined by the place where you were born. Now i know that the bible says that the clay cannot debate with the creator but i can t help questioning whether this is fair? If this is not fair and the price of sin that the world has to pay, we should even harder try to spread the gospel to the whole world.

Satan’s rebellion against God in heaven was, in reality, a rebellion against God’s agape love, which was the principle underlying the law [see Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:13, 14]. Lucifer found the idea that love (agape) “is not self-seeking” [1 Conthians 13:5] too restrictive. He rebelled and introduced the principle of self-love or eros [see Ezekiel 28:15; Isaiah 14:12-14]. Ever since his fall, Satan has hated the concept of self-sacrificing love. When God restored this principle to the human race through the preaching of the gospel, Satan naturally fought against it with all his might [see Revelation 12:10-12]. The very first thing he attacked in the Christian church was not the Sabbath or the state of the dead. His onslaughts against these truths came later, but he focused first on the concept of God’s agape love.

That argument will hold no water in the light of what Paul says in Rom 1. In the jusgment no one will be able to plead with any excuses such as one's place of birth, ethnicity, education, or whatever, "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened...." Rom 1:19-21 NIV.

Furthermore, everyman that comes into this world is provided with with a certain amount of light, "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world." Jn 1:9 NIV

Gerry

There is no such a thing as trial for believers. The trial was done, humanity fwas found guilty and sentenced to eternal death, and Jesus died the eternal death on behalf of humanity, Heb.2.9.

Thos who will perish will have ultimately and consciously refused Jesus.

David

Dear Friend,

I like what you are saying, but I wish to advise that we adventist should stop usinbg ellen white books to hundle biblical issues. She is not an interpreter of scripture, and she lacks moral authority to do so. The misuse of her books has led to many our members to be robbed of the joy of salvation.

How can we keep on teaching lies about 1844? God has accomplished his work for mankind and if he ever entrusted any thing to man, he did to each man.
David

Yes, Jesus is speaking of himself as the Petra- massinve fountaion rock. Not to of simon.
David

I agree with this whole heartedly...Stick with the bible...while she does give insights, and she gives permission to use the insights, that does not necessarily mean for us to stop using our imaginations, sanctified with our bibles, to proclaim the Gospel message.

Some good points Gerry.

You know ... it takes little ... VERY little knowledge or even NO knowledge to be saved.

This does not diminish the need to study. It just puts study in its place.

Hi David. And welcome. I may not agree with much of what you have said. No problem. But what you have said here is true. And Ellen White would not disagree with you. She never claimed this. And she has already turned over in her grave ... over and over and over again at the misuse of her writings. So, I would say that many here are in agreement on what you have said here.

However ... many of us can find some encouragement from her writings or at least SOME of her writings ... if we look hard enough. And it is OK that we have to over look some things to find the good things. Her writings have cultural messages that were not intended for our edification. SO ... when you study her ... just skip over the parts that don't help you. I would say ... just toss them out ... but the true blue followers object to that language. Either way ... if you look ... you can find blessings just as you would with any Christian author.

However ... if you are not a "weak" Christian then you could always go directly to the Bible. For Ellen White said the purpose of her writings were to just POINT people to the Bible.

Do you believe that the SDA church and Ellen White taught and teach lies about 1844? What do you believe those "lies" to be?

The SDA doctrine on 1844, the heavenly sanctuary, and the Third Angels Messages don't rely on Ellen White alone. Those teachings are based squarely on the testimony of Scripture. See, for instance, http://investigativejudgmentgospel.org/ This is a fairly new book which shows the Bible evidence for the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.

If those are/were lies, then the SDA church is a lie and our message is a lie, because without 1844, our church and our message wouldn't even exist, and we have no justification for existing as a distinct movement or denomination.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

Of course we should study the Bible and base our doctrines it. But anyone who thinks that Ellen White teaches that we should not study her writings and accept them as the truth doesn't know Ellen White's writings. Either she is a false prophet and a liar, or she is a true prophet and someone we need to take seriously. For instance, see 1 SM 24-48.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

When I go fishing, I go to catch fish....

When I agree with someone, I want them to know what I agree with....

When I disagree with someone, I don't usually go fishing....

Here is what my Bible says:

1. "For we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ..." 2 Cor 5:10 NIV; cf Rom 14:10
2. "Each of us will give an account of himself to God." Rom 14:12 NIV
3. Judgment begins in God's house, 1 Pet 4:17.
4. This is necessary because not all professed believers who say, "Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven." Mt 7:21 NIV.
5. The gospel net brings in both good and bad fish, so He has to separate them, Mt 13:47. He has to separate by a judgment process the sheep from the goats, the foolish virgins who have the lamp but no oil from the wise who have both, Mt 25, the chaff from the wheat, Mt 3:12; separate by a judgment process the wheat from the tares, Mt 13, the fools who hear the Word but do not build on it but rather on sand from those who do, Mt 7.
6. The assurance for true believers is that there will be NO CONDEMNATION, i.e. judgment against them, Rom 8:1, judgment will be made in their favor, Dan 7:22.

Gerry

I find no justification for such a statement. I happen to believe in the message. But it is just a message.

The reason for our church is the Gospel. The simple message of the Gospel. We do not stand on just one small doctrine alone. We stand on the life and sacrificial death of Christ.

That is what this church stands on. Doctines are made by man. I would not place a lot of puffed up importance on a single doctrine ... unless it would be the doctrine of LOVE.

She said we would not need her writings if we studied the Bible as we should.

Good Point Neil ...

Just clarifying.....

I remember her saying that we wouldn't need The Testomonies if we studied the bible as we should...I remember her saying that she is the lesser light pointing to the greater light....

Um, don't recall her saying that we would not need her writings if we studied the bible as we should........?

ALL doctrines are made by man? Yes, there are many man-made doctrines that are being palmed off as commandments of God, Mt 15:9, but "If any one chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching [didaskalia=doctrine] comes from God or whether I speak on my own." Jn 7:17 NIV.

Jesus gave a command to teach [disdasko], indoctrinate everyone who is willing to listen to what he taught, i.e. what He taught as doctrine.

Gerry

She wrote more than just the Testimonies.

Gerry

Her entire purpose was not to add to scripture but to point people TO scripture.