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