"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)


  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.


    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook


    Latest Posts



    Ministry Links

  • « A Manifestation of His Glory | Main | The Will is Not Free But In Bondage »

    John Calvin's Letter to Cardinal Sadoleto

    On September 1, 1539, John Calvin countered the Roman Catholic apologetics of his day with his letter to Cardinal Sadoleto. Concerning the doctrine of justification by faith alone Calvin writes:

    You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us. Is this a knotty and useless question? Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown. That doctrine, then, though of the highest moment, we maintain that you have nefariously effaced from the memory of men. Our books are filled with convincing proofs of this fact, and the gross ignorance of this doctrine, which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill founded. But you very maliciously stir up prejudice against us, alleging that, by attributing every thing to faith, we leave no room for works.

    I will not now enter upon a full discussion, which would require a large volume; but if you would look into the Catechism which I myself drew up for the Genevans, when I held the office of Pastor among them, three words would silence you. Here, however, I will briefly explain to you how we speak on this subject.

    First, We bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to sift his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by his obedience, he has wiped off our transgressions; by his sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by his blood, washed away our stains; by his cross, borne our curse; and by his death, made satisfaction for us. We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.

    What have you here, Sadolet, to bite or carp at? Is it that we leave no room for works? Assuredly we do deny that, in justifying a man, they are worth one single straw. For Scripture everywhere cries aloud, that all are lost; and every mans’s own conscience bitterly accuses him. The same Scripture teaches, that no hope is left but in the mere goodness of God, by which sin is pardoned, and righteousness imputed to us. It declares both to be gratuitous, and finally concludes that a man is justified without works, (Rom. iv. 7.) But what notion, you ask, does the very term Righteousness suggest to us, if respect is not paid to good works ? I answer, if you would attend to the true meaning of the term justifying in Scripture, you would have no difficulty. For it does not refer to a man’s own righteousness, but to the mercy of God, which, contrary to the sinner’s deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him, and that by not imputing his unrighteousness. Our righteousness, I say, is that which is described by Paul, (2 Cor. v. 19,) that God both reconciled us to himself in Jesus Christ. The mode is afterwards subjoined -- by not imputing sin. He demonstrates that it is by faith only we become partakers of that blessing, when he says that the ministry of reconciliation is contained in the gospel. But faith, you say, is a general term, and has a larger signification. I answer, that Paul, whenever he attributes to it the power of justifying, at the same time restricts it to a gratuitous promise of the divine favor, and keeps it far removed from all respect to works. Hence his familiar inference -- if by faith, then not by works. On the other hand -- if by works, then not by faith.

    But, it seems, injury is done to Christ, if, under the pretence of his grace, good works are repudiated; he having come to prepare a people acceptable to God, zealous of good works, while, to the same effect, are many similar passages which prove that Christ came in order that we, doing good works, might, through him, be accepted by God. This calumny, which our opponents have ever in their mouths, viz., that we take away the desire of well-doing from the Christian life by recommending gratuitous righteousness, is too frivolous to give us much concern. We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For, if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and, at the same time, Christ never is where his Spirit in not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches, (1 Cor. i. 30,) has been given to us for justification and for sanctification. Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith, which we maintain to be gratuitous, is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life. On the contrary, where zeal for integrity and holiness is not in vigour, there neither is the Spirit of Christ nor Christ himself; and wherever Christ is not, there in no righteousness, nay, there is no faith; for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit of sanctification.

    Since, therefore, according to us, Christ regenerates to a blessed life those whom he justifies, and after rescuing them from the dominion of sin, hands them over to the dominion of righteousness, transforms them into the image of God, and so trains them by his Spirit into obedience to his will, there is no ground to complain that, by our doctrine, lust is left with loosened reins. The passages which you adduce have not a meaning at variance with our doctrine. But if you will pervert them in assailing gratuitous justification, see how unskillfully you argue. Paul elsewhere says (Eph. i. 4) that we were chosen in Christ, before the creation of the world, to be holy and unblameable in the sight of God through love. Who will venture thence to infer, either that election is not gratuitous, or that our love is its cause? Nay, rather, as the end of gratuitous election, so also that of gratuitous justification is, that we may lead pure and unpolluted lives before God. For the saying of Paul is true, (1 Thess. iv. 7,) we have not been called to impurity, but to holiness. This, meanwhile, we constantly maintain, that man is not only justified freely once for all, without any merit of works, but that on this gratuitous justification the salvation of man perpetually depends. Nor is it possible that any work of man can he accepted by God unless it be gratuitously approved. Wherefore, I was amazed when I read your assertion, that love is the first and chief cause of our salvation. O, Sadolet, who could ever have expected such a saying from you? Undoubtedly the very blind, while in darkness, feel the mercy of God too surely to dare to claim for their love the first cause of their salvation, while those who have merely one spark of divine light feel that their salvation consists in nothing else than their being adopted by God. For eternal salvation is the inheritance of the heavenly Father, and has been prepared solely for his children. Moreover, who can assign any other cause of our adoption than that which is uniformly announced in Scripture, viz., that we did not first love him, but were spontaneously received by him into favor and affection?

    Your ignorance of this doctrine leads you on to the error of teaching that sins are expiated by penances and satisfactions. Where, then, will be that one expiatory victim, from which, if we depart, there remains, as Scripture testifies, no more sacrifice for sin? Search through all the divine oracles which we possess; if the blood of Christ alone is uniformly act forth as purchasing satisfaction, reconciliation, and ablution, how dare you presume to transfer so great an honor to your works? Nor have you any ground for ascribing this blasphemy to the Church of God. The ancient Church, I admit, had its satisfactions, not those, however, by which sinners might atone to God and ransom themselves from guilt, but by which they might prove that the repentance which they professed was not feigned, and efface the remembrance of that scandal which their sin had occasioned. For satisfactions were not regularly prescribed to all and sundry, but to those only who had fallen into some heinous wickedness.

    The whole letter can be read here (which would be a very profitable use of time).

    HT: Turretinfan

    Posted by John Samson on May 9, 2012 08:36 AM


    John S:

    Please permit me to respond, as I can only shake my head in disbelief (as a Catholic) at this post.

    First, Mathew 16:18 says, "... you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and netherworld shall not prevail against it."

    Yes, yes, I know, that Protestants like to emphasize, in Greek no less, that Jesus is the "Rock" and Peter a "pebble." Of course, this argument is simply ridiculous since Jesus also called Peter, Cephas, which means "rock." So much for that....

    But I have yet to hear a Protestant address the very next verse which says, "I will give YOU (PETER) the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever YOU (PETER) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU (PETER) loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." ...Interested in your interpretation of this Scriptural passage.

    Surely this refutes any argument of Peter being a "pebble" and establishes that the true Church is founded on Peter (aka:Cephas aka:the "Rock" aka: Catholic Church). It also refutes any arguement about Peter being only a "pebble" since, Peter did not speak Greek, but Aramaic or Hebrew, which doesn't have the same nuanced meaning as in the Greek.

    So whatever way one wishes to approach it, you can not deny, according to Scripture that Peter (aka: Cephas) possesses the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven from Jesus Himself and that Christ Himself founded His Church upon Peter.

    That having been said...

    Where is John Calvin's name in the Bible? Or Luther? Or any of the Reformers? Do these Reformers mean to assert that somehow, Scripture or Jesus is a liar? The Catholic Church somehow failed? Or somehow got it wrong? When excatly, in the writings of Calvin did Jesus open his mind to understanding the Scriptures as He did the Apostles in Scripture?

    Surely, you (Luther, Calvin) are asserting that for about 1,500 years the Catholic Church got it wrong, became corrupted and then God needed to raise up Luther and Calvin to set things straight? (Yep, you make Jesus a liar because the gates of Hell prevailed against the real Church, in directly contradicting Scripture).

    So, let me get this straight....????

    Jesus is a liar, Scripture is wrong...Peter failed, Jesus failed....also this Cardinal....but, Luther and/or Calvin are right? God allowed people (the Church) to be mislead for 1,500 years)??? Not very smart on God's part.

    Rebels....not Reformers, but,....Rebels. Hey, I call it like I see it, according to reason.

    Thanks for your attention.



    The Catholic Church abandoned wholesale its own teaching from Augustine and the Council of Orange.on salvation by grace alone in Christ alone in the early church and have embrace a form of semi-pelagianism. The RCC only continues to hold to Augustine's ecclesiology but it embarrassed by his soteriology which fully agrees with the Bible and the Reformer's teaching.

    Augustine, among many other things, said many things which contradict Trent:

    "In some places God requires newness of heart [Ezek 18:31]. But elsewhere he testifies that it is given by him [Ezek. 11:19; 36:26]. But what God promises we ourselves do not do through choice or nature; but he himself does through grace."- Augustine

    "To will is of nature, but to will aright is of grace." - Augustine

    "The nature of the Divine goodness is not only to open to those who knock. but also to cause them to knock and ask."- Augustine

    "Without the Spirit man's will is not free, since it has been laid under by shackling and conquering desires." - Augustine

    More quotes from Augustine on the effectual nature of grace here:

    IN other words Bob, you are the victim of false propaganda and have embraced the false gospel that denies that salvation is of Christ alone? In your view Christ is NOT SUFFICIENT... i.e. not enough so you must trust partly in your own righteousness. This is a flat out denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ and I adjure you by the Lord to repent and believe in Christ alone for your salvation, apart from which you have NO HOPE.

    Awe man! well boys, Bob got us. He exposed us in one post! Lets pack up our bags and go home :/ Whatever you say Bob. First of all if you going to post something please stay on the subject. Calvin's to letter Sadoleto was on the topic of Justification by faith alone, not whether or not Peter was the first "Pope". Secondly, please do some research Luther and Calivin weren’t the first to preach or teach justification by faith alone that was the Apostle Paul and before him Old Testament Scripture itself. In the New testament you see Justification by faith alone agreed upon by the Apostles at the first Jerusalem counsel (ACTS 15) and guess who was there to agree on this "Justification by Faith alone" issue, that’s right! Peter (aka:Cephas aka:the "Rock" aka: Catholic Church). So my question to you is, what are you doing fighting your first "Pope"? Thirdly, How do you know whether or not Peter spoke Greek? Greek was a pretty popular language in the Roman empire at that time and I'm sure he probably at least understood it. A reference to Greek-speaking Jews is found clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 6:1 certain early Christians in Jerusalem are spoken of as being "Hellenists". Now, this doesn’t prove the Peter spoke Greek but nothing that you or your mother church have said proves that he didn’t either.

    Dear Hector:

    Sorry, but for the Life of me, I couldn't find "faith alone" in Acts 15. In fact, the only place I know of in Scripture where the words "faith alone" appear are in James 2:24, which by the way, completely refutes this erroneous doctrine.

    What I did find in Acts 15 though, is that Paul and Barnabas went to Peter to resolve a dispute...Peter says, "My brothers, you are well aware that from the early days God made His choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe."

    So, I find it hard to understand your claim that "I am fighting against my first Pope." In fact, as a member of the See of Peter, I find myself in complete agreement with the Gospel.

    Paul and Barnabas, also members of the See of Peter, obviously recognized the primacy of Peter, and the authority bestowed on him by God. That's why they went to him.

    Futhermore, unlike Paul and Barnabas, Calvin was not a member of the See of Peter, and obviously did not recognize Peter's God-given authority but rather, prefered to become his own authority and "your first pope."

    Calvin is like one of those found in Acts 15:24: "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind...."

    So you see, the reality of my belief is in accordance with Scripture, while yours is not. The whole question is one of authority. Where did Calvin get his authority? He has none. No mandate from the Church. Peter's (the See of Peter, aka: the Roman Catholic Church) authority comes from God.

    Finally, so you both are saying that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church established on Peter?

    It seems to be very obvious that Bob has already made his mind up and is not asking questions with the idea of wanting answers, but for others that read this blog:

    Regarding Roman Catholic claims regarding history, this article from the archives at is very informative:

    Regarding the subject of the original article, justification by faith alone, Dr. R. C. Sproul in an article entitled Faith and Works writes the following:

    If justification is by faith alone, how can we apply James 2:24, which says a person is justified by what he does, not his faith alone?

    That question is not critical only today, but it was in the eye of the storm we call the Protestant Reformation that swept through and divided the Christian church in the sixteenth century. Martin Luther declared his position: Justification is by faith alone, our works add nothing to our justification whatsoever, and we have no merit to offer God that in any way enhances our justification. This created the worst schism in the history of Christendom.

    In refusing to accept Luther’s view, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated him, then responded to the outbreak of the Protestant movement with a major church council, the Council of Trent, which was part of the so-called Counter-Reformation and took place in the middle of the sixteenth century. The sixth session of Trent, at which the canons and decrees on justification and faith were spelled out, specifically appealed to James 2:24 to rebuke the Protestants who said that they were justified by faith alone: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” How could James say it any more clearly? It would seem that that text would blow Luther out of the water forever.

    Of course, Martin Luther was very much aware that this verse was in the book of James. Luther was reading Romans, where Paul makes it very clear that it’s not through the works of the law that any man is justified and that we are justified by faith and only through faith. What do we have here? Some scholars say we have an irreconcilable conflict between Paul and James, that James was written after Paul, and James tried to correct Paul. Others say that Paul wrote Romans after James and he was trying to correct James.

    I’m convinced that we don’t really have a conflict here. What James is saying is this: If a person says he has faith, but he gives no outward evidence of that faith through righteous works, his faith will not justify him. Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Knox would absolutely agree with James. We are not saved by a profession of faith or by a claim to faith. That faith has to be genuine before the merit of Christ will be imputed to anybody. You can’t just say you have faith. True faith will absolutely and necessarily yield the fruits of obedience and the works of righteousness. Luther was saying that those works don’t add to that person’s justification at the judgment seat of God. But they do justify his claim to faith before the eyes of man. James is saying, not that a man is justified before God by his works, but that his claim to faith is shown to be genuine as he demonstrates the evidence of that claim of faith through his works.

    Further along this line, the following is a quotation from R. C. Sproul - Knowing Scripture; InterVasity Press, p. 83, 84

    "In Romans 3:28 Paul says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." In James 2:24 we read, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." If the word justify means the same thing in both cases, we have an irreconcilable contradiction between two biblical writers on an issue that concerns our eternal destinies. Luther called justification by faith "the article upon which the church stands or falls."

    The meaning of justification and the question of how it takes place is no mere trifle. Yet Paul says it is by faith apart from works, and James says it is by works and not by faith alone.

    To make matters more difficult, Paul insists in Romans 4 that Abraham is justified when he believes the promise of God before he is circumcised. He has Abraham justified in Genesis 15. James says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" (James 2:21). James does not have Abraham justified until Genesis 22.

    This question of justification is easily resolved if we examine the possible meanings of the term justify and apply them within the context of the respective passages. The term justify may mean (1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of his law or (2) to demonstrate or vindicate.

    Jesus says for example, "Wisdom is justified of all her children" (Lk 7:35 KJV). What does he mean? Does he mean that wisdom is restored to fellowship with God and saved from his wrath? Obviously not. The plain meaning of his words is that a wise act produces good fruit. The claim to wisdom is vindicated by the result. A wise decision is shown to be wise by its results. Jesus is speaking in practical terms, not theological terms, when he uses the word justified in this way.

    How does Paul use the word in Romans 3? Here, there is no dispute. Paul is clearly speaking about justification in the ultimate theological sense.

    What about James? If we examine the context of James, we will see that he is dealing with a different question from Paul. James says in 2:14, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" James is raising a question of what kind of faith is necessary for salvation. He is saying that true faith brings forth works. A faith without works he calls a dead faith, a faith that is not genuine. The point is that people can say they have faith when in fact they have no faith. The claim to faith is vindicated or justified when it is manifested by the fruit of faith, namely works. Abraham is justified or vindicated in our sight by his fruit. In a sense, Abraham's claim to justification is justified by his works. The Reformers understood that when they stated the formula, "Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.""

    Again you’re going off subject;

    Bob, the simple truth is, you don’t see it (Faith alone) because you don’t want to see. The very first verse of Acts chapter 15, “Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” The men from Judea were teaching a Faith + Works = Salvation gospel. How do you not see it? It is even repeated in verse 5 just to confirm that what they had taught was erroneous. In verse 9, The Apostle Peter states clearly that God is “cleansing their hearts by faith”. Peter never added the terms of salvific works to the equation of Salvation because Salvation is as he said “By Faith”. If your next argument is going to be that the word “Alone” doesn’t appear in this verse your right, but it is definitely implied since works of tradition weren’t included as a requirement for salvation by neither Peter nor Paul. On a side note, the word “Pope”, “Trinity”, “monk” or “rosary” are never mentioned in scripture either but you do believe in them don’t you?
    “Faith alone” is implied not only here but in verse 1 and 5 but also before Peter’s proclamation in Acts 13:38-39 by Paul, “forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things”. Paul never added anything other than Faith to be “freed from all things” hence we arrive at “faith alone”. This proclamation is the exact reason for the Jerusalem Counsel, to discuss whether or not the gospel that Paul was preaching (Salvation by Faith alone) was the true message of the gospel. Galatians chapter 2 clearly recounts what happened at that Counsel. In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul out right opposed Peter, your supposed “Rock and foundation of your church” for allowing the Judaizers to preach their erroneous message of (Faith + Works of law + traditions = Salvation). Now, let me use your own logic against you here and ask you, Did God set someone like Peter up to be the “foundation of the Church” who couldn’t even at first recognize the false gospel of the Judaizers? and was also too afraid to stand against it? Of course not, God has established Christ as the head of his Church not a fallible man that sits on a throne made by men, in a city/state made by men (Act 17:24-25). Christ is the head of his church and his own words are the superseding authority of HIS church (Col 1:18; Eph. 1:22). His gospel has never changed and that gospel is as Galatians 2: 16 states “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” See Bob, he whole question is not one of “authority” as you say, but is as the original post states is “Justification by Faith Alone”? to which the scriptures says YES!.
    Let me leave you with some things to think about:
    There’s no archeological or historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.
    01- The Bible gives a reason why there’s no archeological or historical evidence that peter was ever in Rome. In Romans 15:20, the Apostle Paul says that he aspired “to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation.” Had Peter been in Rome, then Paul would not have evangelized there since Paul said he didn’t want to build on another man’s foundation.
    02- Paul greets a myriad of people in Romans chapter 16, yet makes absolutely no mention of Saint Peter. If Peter was the pope or “head of the church” in Rome, this would be a grievous oversight/omission on Paul’s part.
    03- Paul greets ten people in Rome throughout his letter known as 2 Timothy; none of them are Peter.
    04- When mentioning the pillars of the Church (not the heads as Christ is the only head of the Church), the Apostle Paul mentions Peter before John, but after James (Galatians 2:9). Is this any way for a pope to be recognized?
    05- Peter was never called to preach to the Gentiles (which would have been those in Rome). Peter was entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised, the Jews. (Galatians 2:7-8).
    06- There’s no mention in Scripture of Peter being the head of the Church in Rome. He wasn’t even the head of the Church in Jerusalem; James was. (Galatians 2 & Acts 15).
    07- Peter never considered himself the head of the Church (i.e. the pope). In the introduction of his letter (1 Peter 1:1), he simply calls himself “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Notice he did not call himself the apostle, pope, or even “head of the church.” And he didn’t even refer to himself with the name “holy father” (a title ascribed to popes).
    08- Peter further clarified his view of himself when he referred to himself as a “fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). He equated himself on the same level as the others he was writing his letter to.
    09- Who was calling the shots? Scripture reveals that it was not Peter, the supposed “head of the Church.” He was being told what to do by the elders of the Church (Acts 8:14). Shouldn’t the “head of the Church” be the one giving instruction and direction? See additional examples of the leaders and elders of the church giving directions, not Peter, in Acts 11:22, Acts 15:22-27, Acts 21:18, and Acts 21:23-24.
    09- The Apostle Paul opposed Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11) because Peter “stood condemned.” Hardly the thing for someone to do to a pope, the supposed Roman Catholic “head of the Church.”
    10- Jesus called Peter “Satan,” and said that he was a stumbling block to Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23). Is this any way to talk to a pope?
    11- Peter acted cowardly and denied the Lord Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). Is this any way for a pope to act?
    12- The history of the early Church as accounted in the book of Acts makes absolutely no mention of Peter after chapter 15. For someone who is supposed to be the “head of the church” and the first pope, you’d think there’d be more mention of him in this inspired book of early Church history.
    13- And finally, Peter was a married man (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:29-31, Luke 4:38-39 & 1 Corinthians 9:5), something a pope could not be.

    Christ did not build a church on Peter ! It was the revelation that Peter Got From God that he built his church. You to can have that revelation and the keys to the mysteries of heaven and you to can bind on earth ext. But the Church is not built on Peter it is built on Christ. That makes the Catholic Church a Fake Church or deception of the last days or the Beast.

    Bob, you're a block head.

    Bob, you're a block head.

    I laugh at all of you because, you swim in ignorance... the only thing I will recommend you guys for is that you are good at interpreting the bible to suit what you want, what we call in Greek exegomai, instead of understanding the scripture as it is, exegesis... I hope you don't all perish for lack of knowledge...


    You make great accusations without even a shred of evidence. Is not this true ignorance?

    For the sake of argument, let's say Peter was assighned to be the head of the church. However, history tells us plainlly why Luther and others before him and aftert saw a need for reformation in a corrupt system. I don't need to tick off the multitude of non-biblical addistions were added to the church that had no biblical basis. In fact, Jesus didn't tell Peter, or anyone else, there would be others taking on the role of "father"(papa/pope) after him. (Matt. 23:9)

    However, to be honest, even within the Protestant movement there were those who saw a need for reform within the Reformation. Some leaders still carrying over or adding to things that were not biblical, but man's tradition.

    Dear Bob,
    Jesus did not say, "and on you, Peter, will I build my church. He said, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church," Look at the context. He's referring to Peter's confession when asked "who do you say I am?" By the Spirit of God Peter said, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". This is the rock Jesus was referring to and that His church is built upon! That is obvious from a preponderance of scripture and human experience. The church is not built on any human being, even an apostle (see the Apostle Paul's argument over divisions in the church), and they, including Peter, would be the first to tell you that! The church is built on Jesus Christ and the Gospel of Grace, which the Holy Scriptures support overwhelmingly! This argument, although important, is irrelevant to this debate.
    Just as the Apostle Paul told the Jews that physical circumcision means nothing, what matters is circumcision of the heart, the Roman Catholic Church has left the heart of Peter and His faith in Christ alone.

    Dear Bob,
    Jesus did not say, "and on you, Peter, will I build my church. He said, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church," Look at the context. He's referring to Peter's confession when asked "who do you say I am?" By the Spirit of God Peter said, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". This is the rock Jesus was referring to and that His church is built upon! That is obvious from a preponderance of scripture and human experience. The church is not built on any human being, even an apostle (see the Apostle Paul's argument over divisions in the church), and they, including Peter, would be the first to tell you that! The church is built on Jesus Christ and the Gospel of Grace, which the Holy Scriptures support overwhelmingly! This argument, although important, is irrelevant to this debate.
    Just as the Apostle Paul told the Jews that physical circumcision means nothing, what matters is circumcision of the heart, the Roman Catholic Church has left the heart of Peter and His faith in Christ alone.

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "y" in the field below: