Forum Iman Kristen

Diskusi Tanya Jawab => Diskusi Kristen => Started by: Phooey on April 25, 2014, 08:45:46 AM

Title: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on April 25, 2014, 08:45:46 AM

DIALOG KUNCI KERAJAAN SURGA /Allah

T (tanya) : Apakah maksudnya kunci Kerajaan Surga / Allah ?

J (jawab) : “Kunci” berfungsi membuka dan mengunci,juga bisa diartikan melepas dan mengikat secara rohani kalau menyangkut keselamatan manusia.

T : Bisa dijelaskan fungsi mengikat dan melepaskan ?

J :  Semua manusia tanpa kecuali sudah berdosa (Roma 5:12) dan terikat serta menjadi budak  kuasa dosa oleh si Iblis  (Mat.12:29 ; Roma 3:9) dan hanya darah Yesus Kristus yang bisa “melepaskan” ikatan dosa mereka (1 Yoh.1:7). Selain untuk melepaskan dari ikatan kuasa dosa maka makna “kunci” tsb juga bersifat “mengikat” manusia yang sudah selamat menjadi hamba Kristus,karena mereka sudah menjadi milik Kristus (Roma 1:6 ; 6:11 ; 1 Kor.4:1).

T : Apakah tujuan pemberian kunci ?

J : Ingat yang diberikan adalah kunci untuk “Kerajaan Sorga / Allah” jadi kunci disini hanya merupakan alat untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah.

T : Bagaimana syaratnya untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah itu ?

J : Tuhan Yesus mengatakan : "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan kembali, ia tidak dapat melihat Kerajaan Allah.” (Yoh.3:3)

T : Bagaimana caranya orang bisa dilahirkan kembali ?

J : Syarat utama ia harus memiliki iman keselamatan berdasarkan anugerah Allah,karena tanpa iman tidak ada yang berkenan bagi Allah (Ibr.11:6)

T : Bagaimana manusia bisa memperoleh anugerah iman itu ?

J : Firman Tuhan berkata : “Jadi, iman timbul dari pendengaran, dan pendengaran oleh firman Kristus “ (Roma 10:17)

T : Jadi apa kaitannya kunci dengan firman Kristus ?

J : Firman Tuhan berkata : “ Tetapi bagaimana mereka dapat berseru kepada-Nya, jika mereka tidak percaya kepada Dia? Bagaimana mereka dapat percaya kepada Dia, jika mereka tidak mendengar tentang Dia. Bagaimana mereka mendengar tentang Dia, jika tidak ada yang memberitakan-Nya? Dan bagaimana mereka dapat memberitakan-Nya, jika mereka tidak diutus? Seperti ada tertulis: "Betapa indahnya kedatangan mereka yang membawa kabar baik!” (Roma 10:14,15).

T : Jadi mereka inilah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan itu ya ?

J : Memang demikian buktinya pertama kalinya Petrus dan Yohanes sudah membuka jalan penginjilan kepada bangsa Yahudi (Kis.2) dan bangsa bangsa lain ( Kis.8:14 ; Kis.10).

T : Jadi kunci Kerajaan Surga /Allah itu dapat diartikan sebagai pemberitaan Firman  keselamatan bagi semua manusia yang sudah berdosa ?

J : Memang demikian sebab pemberian kunci tsb bersifat “declarative” bukan
“ jurisdictional” sebab hanya Yesus Kristus saja satu satunya Hakim Agung kita kelak.

T : Apa kaitannya kunci yang melepas dan mengikat itu itu diberikan kepada para Rasul ?

J : Ya..itu tentunya berkaitan dengan “otoritas” mereka sebagai Rasul yaitu orang orang yang dipilih dan diangkat sendiri oleh Yesus sebagai Rasul yang menjadi saksi hidup yang sejaman dengan Dia,mendengar langsung dari-Nya dan yang berhak menerima dan menulis wahyu Tuhan berdasarkan inspirasi Roh Kudus (1 Yoh.1:1).

T : Jadi kalau ada gereja yang membuat ajaran baru yang bertentangan dengan kebenaran dari semua wahyu Tuhan yang diajarkan dan ditulis oleh para Rasul bagaimana ?

J : Itu sih bukan gereja Kristus karena Kitab Suci sudah memperingatkan : “Karena akan datang waktunya, orang tidak dapat lagi menerima ajaran sehat, tetapi mereka akan mengumpulkan guru-guru menurut kehendaknya untuk memuaskan keinginan telinganya. Mereka akan memalingkan telinganya dari kebenaran dan membukanya bagi dongeng.” (2 Tim.4:3,4).

T : Apa maksudnya ajaran dongeng itu ?

J : Artinya banyak ajaran yang hanya dongengan penuh isapan jempol belaka (2 Pet.2:3) misalnya arwah manusia yang bisa pulang pergi mengelilingi dunia dan mengaku datang dari Sorga dan bisa menyelamatkan manusia ; manusia yang merasa dirinya seperti Tuhan yang tidak mungkin salah ; air dan roti bisa benar benar langsung berubah menjadi darah dan daging kalau dimakan ; dosa bisa dikurangi kalau membeli kertas surat tertentu,manusia biasa bisa ikut menebus dosa dan ikut ikutan sebagai pengantara keselamatan,... dll.

T : Gereja seperti ini apakah masih bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah ?

J : Kalau tidak segera bertobat dari pembelokan ajaran lurus dari para Rasul tsb,maka hanya tempat dimana kerajaan si Iblis ada didalamnya saja mereka ini akan masuk kelak (Mat.25:41 ; Yoh.8:44).

T : Walah...walah....amit ...amit !

J : Kitab Suci sudah memperingatkan : “...dan berkata: "Hai anak Iblis, engkau penuh dengan rupa-rupa tipu muslihat dan kejahatan, engkau musuh segala kebenaran, tidakkah engkau akan berhenti membelokkan Jalan Tuhan yang lurus itu.” (Kis.13:10).

T : Tapi...tapi ... mereka ini kan orang yang beragama dan mengaku percaya Yesus juga ?

J : Tuhan Yesus sudah berkata : “ Pada hari terakhir banyak orang akan berseru kepada-Ku: Tuhan, Tuhan, bukankah kami bernubuat demi nama-Mu, dan mengusir setan demi nama-Mu, dan mengadakan banyak mujizat demi nama-Mu juga? Pada waktu itulah Aku akan berterus terang kepada mereka dan berkata: Aku tidak pernah mengenal kamu! Enyahlah dari pada-Ku, kamu sekalian pembuat kejahatan!” (Mat.7:22,23).

T: Katanya gereja Roma katolik adalah warisan atau suksesi  dari Rasul Petrus ?

J : Yang diwariskan oleh GRK sama sekali bukan ajaran Petrus melainkan perbuatan munafik yang diperbuat Petrus semasa hidupnya,karena dimulut mengatakan GRK menggunakan Alkitab sebagai salah satu pilar gereja tetapi semua praktek dan tradisinya anti kebenaran Alkitab sebagaimana Petrus yg mengaku mau membela Yesus dengan nyawanya tetapi pernah menyangkalinya juga sampai 3 kali. Dia juga ditentang oleh Paulus karena kemunafikannya didalam Galatia 2:11.

T : Jadi GRK masih memegang tradisi seperti bangsa Yahudi ?

J : Sebagaimana dahulu bangsa Yahudi menentang semua ajaran Yesus karena membela dgn kukuhnya tradisi yang bertentangan dengan kebenaran Kitab Suci,dan sampai sekarang tidak mau melepaskan tradisinya walau sudah dicela dan diungkapkan dimana kesalahannya oleh Yesus - begitu juga dengan GRK yang sampai sekarang tetap memegang teguh semua tradisi anti Alkitabnya,walau dimulut mengaku masih memakai Alkitab sebagai pilar. Inilah salah satu contoh warisan kemunafikan gereja itu.

Quote
18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya.
19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."
(Mat 16:18-19 ITB)

Tanya jawab kunci kerajaan Surga menurut Mr. Soli.

Bagaimana pendapat teman2....

 :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 25, 2014, 09:00:50 AM
Orang kurang waras koq ditanggapi, om?

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on April 25, 2014, 09:12:21 AM
Orang kurang waras koq ditanggapi, om?

Anggap saja anak hilang kembali.
Supaya malaikat di surga bersuka cita

hehehehe   :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 25, 2014, 09:57:37 AM
Anggap saja anak hilang kembali.
Supaya malaikat di surga bersuka cita

hehehehe   :D

Kalau sudah sembuh bolehlah dibawa pulang.
Kalau masih sakit parah gitu.....

 :idiot:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 25, 2014, 05:40:58 PM
Orang kurang waras koq ditanggapi, om?


Orang yg tidak waras alias gila itu gejalanya selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

G ayanya sok tahu
I sinya tong kosong yang nyaring bunyinya
L agaknya sok waras
A khirnya yang kelihatan ketidakwarasan dan kemunafikannya

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 25, 2014, 05:41:48 PM
Tanya jawab kunci kerajaan Surga menurut Mr. Soli.

Bagaimana pendapat teman2....

 :D


Mana bantahannya kok nunggu yang lain ???

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 25, 2014, 08:01:50 PM
Orang yg tidak waras alias gila itu gejalanya selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

G ayanya sok tahu
I sinya tong kosong yang nyaring bunyinya
L agaknya sok waras
A khirnya yang kelihatan ketidakwarasan dan kemunafikannya

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: St Yopi on April 25, 2014, 10:10:26 PM
Mana bantahannya kok nunggu yang lain ???
Apakah tanya jawab itu terjadi juga ketika Yesus menyerahkan Kunci Sorga kepada Petrus?

Kalau iya, dimanakah kami menemukan tanya jawab tersebut antara Yesus dan Petrus didalam Alkitab?

Kalau tidak, siapa yang mengarang dongeng tersebut?

Salam
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on April 26, 2014, 06:22:06 AM

Mana bantahannya kok nunggu yang lain ???

Males njawab saja. Biar temen2 lain saja yang jawab
Kan tanya jawab diatas berdasarkan eisegesis anda sendiri.
Alkitab disetir berdasarkan kepentingan anda.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on April 26, 2014, 04:24:21 PM
Tanya jawab kunci kerajaan Surga menurut Mr. Soli.

Bagaimana pendapat teman2....

 :D
Apa yang perlu dipendapati?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on April 27, 2014, 04:46:37 PM
Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."

Quote
T (tanya) : Apakah maksudnya kunci Kerajaan Surga / Allah ?

J (jawab) : “Kunci” berfungsi membuka dan mengunci,juga bisa diartikan melepas dan mengikat secara rohani kalau menyangkut keselamatan manusia.
Nggak. Ayat bilang di dunia, jadi itu mengikat secara duniawi ... BUKAN rohani.

Quote
T : Bisa dijelaskan fungsi mengikat dan melepaskan ?
Kunci yang diberikan itu bukan kunci, melainkan otoritas. Apa yang Petrus ajarkan di dunia maka itu terikat di sorga. Apa yang Petrus tidak ajarkan ataupun Petrus "buang" ajaran dunia yg ada - maka itu juga "dibuang" di sorga.

Quote
T : Apakah tujuan pemberian kunci ?

J : Ingat yang diberikan adalah kunci untuk “Kerajaan Sorga / Allah” jadi kunci disini hanya merupakan alat untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah.
Kunci itu bukan kunci. Dan kalo mao maksa bilang bhw kunci itu alat untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga, maka saya rasa adalah tidak pantas menggunakan kata "hanya". Tujuan pemberian kunci adalah adanya keseragaman.

Quote
T : Bagaimana syaratnya untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah itu ?

J : Tuhan Yesus mengatakan : "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan kembali, ia tidak dapat melihat Kerajaan Allah.” (Yoh.3:3)
Silahkan di search di AO. Hasil searchnya bukan hanya ayat Yohanes 3:3 tsb.

Quote
T : Jadi apa kaitannya kunci dengan firman Kristus ?

J : Firman Tuhan berkata : “ Tetapi bagaimana mereka dapat berseru kepada-Nya, jika mereka tidak percaya kepada Dia? Bagaimana mereka dapat percaya kepada Dia, jika mereka tidak mendengar tentang Dia. Bagaimana mereka mendengar tentang Dia, jika tidak ada yang memberitakan-Nya? Dan bagaimana mereka dapat memberitakan-Nya, jika mereka tidak diutus? Seperti ada tertulis: "Betapa indahnya kedatangan mereka yang membawa kabar baik!” (Roma 10:14,15).
Nggak. Jawaban diatas nggak ada kaitan dgn pertanyaan-nya sehubungan dengan ayat ttg "kunci Kerajaan Sorga" yg diberikan ke Petrus.

Tidak ada kaitannya antara kunci dengan Firman Kristus.
"Kunci" di ayat tsb = otoritas.
Ibarat kata kalo di jaman tsb Petrus bilang : "boleh aborsi" ---> maka ini dilepas didalam Kerajaan Sorga.
Kalo Petrus bilang : "tidak boleh melakukan aborsi" ---> maka ini diikat didalam Kerajaan Sorga.

Quote
T : Jadi mereka inilah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan itu ya ?

J : Memang demikian buktinya pertama kalinya Petrus dan Yohanes sudah membuka jalan penginjilan kepada bangsa Yahudi (Kis.2) dan bangsa bangsa lain ( Kis.8:14 ; Kis.10).
OOT. Pertanyaan dan jawaban di quote ini gak ada hubungannya ama "kunci" :D.

Quote
T : Apa kaitannya kunci yang melepas dan mengikat itu itu diberikan kepada para Rasul ?

J : Ya..itu tentunya berkaitan dengan “otoritas” mereka sebagai Rasul yaitu orang orang yang dipilih dan diangkat sendiri oleh Yesus sebagai Rasul
Bukan "mereka", tapi hanya Petrus.

Quote
T : Jadi kalau ada gereja yang membuat ajaran baru yang bertentangan dengan kebenaran dari semua wahyu Tuhan yang diajarkan dan ditulis oleh para Rasul bagaimana ?

J : Itu sih bukan gereja Kristus karena Kitab Suci sudah memperingatkan
Sekali lagi, "kunci" disitu = otoritas. Ajaran "baru" itu bisa bersifat dinamis sesuai sikon, jaman, dlsb ... DAN nggak ada hubungannya dgn kebenaran dari semua wahyu Tuhan melainkan sehubungan hal2 duniawi.

Kalo DULU, gereja nggak mungkin bisa ada bilang "dilarang nonton bokep" .... tapi SEKARANG kalo gereja bilang "jangan nonton bokep" ---> maka ini "diikat" di Kerajaan Sorga.

Quote
T : Apa maksudnya ajaran dongeng itu ?

J : Artinya banyak ajaran yang hanya dongengan penuh isapan jempol belaka (2 Pet.2:3) misalnya arwah manusia yang bisa pulang pergi mengelilingi dunia dan mengaku datang dari Sorga dan bisa menyelamatkan manusia ; manusia yang merasa dirinya seperti Tuhan yang tidak mungkin salah ; air dan roti bisa benar benar langsung berubah menjadi darah dan daging kalau dimakan ; dosa bisa dikurangi kalau membeli kertas surat tertentu,manusia biasa bisa ikut menebus dosa dan ikut ikutan sebagai pengantara keselamatan,... dll.
Sudah tak jelasin diatas ... "otoritas" itu bersifat dinamis. "Deklarasi" gereja yg mana yg boleh/harus/bisa dilakukan = begitu jugalah di Kerajaan Sorga. "Deklarasi" gereja yg mana yg tidak boleh/tidak harus/tidak bisa dilakukan = begitu jugalah di Kerajaan Sorga. Dan ini tidak sertamerta artinya pasti tidak berubah.

Quote
T : Gereja seperti ini apakah masih bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah ?

J : Kalau tidak segera bertobat dari pembelokan ajaran lurus dari para Rasul tsb,maka hanya tempat dimana kerajaan si Iblis ada didalamnya saja mereka ini akan masuk kelak (Mat.25:41 ; Yoh.8:44).
OOT lagi. "Kunci" di ayat ybs bukan lagi ngomongin sebuah alat / kunci utk membuka pintu Kerajaan Sorga sehingga tinggal ceklek! buka pintu lalu masuk Sorga dgn lenggang-kangkung. :D. Ada banyak faktor2 lain namun yg pasti cuma ada satu "pihak" yg menentukan sso masuk ato kagak ... dan "pihak" ini bukan dari sisi manusia duniawi, melainkan rohani :

Aku telah mati, namun lihatlah, Aku hidup, sampai selama-lamanya dan Aku memegang segala kunci maut dan kerajaan maut

Quote
T : Walah...walah....amit ...amit !
Tenaaanng .... nggak lah perlu ampe "walah.. walah.. amit amit!" :D. "kunci" yg diberikan ke Petrus itu BUKAN sebuah alat pembuka pintu Kerajaan Surga. Ada faktor2 laen, salah satunya faktor iman si manusia itu sendiri ---> dan ini BUKAN otoritas manusia utk nge-judge secara sebuah kepastian, melainkan :

Hal itu akan nampak pada hari, bilamana Allah, sesuai dengan Injil yang kuberitakan, akan menghakimi segala sesuatu yang tersembunyi dalam hati manusia, oleh Kristus Yesus.

Quote
T: Katanya gereja Roma katolik adalah warisan atau suksesi  dari Rasul Petrus ?

J : Yang diwariskan oleh GRK sama sekali bukan ajaran Petrus melainkan perbuatan munafik yang diperbuat Petrus semasa hidupnya,karena dimulut mengatakan GRK menggunakan Alkitab sebagai salah satu pilar gereja tetapi semua praktek dan tradisinya anti kebenaran Alkitab sebagaimana Petrus yg mengaku mau membela Yesus dengan nyawanya tetapi pernah menyangkalinya juga sampai 3 kali. Dia juga ditentang oleh Paulus karena kemunafikannya didalam Galatia 2:11.
Apa hubungannya dengan "kunci" ? Apa hubungannya dengan kemunafikan ? Kalo mao di jabarkan, kan ada juga kemunafikan tokoh2 Alkitab PL ? Paulus sendiri yg berpegang pada gak perlu sunat, namun melakukan penyunatan kan ? :D.

Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."

berdirilah Petrus dan berkata kepada mereka: "Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu

Please CMIIW temen2 :D.

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 27, 2014, 06:32:31 PM
Odading yang agnostik aja ngerti, sementara ada yang mengaku Kristen, mengaku tahu isi Alkitab, ternyata nol besar, cuma bisa menuding nuding, sementara ternyata ompong.

Good job, bro Odading.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on April 28, 2014, 06:09:14 AM
Odading yang agnostik aja ngerti, sementara ada yang mengaku Kristen, mengaku tahu isi Alkitab, ternyata nol besar, cuma bisa menuding nuding, sementara ternyata ompong.

Good job, bro Odading.

Bro Salt.
Diajak dong si Bro Oda nya ....
Supaya enggak kelamaan jadi agnostik

 :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 28, 2014, 10:36:53 AM
Katolik sulit, om, harus ikut katekisasi paling ngga setahun.
Lebih mudah dan cepat ikut Protestan, tetapi ambil yang arus utama saja, jangan yang seperti aliran 'beliau' itu, bisa kacau balau errornya.
Mungkin bro Siip bisa bantu kalau bro Oda berminat.

 :afro:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: siip on April 28, 2014, 03:37:20 PM
Kl Oda ngeliat ibadah karismatik, bisa makin banyak ptanyaannya.
Tp saya yakin Roh Kudus senantiasa mnerangi hati kita semua.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 28, 2014, 06:19:54 PM
Nah, bro Oda, bro Siip sudah memberi jalan, jai silahkan dilanjutkan lewat PM.

:D

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on April 29, 2014, 07:19:42 AM
1. mas oda...
aduh... sempet-sempet-nya sih menghabiskan waktu untuk serius nanggepin lawakan mas soli...
hehe...

2. imho, mas oda ini bisa jadi jauh lebih kristiani ketimbang yg ngaku-ngaku kristen dan kutip sana kutip sini lho..
kalo soal afiliasi formal institusi keagamaanya... well.. it is for mas oda to decide..
however, i also believe that God might see through one's substantial faith, rather than just merely his formal religious organisation affiliation..

but.. spt kata pakdhe francis... who am i to judge?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 08:17:03 AM
Apakah tanya jawab itu terjadi juga ketika Yesus menyerahkan Kunci Sorga kepada Petrus?

Kalau iya, dimanakah kami menemukan tanya jawab tersebut antara Yesus dan Petrus didalam Alkitab?

Kalau tidak, siapa yang mengarang dongeng tersebut?

Salam


Saya tidak mengatakan tanya jawab itu ada di Alkitab tetapi semua prinsip yang ada didalamnya adalah alkitabiah.

Yang dongengan itu adalah semua ajaran mariology dan papalisme gerejamu yang sudah saya kutip dan yang tidak becus kamu sanggah,lain tidak !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 08:17:17 AM
Males njawab saja. Biar temen2 lain saja yang jawab
Kan tanya jawab diatas berdasarkan eisegesis anda sendiri.
Alkitab disetir berdasarkan kepentingan anda.


Apakah sudah kehabisan amunisi bung ?

Yang mana menurut anda kepentingan saya itu ???

Apakah ada komentar saya yang tidak sesuai Alkitab ?

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 08:18:24 AM
Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."
 Nggak. Ayat bilang di dunia, jadi itu mengikat secara duniawi ... BUKAN rohani.


Semua firman Kristus adalah mengikat secara rohani didunia ini karena konsekwensinya adalah penghakiman akhir berdasarkan Firman yang tertulis.


Quote
Quote
T : Bisa dijelaskan fungsi mengikat dan melepaskan ?
Kunci yang diberikan itu bukan kunci, melainkan otoritas. Apa yang Petrus ajarkan di dunia maka itu terikat di sorga. Apa yang Petrus tidak ajarkan ataupun Petrus "buang" ajaran dunia yg ada - maka itu juga "dibuang" di sorga.


Otoritas itu adalah bagi semua Rasul dan otoritas itu bukan bersandar kepada ajaran manusia yang banyak dongeng dan isapan jempolnya tetapi kebenaran firman Kristus.

Kalau yg diberitakan ajaran palsu penuh dongeng maka itu bukan otoritas dari Allah tapi dari Iblis.


Quote
Quote
T : Apakah tujuan pemberian kunci ?

J : Ingat yang diberikan adalah kunci untuk “Kerajaan Sorga / Allah” jadi kunci disini hanya merupakan alat untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah.
Kunci itu bukan kunci. Dan kalo mao maksa bilang bhw kunci itu alat untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga, maka saya rasa adalah tidak pantas menggunakan kata "hanya". Tujuan pemberian kunci adalah adanya keseragaman.


Kunci harus dimengerti didalam bahasa simbol yang banyak digunakan didalam Alkitab.

Jadi kalau tidak paham gaya bahasa simbol sebaiknya belajar dulu baru komentar bung !


Quote
Quote
T : Bagaimana syaratnya untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah itu ?

J : Tuhan Yesus mengatakan : "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan kembali, ia tidak dapat melihat Kerajaan Allah.” (Yoh.3:3)
Silahkan di search di AO. Hasil searchnya bukan hanya ayat Yohanes 3:3 tsb.


Kalau bukan hanya itu memangnya apaan ?

Apa banyak jalan ke Sorga itu ?



Quote
Quote
T : Jadi apa kaitannya kunci dengan firman Kristus ?

J : Firman Tuhan berkata : “ Tetapi bagaimana mereka dapat berseru kepada-Nya, jika mereka tidak percaya kepada Dia? Bagaimana mereka dapat percaya kepada Dia, jika mereka tidak mendengar tentang Dia. Bagaimana mereka mendengar tentang Dia, jika tidak ada yang memberitakan-Nya? Dan bagaimana mereka dapat memberitakan-Nya, jika mereka tidak diutus? Seperti ada tertulis: "Betapa indahnya kedatangan mereka yang membawa kabar baik!” (Roma 10:14,15).
Nggak. Jawaban diatas nggak ada kaitan dgn pertanyaan-nya sehubungan dengan ayat ttg "kunci Kerajaan Sorga" yg diberikan ke Petrus.

Tidak ada kaitannya antara kunci dengan Firman Kristus.
"Kunci" di ayat tsb = otoritas.
Ibarat kata kalo di jaman tsb Petrus bilang : "boleh aborsi" ---> maka ini dilepas didalam Kerajaan Sorga.
Kalo Petrus bilang : "tidak boleh melakukan aborsi" ---> maka ini diikat didalam Kerajaan Sorga.


Otoritas Rasul hanya berkaitan dengan berita yang mereka kabarkan dan Kitab Suci yang mereka tulis.

Hanya satu amanat agung Tuhan Yesus bagi dunia yaitu memberitakan berita keselamatan bukan segala macam dongengan dan isapan jempol gereja.


Quote
Quote
T : Jadi mereka inilah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan itu ya ?

J : Memang demikian buktinya pertama kalinya Petrus dan Yohanes sudah membuka jalan penginjilan kepada bangsa Yahudi (Kis.2) dan bangsa bangsa lain ( Kis.8:14 ; Kis.10).
OOT. Pertanyaan dan jawaban di quote ini gak ada hubungannya ama "kunci".


Pikiranmu yang OOT tidak bisa mengkaitkan bahwa istilah “kunci” didalam ayat tsb secara simbolis adalah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan.


Quote
Quote
T : Apa kaitannya kunci yang melepas dan mengikat itu itu diberikan kepada para Rasul ?

J : Ya..itu tentunya berkaitan dengan “otoritas” mereka sebagai Rasul yaitu orang orang yang dipilih dan diangkat sendiri oleh Yesus sebagai Rasul
Bukan "mereka", tapi hanya Petrus.


Sudah saya buktikan otoritas itu adalah kepada semua Rasul jadi jangan sok tahu !

Tidak ada perbedaan derajat didalam kerasulan bagi Kristus.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 08:19:04 AM



Quote
Quote
T : Jadi kalau ada gereja yang membuat ajaran baru yang bertentangan dengan kebenaran dari semua wahyu Tuhan yang diajarkan dan ditulis oleh para Rasul bagaimana ?

J : Itu sih bukan gereja Kristus karena Kitab Suci sudah memperingatkan
Sekali lagi, "kunci" disitu = otoritas. Ajaran "baru" itu bisa bersifat dinamis sesuai sikon, jaman, dlsb ... DAN nggak ada hubungannya dgn kebenaran dari semua wahyu Tuhan melainkan sehubungan hal2 duniawi.

Kalo DULU, gereja nggak mungkin bisa ada bilang "dilarang nonton bokep" .... tapi SEKARANG kalo gereja bilang "jangan nonton bokep" ---> maka ini "diikat" di Kerajaan Sorga.

Kalau anda yang bukan kristen memang duniamu terbatas hanya didunia fisik ini belaka maka pikiranmu tidak akan mampu memahami dunia rohani bung.

Jadi kwalitas argumentasimu hanya sebatas dunia fisik belaka (naturalisme)

Alam semestalah yang menjadi ultimate reality mu karena hanya dari situlah pengertianmu berasal  !


Quote
Quote
T : Apa maksudnya ajaran dongeng itu ?

J : Artinya banyak ajaran yang hanya dongengan penuh isapan jempol belaka (2 Pet.2:3) misalnya arwah manusia yang bisa pulang pergi mengelilingi dunia dan mengaku datang dari Sorga dan bisa menyelamatkan manusia ; manusia yang merasa dirinya seperti Tuhan yang tidak mungkin salah ; air dan roti bisa benar benar langsung berubah menjadi darah dan daging kalau dimakan ; dosa bisa dikurangi kalau membeli kertas surat tertentu,manusia biasa bisa ikut menebus dosa dan ikut ikutan sebagai pengantara keselamatan,... dll.
Sudah tak jelasin diatas ... "otoritas" itu bersifat dinamis. "Deklarasi" gereja yg mana yg boleh/harus/bisa dilakukan = begitu jugalah di Kerajaan Sorga. "Deklarasi" gereja yg mana yg tidak boleh/tidak harus/tidak bisa dilakukan = begitu jugalah di Kerajaan Sorga. Dan ini tidak sertamerta artinya pasti tidak berubah.


Kok kabur dari segala macam bukti dongengan dari ajaran gereja yang saya beberkan ???

Itukan apa yang sudah dinubuatkan Kitab Suci !

Yang nyambung dong argumentasinya !


Quote
Quote
T : Gereja seperti ini apakah masih bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah ?

J : Kalau tidak segera bertobat dari pembelokan ajaran lurus dari para Rasul tsb,maka hanya tempat dimana kerajaan si Iblis ada didalamnya saja mereka ini akan masuk kelak (Mat.25:41 ; Yoh.8:44).
OOT lagi. "Kunci" di ayat ybs bukan lagi ngomongin sebuah alat / kunci utk membuka pintu Kerajaan Sorga sehingga tinggal ceklek! buka pintu lalu masuk Sorga dgn lenggang-kangkung.. Ada banyak faktor2 lain namun yg pasti cuma ada satu "pihak" yg menentukan sso masuk ato kagak ... dan "pihak" ini bukan dari sisi manusia duniawi, melainkan rohani :

Aku telah mati, namun lihatlah, Aku hidup, sampai selama-lamanya dan Aku memegang segala kunci maut dan kerajaan maut


Makna kunci maut disini bukan kunci menurut pikiranmu yang naturalistik tetapi penghakiman oleh Kristus bagi mereka yang tidak lahir baru dan beriman kepada-Nya sebagai satu satunya “kunci” atau jalan masuk kedalam Kerajaan Allah.


Quote
Quote
T : Walah...walah....amit ...amit !
Tenaaanng .... nggak lah perlu ampe "walah.. walah.. amit amit!". "kunci" yg diberikan ke Petrus itu BUKAN sebuah alat pembuka pintu Kerajaan Surga. Ada faktor2 laen, salah satunya faktor iman si manusia itu sendiri ---> dan ini BUKAN otoritas manusia utk nge-judge secara sebuah kepastian, melainkan :

Hal itu akan nampak pada hari, bilamana Allah, sesuai dengan Injil yang kuberitakan, akan menghakimi segala sesuatu yang tersembunyi dalam hati manusia, oleh Kristus Yesus.


Dengan apakah manusia akan dihakimi kelak ?

Baca ayat berikut ini :

Yohanes 12:48 Barangsiapa menolak Aku, dan tidak menerima perkataan-Ku, ia sudah ada hakimnya, yaitu firman yang telah Kukatakan, itulah yang akan menjadi hakimnya pada akhir zaman.

Jadi jelas sekali kunci untuk bisa lolos kedalam Kerajaan Surga adalah firman Kristus yang melahirkan iman percaya itu.

Jadi pikiran naturalismu itu tidak berlaku didalam doktrin Kristen karena itu hanya pikiran manusia naturalist belaka.


Quote
Quote
T: Katanya gereja Roma katolik adalah warisan atau suksesi  dari Rasul Petrus ?

J : Yang diwariskan oleh GRK sama sekali bukan ajaran Petrus melainkan perbuatan munafik yang diperbuat Petrus semasa hidupnya,karena dimulut mengatakan GRK menggunakan Alkitab sebagai salah satu pilar gereja tetapi semua praktek dan tradisinya anti kebenaran Alkitab sebagaimana Petrus yg mengaku mau membela Yesus dengan nyawanya tetapi pernah menyangkalinya juga sampai 3 kali. Dia juga ditentang oleh Paulus karena kemunafikannya didalam Galatia 2:11.
Apa hubungannya dengan "kunci" ? Apa hubungannya dengan kemunafikan ? Kalo mao di jabarkan, kan ada juga kemunafikan tokoh2 Alkitab PL ? Paulus sendiri yg berpegang pada gak perlu sunat, namun melakukan penyunatan kan ?.

Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."

berdirilah Petrus dan berkata kepada mereka: "Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu


Makna “kunci” didalam konteks ayat tsb merupakan satu satunya standar bagi keselamatan dunia yaitu pemberitaan Firman Kristus berdasarkan tulisan para Rasul yang berotoritas,sedangkan semua dongengan yang saya kutip itu bukan firman Kristus,melainkan hanya kemunafikan belaka.

Kalau kamu tidak terima buktikan disini bahwa itu bukan dongengan doang !


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 29, 2014, 08:55:48 AM
Pos panjang lebar, isinya kosong selain OOT dan ad hominem.
Parrragh

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 08:58:03 AM
Pos panjang lebar, isinya kosong selain OOT dan ad hominem.
Parrragh


 Kamu selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

G ayanya sok tahu
I sinya tong kosong yang nyaring bunyinya
L agaknya sok waras
A khirnya yang kelihatan ketidakwarasan dan kemunafikannya

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 29, 2014, 09:04:05 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi.
Kapan balik warasnya sih anak miring satu ini?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 09:05:15 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi.
Kapan balik warasnya sih anak miring satu ini?


 Kamu selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

G ayanya sok tahu
I sinya tong kosong yang nyaring bunyinya
L agaknya sok waras
A khirnya yang kelihatan ketidakwarasan dan kemunafikannya

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 29, 2014, 09:08:14 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi.
Kapan balik warasnya sih anak miring satu ini?
Otaknya rembes nak?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 09:41:30 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi.
Kapan balik warasnya sih anak miring satu ini?
Otaknya rembes nak?


Kamu selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 29, 2014, 09:43:07 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi.
Kapan balik warasnya sih anak miring satu ini?
Patung bugil lagi patung bugil lagi
Otaknya rembes nak?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 09:44:15 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi.
Kapan balik warasnya sih anak miring satu ini?
Patung bugil lagi patung bugil lagi
Otaknya rembes nak?


Sampai sekarang munafik terus !

Sekali munafik tetap munafik !

 Kamu selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 29, 2014, 09:58:34 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi
Kapan warasnya anak miring ini?
Ada yang bisa bantu ?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 11:08:17 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi
Kapan warasnya anak miring ini?
Ada yang bisa bantu ?


Sampai sekarang munafik terus !

Sekali munafik tetap munafik !

 Kamu selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 11:14:14 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi
Kapan warasnya anak miring ini?
Ada yang bisa bantu ?


Tolong dibantu yang munafik ini agar sadar !

Sampai sekarang munafik terus !

Sekali munafik tetap munafik !

 Kamu selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 29, 2014, 11:59:39 AM
OOT lagi OOT lagi
Masih akit juga nih anak.
Ada moderator gak sih?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on April 29, 2014, 01:50:52 PM


Heran ....
Kalo ada huru hara .... pasti tidak lepas dari kata "tong"

 :giggle:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on April 29, 2014, 02:06:42 PM
Kan memang pukul kentongan.
Bunyinya 'tong, tong, tong..... tong'
Begitu...

 :doh:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 05:29:16 PM

Heran ....
Kalo ada huru hara .... pasti tidak lepas dari kata "tong"

 :giggle:

Makanya telusuri saja siapa yang pertama pakai istilah itu diforum ini !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on April 29, 2014, 05:29:39 PM
Kan memang pukul kentongan.
Bunyinya 'tong, tong, tong..... tong'
Begitu...

 :doh:


Sampai sekarang munafik terus !

Sekali munafik tetap munafik !

 Kamu selalu munafik dan lupa apa yg sudah dikatakannya :

Tidak percaya,lihat buktinya ?

Siapa yg mulai OOT membawa persoalan patung telanjang disini tong ?

Sampai sekarang tidak berani ngaku tong !

Aku tunggu terus jawabanmu tong !

Jawab toooong...jawab toooong kalau ngaku masih waras ....!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on April 30, 2014, 01:30:34 AM

Semua firman Kristus adalah mengikat secara rohani didunia ini karena konsekwensinya adalah penghakiman akhir berdasarkan Firman yang tertulis.
Maksud saya yg saya lagi bicara-in itu pada ayat ttg kunci yang diberikan ke Petrus, soli ....  BUKAN directly Firman Kristus-nya.

Quote
Otoritas itu adalah bagi semua Rasul
(18) Dan Akupun berkata kepadaMU : Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya. (19) kepadaMU akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."

Sayang sekali nggak ada fasilitas font-size-nya disini.
Kalo ada tak taroh font-size 100 yg di bold merah tsb :D.

Saya nggak nampik bhw semua Rasul mempunyai otoritas soli.
Namun sehubungan dgn ayat yg lagi dibicarain ... sangat jelas bhw perkataan itu ditujukan ke Petrus DAN kunci itu diberikan ke Petrus, kan soli ?

berdirilah Petrus dan berkata kepada mereka: "Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu

Terlepas semua Rasul mempunyai otoritas, terlepas apakah kalimat merah Petrus lagi bersombong-ria atopun kagak, namun sambungan ayat-nya tidak mengisahkan ataupun bisa disimpulkan bhw para pendengar kalimat merah Petrus di event tsb pada jadi naik pitam, soli  :)

Quote
otoritas itu bukan bersandar kepada ajaran manusia yang banyak dongeng dan isapan jempolnya tetapi kebenaran firman Kristus.
Bold, pada kata "manusia" - apakah maksud soli itu Petrus sebagai pelopor ajaran dongeng ?

Quote
Kunci harus dimengerti didalam bahasa simbol yang banyak digunakan didalam Alkitab.
Jadi kalau tidak paham gaya bahasa simbol sebaiknya belajar dulu baru komentar bung !
Nah itu, pahami dulu konteks kalimat di ayat tsb ditujukan ke siapa. Jelas "kepadamu" disitu ngerujuk ke Petrus, bukan semua Rasul.

Quote
Kalau bukan hanya itu memangnya apaan ?
Apa banyak jalan ke Sorga itu ?
kok pertanyaan jadi begitu ?
Pertanyaan soli : Bagaimana syaratnya untuk bisa meMASUKi Kerajaan Surga / Allah itu ?
jawaban soli : "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan kembali, ia tidak dapat meLIHAT Kerajaan Allah.”

Define dulu "Kerajaan Allah" secara spesifik, karena pengertiannya lebih dari satu.
Tapi ini OOT, jadi nanti kalo mao dibahas ya di thread baru aja kalo ada yg mao bikin ya soli :).

Quote
Otoritas Rasul hanya berkaitan dengan berita yang mereka kabarkan dan Kitab Suci yang mereka tulis.
sependapat, secara semua Rasul.
Tapi tidak ke semua Rasul Yesus berikan otoritas seperti yang diberikan ke Petrus saat event di ayat tsb.

Quote
Hanya satu amanat agung Tuhan Yesus bagi dunia yaitu memberitakan berita keselamatan bukan segala macam dongengan dan isapan jempol gereja.
Jangan lupa, Yesus juga menyerahkan otoritas ke Petrus ---> apa yang Petrus bind dan apa yg Petrus loose di bumi.

Quote
Pikiranmu yang OOT tidak bisa mengkaitkan bahwa istilah “kunci” didalam ayat tsb secara simbolis adalah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan.
Lah .... yang kita lagi omongin kan "kunci" yg terdapat di ayat Matius 16:19 ---> dan ini spesifik ngerujuk ke Petrus, soli.

Sedangkan Q&A soli itu nyangkutpautin-nya dengan "mereka" :
Quote
T : Jadi MEREKA inilah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan itu ya ?
Kalo mao ngomongin tentang "mereka" ---> ya, saya sependapat pada quote diatas ... tapi ini bukan lagi ngomongin "mereka" soli.... tidak ada kata "kalian" ataupun "mereka" di event penyerahan kunci tsb ... melainkan "MU" ---> diri Rasul Petrus .... BUKAN "mereka/kalian" para Rasul.

Quote
Sudah saya buktikan otoritas itu adalah kepada semua Rasul jadi jangan sok tahu !
Matius 16:19 tidak sedang membicarakan otoritas kepada semua Rasul, soli.

Quote
Tidak ada perbedaan derajat didalam kerasulan bagi Kristus.
Tidak secara rohani - namun YA secara duniawi dan ini diketahui oleh teman2nya : Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on April 30, 2014, 02:30:30 AM

Kalau anda yang bukan kristen memang duniamu terbatas hanya didunia fisik ini belaka maka pikiranmu tidak akan mampu memahami dunia rohani bung.
Tidak ada satu orangpun yang bisa memahami secara mutlak dunia rohani jeng. Semuanya selalu masih tersangkut dunia jasmani, penilaian manusia.

Quote
Kok kabur dari segala macam bukti dongengan dari ajaran gereja yang saya beberkan ???
Karena saya disini tidak sedang ngomongin Mariology dan Papasi, soli.

Quote
Makna kunci maut disini bukan kunci menurut pikiranmu yang naturalistik tetapi penghakiman oleh Kristus bagi mereka yang tidak lahir baru dan beriman kepada-Nya sebagai satu satunya “kunci” atau jalan masuk kedalam Kerajaan Allah.
Lagi lagi soli hubungkan ayat Matius ttg "kunci" tsb dengan secara bold. Ayat tsb nggak lagi ngomong secara definitif bhw HANYA tentang lahir baru dan beriman kepada-NYA itu = "kunci", soli ... melainkan apa-yang-diikat-apa-yang-dilepas ---> dan apa-yang-diikat-apa-yang-dilepas ini secara definisinya dinamis sesuai jaman.

Quote
Dengan apakah manusia akan dihakimi kelak ?

Baca ayat berikut ini :

Yohanes 12:48 Barangsiapa menolak Aku, dan tidak menerima perkataan-Ku, ia sudah ada hakimnya, yaitu firman yang telah Kukatakan, itulah yang akan menjadi hakimnya pada akhir zaman.

Jadi jelas sekali kunci untuk bisa lolos kedalam Kerajaan Surga adalah firman Kristus yang melahirkan iman percaya itu.
soli,

Yesus memberikan kunci ke Petrus.
Petrus = contoh dari Gereja mula2.
Blakangan timbul gereja2 lain (apapun itu denom-nya).
Nah, "kunci" itu dipegang oleh masing2 gereja.
Taroh kata ada gereja A, gereja B, C dst.

Maka apa yg gereja A "ikat" dan "lepas" ---> demikian pula di Sorga.
Begitu pula apa yg gereja B "ikat" dan "lepas" ---> demikian pula di Sorga.
Dst.

Apa yg gereja A "ikat" = ajaran / doktrin2 gereja A
Apa yg gereja B "ikat" = ajaran / doktrin2 gereja B
Dst.


Quote
Makna “kunci” didalam konteks ayat tsb merupakan satu satunya standar bagi keselamatan dunia yaitu pemberitaan Firman Kristus berdasarkan tulisan para Rasul yang berotoritas
kagaaaakk.... pemberitaan Firman Kristus itu definisinya sudah tidak lagi HANYA berdasarkan tulisan para Rasul seperti yg tertera di PB, soli. Jaman para Rasul itu beda dgn jaman sekarang. Apa yang saat itu para Rasul tulis "jalan/masuk/pas" di jaman tsb - tapi belon tentu di jaman sekarang .... dilain sisi, ada juga yang tidak ditulis oleh para Rasul namun tidak sertamerta artinya karena tidak ada tulisannya di PB maka apa yg ada di jaman sekarang tidak ada aplikasinya. Definisi cabul dijaman itu adalah sebatas ngerujuk birahi direct ke person wanita ... jaman sekarang definisi cabul tidak direct ke person wanita saja, melainkan juga ke wanita yg terdapat di tayangan2 film, wanita yg terdapat di buku stensilan, dlsb. Oleh karena itu saya bilang : dinamis definisinya (apa yg "di ikat")

Quote
sedangkan semua dongengan yang saya kutip itu bukan firman Kristus,melainkan hanya kemunafikan belaka.

Kalau kamu tidak terima buktikan disini bahwa itu bukan dongengan doang !
Soli bikin thread sendiri donk kalo mao ngomongin Mariology dan Papasi itu adalah dongengan dan kemunafikan, nanti biar temen2 Katolik yg ngejelasin :D.

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on May 06, 2014, 06:45:38 AM
Maksud saya yg saya lagi bicara-in itu pada ayat ttg kunci yang diberikan ke Petrus, soli ....  BUKAN directly Firman Kristus-nya.


Makna “kunci” berkaitan dengan satu satunya “pintu” untuk masuk kedalam Kerajaan Surga yaitu :

Yohanes 10:9
Akulah pintu; barangsiapa masuk melalui Aku, ia akan selamat dan ia akan masuk dan keluar dan menemukan padang rumput.

Jadi amanat agung Tuhan Yesus yang disampaikan pada mulanya melalui para Rasul adalah menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab semua orang kristen yang sejati karena mereka adalah pengemban imamat yang rajani (Royal Priesthood).

Matius 28:19 Karena itu pergilah, jadikanlah semua bangsa murid-Ku dan baptislah mereka dalam nama Bapa dan Anak dan Roh Kudus,

28:20 dan ajarlah mereka melakukan segala sesuatu yang telah Kuperintahkan kepadamu. Dan ketahuilah, Aku menyertai kamu senantiasa sampai kepada akhir zaman.

Jadi jangan anda menggeser inti pernyataan Yesus dari pengertian “kunci” itu kepada otoritas eklusivitas seseorang,karena itu sudah keluar dari konteksnya dan pemahaman yang keliru.


Quote
Quote
Otoritas itu adalah bagi semua Rasul
(18) Dan Akupun berkata kepadaMU : Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya. (19) kepadaMU akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."

Sayang sekali nggak ada fasilitas font-size-nya disini.
Kalo ada tak taroh font-size 100 yg di bold merah tsb .

Saya nggak nampik bhw semua Rasul mempunyai otoritas soli.
Namun sehubungan dgn ayat yg lagi dibicarain ... sangat jelas bhw perkataan itu ditujukan ke Petrus DAN kunci itu diberikan ke Petrus, kan soli ?


Saya juga merasa sayang tidak ada fasilitas font size agar bisa menunjukkan bahwa anda hanya main comot ayat tetapi tidak membaca ayat ayat lainnya yang berkaitan dan saling menjelaskan :

Matius 18:1 Pada waktu itu datanglah murid-murid itu kepada Yesus dan bertanya: "Siapakah yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga?"
18:18 Aku berkata kepadamu: Sesungguhnya apa yang kamu ikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kamu lepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga.

Contoh lain :

Yoh.20:19 Ketika hari sudah malam pada hari pertama minggu itu berkumpullah murid-murid Yesus di suatu tempat dengan pintu-pintu yang terkunci karena mereka takut kepada orang-orang Yahudi. Pada waktu itu datanglah Yesus dan berdiri di tengah-tengah mereka dan berkata: "Damai sejahtera bagi kamu!"
20:22 Dan sesudah berkata demikian, Ia mengembusi mereka dan berkata: "Terimalah Roh Kudus.
20:23 Jikalau kamu mengampuni dosa orang, dosanya diampuni, dan jikalau kamu menyatakan dosa orang tetap ada, dosanya tetap ada.


Quote
berdirilah Petrus dan berkata kepada mereka: "Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semulaAllah memilih aku dari antara kamu

Terlepas semua Rasul mempunyai otoritas, terlepas apakah kalimat merah Petrus lagi bersombong-ria atopun kagak, namun sambungan ayat-nya tidak mengisahkan ataupun bisa disimpulkan bhw para pendengar kalimat merah Petrus di event tsb pada jadi naik pitam, soli 

Jangan biasakan mencomot ayat sepotong sepotong :

Kis.15:7 Sesudah beberapa waktu lamanya berlangsung pertukaran pikiran mengenai soal itu, berdirilah Petrus dan berkata kepada mereka: "Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu, supaya dengan perantaraan mulutku bangsa-bangsa lain mendengar berita Injil dan menjadi percaya

Jelas sekali ayat tsb membuktikan Petrus sebagai kunci pembuka pemberitaan Injil kepada bangsa lain tetapi Puluslah yang dikhususkan untuk melayani bangsa lain :

Kis. 9:15 Tetapi firman Tuhan kepadanya: "Pergilah, sebab orang ini adalah alat pilihan bagi-Ku untuk memberitakan nama-Ku kepada bangsa-bangsa lain serta raja-raja dan orang-orang Israel

22:21 Tetapi kata Tuhan kepadaku: Pergilah, sebab Aku akan mengutus engkau jauh dari sini kepada bangsa-bangsa lain.

26:17 Aku akan mengasingkan engkau dari bangsa ini dan dari bangsa-bangsa lain. Dan Aku akan mengutus engkau kepada mereka.

Efesus 3:8 Kepadaku, yang paling hina di antara segala orang kudus, telah dianugerahkan kasih karunia ini, untuk memberitakan kepada orang-orang bukan Yahudi kekayaan Kristus, yang tidak terduga itu
Dan mengenai konsili pertama gereja di Yerusalem itu perhatikan ayat 13 dst bahwa Yakobuslah yang memmimpin gereja di Yerusalem itu bukan Petrus.

Gal. 2:9 Dan setelah melihat kasih karunia yang dianugerahkan kepadaku, maka Yakobus, Kefas dan Yohanes, yang dipandang sebagai sokoguru jemaat, berjabat tangan dengan aku dan dengan Barnabas sebagai tanda persekutuan, supaya kami pergi kepada orang-orang yang tidak bersunat dan mereka kepada orang-orang yang bersunat

Dari ayat diatas maka jelas sekali yang dianggap sebagai soko kuru bagi jemaat adalah 3 orang bukan pemimpin tunggal.


James, Leader in the Jerusalem Church ACTS 15:13-20

IT IS quite evident that James, although not one of the twelve apostles, was looked up to in the church at Jerusalem, and that his views were highly respected. On the occasion of the first general conference of disciples, James seems to have served as chairman, and after there had been much deliberation over the question at issue, it was James who summed up the findings of the conference and made a recommendation of what seemed to him a reasonable course to follow. His suggestion was accepted and made the official edict of those gathered, and was sent to all the churches.

http://www.dawnbible.com/1950/5009ib17.htm

Kalau anda berpendapat lain itu terserah kepada anda sendiri tetapi saya membuktikan apa yang sebenarnya berdasarkan ajaran Alkitab itu sendiri.


BERSAMBUNG


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on May 06, 2014, 06:46:01 AM
SAMBUNGAN


Quote
Quote
otoritas itu bukan bersandar kepada ajaran manusia yang banyak dongeng dan isapan jempolnya tetapi kebenaran firman Kristus.
Bold, pada kata "manusia" - apakah maksud soli itu Petrus sebagai pelopor ajaran dongeng ?


Bukan Petrus karena dia adalah Rasul melainkan gereja yang hobinya membuat tradisi palsu anti ajaran rasuliah.

Buktinya sudah banyak saya berikan diforum ini kalau anda teliti membacanya.


Quote
Quote
Kunci harus dimengerti didalam bahasa simbol yang banyak digunakan didalam Alkitab.
Jadi kalau tidak paham gaya bahasa simbol sebaiknya belajar dulu baru komentar bung !
Nah itu, pahami dulu konteks kalimat di ayat tsb ditujukan ke siapa. Jelas "kepadamu" disitu ngerujuk ke Petrus, bukan semua Rasul.


Sudah saya jelaskan diatas,bahwa anda sudah menggeser intisari pengertian kunci kepada otoritas tunggal seseorang secara keliru !

Petrus mengaku dia hanya seorang penatua sama dengan Rasul lainnya :

1 Petrus 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:   


Quote
Quote
Kalau bukan hanya itu memangnya apaan ?
Apa banyak jalan ke Sorga itu ?
kok pertanyaan jadi begitu ?
Pertanyaan soli : Bagaimana syaratnya untuk bisa meMASUKi Kerajaan Surga / Allah itu ?
jawaban soli : "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan kembali, ia tidak dapat meLIHAT Kerajaan Allah.”

Define dulu "Kerajaan Allah" secara spesifik, karena pengertiannya lebih dari satu.
Tapi ini OOT, jadi nanti kalo mao dibahas ya di thread baru aja kalo ada yg mao bikin ya soli .


Hanya satu jalan kedalam Kerajaan Allah yaitu Yesus sebagai pintu masuk satu satunya dan kunci untuk bisa memasukinya harus dengan iman melalui proses kelahiran baru oleh Roh Kudus dan Firman Kristus.

Quote
Quote
Otoritas Rasul hanya berkaitan dengan berita yang mereka kabarkan dan Kitab Suci yang mereka tulis.
sependapat, secara semua Rasul.
Tapi tidak ke semua Rasul Yesus berikan otoritas seperti yang diberikan ke Petrus saat event di ayat tsb.


Kesimpulan yang keliru seperti sudah saya buktikan diatas !


Quote
Quote
Hanya satu amanat agung Tuhan Yesus bagi dunia yaitu memberitakan berita keselamatan bukan segala macam dongengan dan isapan jempol gereja.
Jangan lupa, Yesus juga menyerahkan otoritas ke Petrus ---> apa yang Petrus bind dan apa yg Petrus loosedi bumi.


Baca lagi diatas bahwa otoritas itu diberikan kepada semua murid Yesus bukan eklusif kepada satu orang saja.


Quote
Quote
Pikiranmu yang OOT tidak bisa mengkaitkan bahwa istilah “kunci” didalam ayat tsb secara simbolis adalah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan.
Lah .... yang kita lagi omongin kan "kunci" yg terdapat di ayat Matius 16:19 ---> dan ini spesifik ngerujuk ke Petrus, soli.

Sedangkan Q&A soli itu nyangkutpautin-nya dengan "mereka" :


Sudah saya jelaskan diatas bahwa anda menggeser makna secara keliru !


Quote
Quote
T : Jadi MEREKA inilah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan itu ya ?
Kalo mao ngomongin tentang "mereka" ---> ya, saya sependapat pada quote diatas ... tapi ini bukan lagi ngomongin "mereka" soli.... tidak ada kata "kalian" ataupun "mereka" di event penyerahan kunci tsb ... melainkan "MU" ---> diri Rasul Petrus .... BUKAN "mereka/kalian" para Rasul.


Baca lagi penjelasan saya diatas tentang kekeliruan pemahaman anda yang hanya mengutip dari sumber gereja katolik yang suka meninggikan manusia secara kebablasan itu.



Quote
Quote
Sudah saya buktikan otoritas itu adalah kepada semua Rasul jadi jangan sok tahu !
Matius 16:19 tidak sedang membicarakan otoritas kepada semua Rasul, soli.


Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.

"The Catholic Church believes that St. Peter was the chief Apostle, exercising by Christ's appointment the supreme power of governing His church. The Vatican Council says: 'If anyone says that Christ the Lord did not constitute the Blessed Peter prince of all the Apostles and head of the whole church militant ... let him be anathema'" (Question Box, p. 145).
 
But notice what God says:

All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; 14:26.
Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11,12,16,17; 2:6-9,11-14.

All apostles received the power to "bind and loose."

Some claim that Jesus, in Matthew 16:19, gave exclusively to Peter the power to bind and loose, but Matthew 18:18 shows that others also had the same power.

John 20:22,23 - All apostles had power to forgive or retain sins, but only as guided by the Holy Spirit. No apostle could originate laws but could only reveal the laws God made. They did this by revealing and preaching the gospel. If men obey, their sins are forgiven; if not, their sins are retained - Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:36-41; etc.

The gospel was the "keys" or authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter the church. Peter was the first to preach to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10), but all apostles had authority to preach the gospel. No passage anywhere says the other apostles submitted to Peter's authority.

Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way - 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11.
All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.

There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.

http://gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php


Quote
Quote
Tidak ada perbedaan derajat didalam kerasulan bagi Kristus.
Tidak secara rohani - namun YA secara duniawi dan ini diketahui oleh teman2nya : Hai saudara-saudara,kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu


salam.

Kalau anda mau tahu lebih lengkap silahkan baca di website dibawah ini :

http://gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php

Salam

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on May 06, 2014, 06:52:06 AM
Tidak ada satu orangpun yang bisa memahami secara mutlak dunia rohani jeng. Semuanya selalu masih tersangkut dunia jasmani, penilaian manusia.


1 Korintus 2:14
Tetapi manusia duniawi tidak menerima apa yang berasal dari Roh Allah, karena hal itu baginya adalah suatu kebodohan; dan ia tidak dapat memahaminya, sebab hal itu hanya dapat dinilai secara rohani.

Jadi kalau hal hal rohaniah jangan dijadikan jasmaniah ...nyah,karena tidak mungkin dicampuradukkan hal hal rohani dengan jasmaniah.

Kuci Kerajaan Surga sama sekali berbeda maknanya dengan kunci masuk kedalam rumah anda...nyah.


Quote
Quote
Kok kabur dari segala macam bukti dongengan dari ajaran gereja yang saya beberkan ???
Karena saya disini tidak sedang ngomongin Mariology dan Papasi, soli.

Saya secara konsekwen hanya MENCANTUMKAN mana ajaran dongengan itu karena sama sekali tidak ada ajaran Alkitabnya !

MENCANTUMKAN BERBEDA MAKNANYA DENGAN MEMBAHAS


Quote
Quote
Makna kunci maut disini bukan kunci menurut pikiranmu yang naturalistik tetapi penghakiman oleh Kristus bagi mereka yang tidak lahir baru dan beriman kepada-Nya sebagai satu satunya “kunci” atau jalan masuk kedalam Kerajaan Allah.
Lagi lagi soli hubungkan ayat Matius ttg "kunci" tsb dengan secara bold. Ayat tsb nggak lagi ngomong secara definitif bhw HANYA tentang lahir baru dan beriman kepada-NYA itu = "kunci", soli ... melainkan apa-yang-diikat-apa-yang-dilepas ---> dan apa-yang-diikat-apa-yang-dilepas ini secara definisinya dinamis sesuai jaman.

Kunci keselamatan manusia itu selalu melalui proses bukan tindakan tunggal yaitu :

1.   Direncanakan Allah Bapa didalam kekekalan

2.   Digenapkan Tuhan Yesus didalam waktu

3.   Diaplikasikan oleh Roh Kudus kedalam diri manusia melalui proses kelahiran baru.

4.   Direspon oleh manusia yang sudah menerima anugerah tersebut melalui iman berdasarkan pendengaran akan Firman Kristus.


Quote
Quote
Dengan apakah manusia akan dihakimi kelak ?

Baca ayat berikut ini :

Yohanes 12:48 Barangsiapa menolak Aku, dan tidak menerima perkataan-Ku, ia sudah ada hakimnya, yaitu firman yang telah Kukatakan, itulah yang akan menjadi hakimnya pada akhir zaman.

Jadi jelas sekali kunci untuk bisa lolos kedalam Kerajaan Surga adalah firman Kristus yang melahirkan iman percaya itu.
soli,

Yesus memberikan kunci ke Petrus.
Petrus = contoh dari Gereja mula2.
Blakangan timbul gereja2 lain (apapun itu denom-nya).
Nah, "kunci" itu dipegang oleh masing2 gereja.
Taroh kata ada gereja A, gereja B, C dst.

Maka apa yg gereja A "ikat" dan "lepas" ---> demikian pula di Sorga.
Begitu pula apa yg gereja B "ikat" dan "lepas" ---> demikian pula di Sorga.
Dst.

Apa yg gereja A "ikat" = ajaran / doktrin2 gereja A
Apa yg gereja B "ikat" = ajaran / doktrin2 gereja B
Dst.


Baca lagi pada postingan saya sebelumnya bahwa tugas tersebut bukan eklusif kepada Petrus sendiri tetapi juga kepada semua Rasul dan sekarang kepada semua orang percaya - bukan penguasa tunggal yang mengaku diri satu satunya pejabat pewaris Petrus yang identik dengan Kristus dan Tuhan didunia ini dan secara arogansi menganggap dirinya sebagai kepala dari semua gereja didunia.


Quote
Quote
Makna “kunci” didalam konteks ayat tsb merupakan satu satunya standar bagi keselamatan dunia yaitu pemberitaan Firman Kristus berdasarkan tulisan para Rasul yang berotoritas
kagaaaakk.... pemberitaan Firman Kristus itu definisinya sudah tidak lagi HANYA berdasarkan tulisan para Rasul seperti yg tertera di PB, soli. Jaman para Rasul itu beda dgn jaman sekarang. Apa yang saat itu para Rasul tulis "jalan/masuk/pas" di jaman tsb - tapi belon tentu di jaman sekarang .... dilain sisi, ada juga yang tidak ditulis oleh para Rasul namun tidak sertamerta artinya karena tidak ada tulisannya di PB maka apa yg ada di jaman sekarang tidak ada aplikasinya. Definisi cabul dijaman itu adalah sebatas ngerujuk birahi direct ke person wanita ... jaman sekarang definisi cabul tidak direct ke person wanita saja, melainkan juga ke wanita yg terdapat di tayangan2 film, wanita yg terdapat di buku stensilan, dlsb. Oleh karena itu saya bilang : dinamis definisinya (apa yg "di ikat")


Firman Allah itu berlaku kekal selamanya :

1 Petrus 1:25
tetapi firman Tuhan tetap untuk selama-lamanya." Inilah firman yang disampaikan Injil kepada kamu.

Kalau ada ajaran yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Rasul pasti ajaran palsu yang berasal dari si Iblis :

2 Petrus 2:1 Sebagaimana nabi-nabi palsu dahulu tampil di tengah-tengah umat Allah, demikian pula di antara kamu akan ada guru-guru palsu. Mereka akan memasukkan pengajaran-pengajaran sesat yang membinasakan, bahkan mereka akan menyangkal Penguasa yang telah menebus mereka dan dengan jalan demikian segera mendatangkan kebinasaan atas diri mereka.
2:2 Banyak orang akan mengikuti cara hidup mereka yang dikuasai hawa nafsu, dan karena mereka Jalan Kebenaran akan dihujat.
2:3 Dan karena serakahnya guru-guru palsu itu akan berusaha mencari untung dari kamu dengan ceritera-ceritera isapan jempol mereka. Tetapi untuk perbuatan mereka itu hukuman telah lama tersedia dan kebinasaan tidak akan tertunda.


Quote
Quote
sedangkan semua dongengan yang saya kutip itu bukan firman Kristus,melainkan hanya kemunafikan belaka.

Kalau kamu tidak terima buktikan disini bahwa itu bukan dongengan doang !
Soli bikin thread sendiri donk kalo mao ngomongin Mariology dan Papasi itu adalah dongengan dan kemunafikan, nanti biar temen2 Katolik yg ngejelasin.


salam.


Memang itu hanya dongengan doang karena sampai sekarang tidak ada yang BERANI membantahnya dengan bermacam macam alasan.

Bikin thread khusus juga percuma kalau melihat gelagatnya diforum ini !

Salam

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on May 06, 2014, 09:22:04 AM
....
:afro:
...
:afro:
Suatu paparan yang seharusnya sangat dapat dipahami dengan nalar normal dan sehat.

Diberkatilah engkau Odading.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on May 06, 2014, 10:25:10 AM
Mat 16:13 Setelah Yesus tiba di daerah Kaisarea Filipi, Ia bertanya kepada murid-murid-Nya: "Kata orang, siapakah Anak Manusia itu?" Ayat 13 ini memberi pengertian bahwa dalam pengajaran-Nya, Yesus bertanya kepada 12 murid-Nya, apa yang didengar oleh murid-murid dari masyarakat tentang siapakah Yesus di mata masyarakat.

Mat 16:14 Jawab mereka: "Ada yang mengatakan: Yohanes Pembaptis, ada juga yang mengatakan: Elia dan ada pula yang mengatakan: Yeremia atau salah seorang dari para nabi." Murid-murid menjelaskan apa yang mereka dengar. Ternyata masyarakat menyebut bahwa Yesus itu adalah Yohanes Pembaptis, ada juga masyarakat menyebut Yesus adalah Elia, ada juga masyarakat menyebut Yesus adalah Yeremia, ada juga masyarakat menyebut Yesus adalah salah seorang nabi.

Mat 16:15 Lalu Yesus bertanya kepada mereka: "Tetapi apa katamu, siapakah Aku ini?" Yesus menanyakan kepada keduabelas murid-Nya, siapakah Yesus di pandangan para murid.

Mat 16:16 Maka jawab Simon Petrus: "Engkau adalah Mesias, Anak Allah yang hidup!" Setelah Yesus menanyakan kepada keduabelas murid tentang siapakah Yesus menurut para murid, mungkin saat itu Yesus menyapukan pandangan-Nya kepada keduabelas murid, menanti jawaban para murid. Dari keduabelas murid itu, Simon Petrus menjawab bahwa Yesus adalah Mesias, Anak Allah yang hidup. Tentu saja, ketika Yesus menyapu pandangan ke semua murid, kemudian Simon Petrus bersuara, maka Yesus pasti memalingkan pandangan-Nya kepada Simon Petrus yang bersuara, Yesus dan Petrus bertatap-tatapan.

Mat 16:17 Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Berbahagialah engkau Simon bin Yunus sebab bukan manusia yang menyatakan itu kepadamu, melainkan Bapa-Ku yang di sorga. Setelah pandangan Yesus berpaling ke Simon Petrus, maka Yesus mengatakan bahwa pandangan Simon Petrus itu adalah pemberitahuan oleh Allah Bapa. Lhah, kalau Allah Bapa yang memberitahukan hal itu kepada Simon Petrus, siapa yang menampiknya tentu adalah menampik Allah Bapa.

Mat 16:18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya. Setelah Allah Bapa memberitahukan kepada Simon Petrus bahwa Yesus adalah Mesias - Anak Allah yang hidup, maka Yesus sendiri mengatakan bahwa Simon adalah Petrus yang di atasnya, Yesus akan mendirikan jemaat-Nya, yang alam maut tidak akan menguasai jemaat itu.

Mat 16:19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga." Setelah Yesus mengatakan bahwa Yesus akan mendirikan jemaat-Nya, Yesus melanjutkan menyatakan bahwa kepada Petrus (yang di atasnya akan didirikan jemaat Yesus), akan diberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Sangat dapat dimengerti oleh nalar sehat dan normal, bahwa kunci Kerajaan Sorga itu akan diberikan hanya kepada Simon Petrus, disaksikan oleh murid lainnya.

Mat 16:20 Lalu Yesus melarang murid-murid-Nya supaya jangan memberitahukan kepada siapapun bahwa Ia Mesias. Setelah Yesus berkata akan mendirikan jemaat di atas Petrus, dan kepada Petrus diberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga, kembali Yesus menyapu pandangan kepada semua murid-nya dan melarang murid-Nya mengabarkan bahwa Yesus adalah Kristus, Yesuslah Mesias, Yesus adalah Anak Allah Yang Hidup.

Jadi, kunci Kerajaan Sorga diberikan oleh Yesus Kristus hanya kepada Simon Petrus, bukan kepada murid lainnya.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on May 06, 2014, 10:46:46 AM
Mungkin ada yang iri dan mencoba membuat kunci palsu?
Seperti kelakuan maling motor, begitu kali ya?

Kasihan....
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on May 10, 2014, 01:53:03 PM
Mat 16:13 Setelah Yesus tiba di daerah Kaisarea Filipi, Ia bertanya kepada murid-murid-Nya: "Kata orang, siapakah Anak Manusia itu?" Ayat 13 ini memberi pengertian bahwa dalam pengajaran-Nya, Yesus bertanya kepada 12 murid-Nya, apa yang didengar oleh murid-murid dari masyarakat tentang siapakah Yesus di mata masyarakat.

Mat 16:14 Jawab mereka: "Ada yang mengatakan: Yohanes Pembaptis, ada juga yang mengatakan: Elia dan ada pula yang mengatakan: Yeremia atau salah seorang dari para nabi." Murid-murid menjelaskan apa yang mereka dengar. Ternyata masyarakat menyebut bahwa Yesus itu adalah Yohanes Pembaptis, ada juga masyarakat menyebut Yesus adalah Elia, ada juga masyarakat menyebut Yesus adalah Yeremia, ada juga masyarakat menyebut Yesus adalah salah seorang nabi.

Mat 16:15 Lalu Yesus bertanya kepada mereka: "Tetapi apa katamu, siapakah Aku ini?" Yesus menanyakan kepada keduabelas murid-Nya, siapakah Yesus di pandangan para murid.

Mat 16:16 Maka jawab Simon Petrus: "Engkau adalah Mesias, Anak Allah yang hidup!" Setelah Yesus menanyakan kepada keduabelas murid tentang siapakah Yesus menurut para murid, mungkin saat itu Yesus menyapukan pandangan-Nya kepada keduabelas murid, menanti jawaban para murid. Dari keduabelas murid itu, Simon Petrus menjawab bahwa Yesus adalah Mesias, Anak Allah yang hidup. Tentu saja, ketika Yesus menyapu pandangan ke semua murid, kemudian Simon Petrus bersuara, maka Yesus pasti memalingkan pandangan-Nya kepada Simon Petrus yang bersuara, Yesus dan Petrus bertatap-tatapan.

Mat 16:17 Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Berbahagialah engkau Simon bin Yunus sebab bukan manusia yang menyatakan itu kepadamu, melainkan Bapa-Ku yang di sorga. Setelah pandangan Yesus berpaling ke Simon Petrus, maka Yesus mengatakan bahwa pandangan Simon Petrus itu adalah pemberitahuan oleh Allah Bapa. Lhah, kalau Allah Bapa yang memberitahukan hal itu kepada Simon Petrus, siapa yang menampiknya tentu adalah menampik Allah Bapa.

Mat 16:18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya. Setelah Allah Bapa memberitahukan kepada Simon Petrus bahwa Yesus adalah Mesias - Anak Allah yang hidup, maka Yesus sendiri mengatakan bahwa Simon adalah Petrus yang di atasnya, Yesus akan mendirikan jemaat-Nya, yang alam maut tidak akan menguasai jemaat itu.

Mat 16:19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga." Setelah Yesus mengatakan bahwa Yesus akan mendirikan jemaat-Nya, Yesus melanjutkan menyatakan bahwa kepada Petrus (yang di atasnya akan didirikan jemaat Yesus), akan diberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Sangat dapat dimengerti oleh nalar sehat dan normal, bahwa kunci Kerajaan Sorga itu akan diberikan hanya kepada Simon Petrus, disaksikan oleh murid lainnya.

Mat 16:20 Lalu Yesus melarang murid-murid-Nya supaya jangan memberitahukan kepada siapapun bahwa Ia Mesias. Setelah Yesus berkata akan mendirikan jemaat di atas Petrus, dan kepada Petrus diberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga, kembali Yesus menyapu pandangan kepada semua murid-nya dan melarang murid-Nya mengabarkan bahwa Yesus adalah Kristus, Yesuslah Mesias, Yesus adalah Anak Allah Yang Hidup.

Jadi, kunci Kerajaan Sorga diberikan oleh Yesus Kristus hanya kepada Simon Petrus, bukan kepada murid lainnya.


Matius 18:1 Pada waktu itu datanglah murid-murid itu kepada Yesus dan bertanya: "Siapakah yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga?"
18:18 Aku berkata kepadamu: Sesungguhnya apa yang kamu ikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kamu lepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga.

Contoh lain :

Yoh.20:19 Ketika hari sudah malam pada hari pertama minggu itu berkumpullah murid-murid Yesus di suatu tempat dengan pintu-pintu yang terkunci karena mereka takut kepada orang-orang Yahudi. Pada waktu itu datanglah Yesus dan berdiri di tengah-tengah mereka dan berkata: "Damai sejahtera bagi kamu!"
20:22 Dan sesudah berkata demikian, Ia mengembusi mereka dan berkata: "Terimalah Roh Kudus.
20:23 Jikalau kamu mengampuni dosa orang, dosanya diampuni, dan jikalau kamu menyatakan dosa orang tetap ada, dosanya tetap ada.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on May 10, 2014, 01:53:29 PM

Semua Rasul memiliki otoritas yang sama oleh Yesus,hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja yang selalu hobinya memanipulasi ayat ayat Alkitab dengan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempolnya.

2 Petrus 2:3 Dan karena serakahnya guru-guru palsu itu akan berusaha mencari untung dari kamu dengan ceritera-ceritera isapan jempol mereka. Tetapi untuk perbuatan mereka itu hukuman telah lama tersedia dan kebinasaan tidak akan tertunda.

Matius 15:3 Tetapi jawab Yesus kepada mereka: "Mengapa kamupun melanggar perintah Allah demi adat istiadat nenek moyangmu?

Makna “kunci” berkaitan dengan satu satunya “pintu” untuk masuk kedalam Kerajaan Surga yaitu :

Yohanes 10:9 Akulah pintu; barangsiapa masuk melalui Aku, ia akan selamat dan ia akan masuk dan keluar dan menemukan padang rumput.

Jadi amanat agung Tuhan Yesus yang disampaikan pada mulanya melalui para Rasul adalah menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab semua orang kristen yang sejati karena mereka adalah pengemban imamat yang rajani (Royal Priesthood).

Matius 28:19 Karena itu pergilah, jadikanlah semua bangsa murid-Ku dan baptislah mereka dalam nama Bapa dan Anak dan Roh Kudus,

28:20 dan ajarlah mereka melakukan segala sesuatu yang telah Kuperintahkan kepadamu. Dan ketahuilah, Aku menyertai kamu senantiasa sampai kepada akhir zaman.

Jadi jangan anda menggeser inti pernyataan Yesus dari pengertian “kunci” itu kepada otoritas eklusivitas seseorang,karena itu sudah keluar dari konteksnya dan pemahaman yang keliru.
Petrus mengaku dia hanya seorang penatua sama dengan Rasul lainnya :

1 Petrus 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:   

Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.

"The Catholic Church believes that St. Peter was the chief Apostle, exercising by Christ's appointment the supreme power of governing His church. The Vatican Council says: 'If anyone says that Christ the Lord did not constitute the Blessed Peter prince of all the Apostles and head of the whole church militant ... let him be anathema'" (Question Box, p. 145).
 
But notice what God says:

All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; 14:26.
Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11,12,16,17; 2:6-9,11-14.

All apostles received the power to "bind and loose."

Some claim that Jesus, in Matthew 16:19, gave exclusively to Peter the power to bind and loose, but Matthew 18:18 shows that others also had the same power.

John 20:22,23 - All apostles had power to forgive or retain sins, but only as guided by the Holy Spirit. No apostle could originate laws but could only reveal the laws God made. They did this by revealing and preaching the gospel. If men obey, their sins are forgiven; if not, their sins are retained - Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:36-41; etc.

The gospel was the "keys" or authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter the church. Peter was the first to preach to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10), but all apostles had authority to preach the gospel. No passage anywhere says the other apostles submitted to Peter's authority.

Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way - 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11.
All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.

There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.

http://gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on May 10, 2014, 01:55:24 PM
Mungkin ada yang iri dan mencoba membuat kunci palsu?
Seperti kelakuan maling motor, begitu kali ya?

Kasihan....


Kunci palsu dalam bentuk tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol itulah relitas yang sebenarnya terjadi didalam sejarah GRK selama ribuan tahun berselang !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on May 10, 2014, 02:05:44 PM
Memang namanya kunci palsu, pasti yang melakukannya ya golongan maling, gak lebih gak kurang.

:D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on May 11, 2014, 06:04:48 AM
Semua Rasul memiliki otoritas yang sama oleh Yesus,hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja yang selalu hobinya memanipulasi ayat ayat Alkitab dengan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempolnya.

Berteriak2 kalo sola scriptura.
Tapi menyangkal Firman Allah. Bener2 nekad orang ini.
Setali tiga uang dengan gurunya.

Nih saya kutipkan ayat tersebut, dibaca dan diresapi. Jangan menolak Firman Allah

16:18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya
16:19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."

Kalo enggak punya Kunci Kerajaan Surga, jangan bikin yang palsu. Malu2in.
Belum beberapa abad sudah tercerai berai jadi puluhan ribu denom.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on June 18, 2014, 10:33:12 AM
Matius 18:1 Pada waktu itu datanglah murid-murid itu kepada Yesus dan bertanya: "Siapakah yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga?"
18:18 Aku berkata kepadamu: Sesungguhnya apa yang kamu ikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kamu lepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga.

Contoh lain :

Yoh.20:19 Ketika hari sudah malam pada hari pertama minggu itu berkumpullah murid-murid Yesus di suatu tempat dengan pintu-pintu yang terkunci karena mereka takut kepada orang-orang Yahudi. Pada waktu itu datanglah Yesus dan berdiri di tengah-tengah mereka dan berkata: "Damai sejahtera bagi kamu!"
20:22 Dan sesudah berkata demikian, Ia mengembusi mereka dan berkata: "Terimalah Roh Kudus.
20:23 Jikalau kamu mengampuni dosa orang, dosanya diampuni, dan jikalau kamu menyatakan dosa orang tetap ada, dosanya tetap ada.
Mat 16:18 itu berada dalam perikop Pengakuan Petrus, yaitu Mat 16:13-20. Perikop itu pula yang ingin Husada maknai, dengan memberi komentar-komentar pada masing-masing ayatnya. Kenapa solideogloria meng-quote pemaknaan Husada itu dan mengkaitkannya ke Mat 18:1?

Mat 18:1 itu berada pada perikop Siapa yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga (Mat 18:1-5), beda terhadap  perikop Pengakuan Petrus (Mat 16:13-20). Pada perikop Pengakuan Petrus, Yesus Kristus mengajarkan atau memberitahu keutamaan Petrus dari antara murid lainnya. Mengingat Yesus Kristus adalah Tuhan, tidak ada yang dapat melarang Dia untuk memilih langsung seorang dari para rasulNya untuk dijadikan yang utama. Namun, nyatanya, Yesus Kristus menunjukkan jalan/cara pemilihan Petrus sebagai yang utama, yaitu dengan menanyakan kepada para murid tentang pendapat orang (masyarakat), dan pendapat para murid, tentang siapa gerangan Yesus Kristus. Petrus mengaku siapa Yesus Kristus, maka dengan demikian, pengangkatan Petrus sebagai yang utama dari antara para murid menjadi jelas. Maka dikatakan oleh Yesus Kristus, bahwa di atas Petruslah dibangun jemaat Tuhan, serta kepada Petrus diberikan Kunci Kerajaan Sorga.

Sementara itu, pada perikop Siapa yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga (Mat 18:1-5), Yesus Kristus mengajarkan model yang terbesar di Kerajaan Sorga. Model seperti anak kecil yang diketengahkan Yesus Kristus pada Mat 18:2 itulah model yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga. Pada Mat 18:1-5 itu juga Yesus Kristus memerintahkan agar para murid bertobat dan bersikap polos seperti anak kecil, agar para murid dapat masuk Kerajaan Sorga.

Jadi, tekanan, atau intensitas, atau pokok ajaran yang disampaikan melalui Mat 16:13-20, berbeda dengan pokok ajaran di Mat 18:1-5. Cermati lagi, Sol, agar dapat engkau tangkap. Kosongkan lebih dahulu doktrin dari kepalamu. Biarkan Roh Kudus memimpin alur pikirmu.

Kemudian solideogloria meloncat ke perikop Tentang menasihati sesama saudara (Mat 18:15-20), karena di Mat 18:18 solideogloria membaca ada bagian ayat yang sama dengan yang terdapat di Mat 16:19. solideogloria sengaja mengabaikan bagian ayat: Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga di Mat 16:19. Padahal, judul trit ini (Kunci Kerajaan Sorga) justru termuat dalam bagian ayat yang solideogloria abaikan dari Mat 16:19 itu.

Lalu, solideogloria kembali meloncat ke Yoh 20:19, 22, dan 23 yang merupakan bagian dari perikop Yesus menampakkan diri kepada murid-murid-Nya (Yoh 20:19-23). Husada tidak menangkap hubungan Yoh 20:19-23 ini terhadap bahasan kita, juga kepada judul trit. Dapatkah solideogloria mengurangi sedikit 'kadar keloncat-loncatan'?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on June 18, 2014, 12:10:27 PM
Semua Rasul memiliki otoritas yang sama oleh Yesus,hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja yang selalu hobinya memanipulasi ayat ayat Alkitab dengan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempolnya.
solideogloria jangan menggunting "Kepadamu (Petrus) akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga" dari Mat 16:19 mempersamakannya dengan Mat 18:18. Sudah sangat banyak pengurangan Kitab Suci di abad XIX, jangan solideogloria kurangi lagi bagian ayatnya.
Quote
2 Petrus 2:3 Dan karena serakahnya guru-guru palsu itu akan berusaha mencari untung dari kamu dengan ceritera-ceritera isapan jempol mereka. Tetapi untuk perbuatan mereka itu hukuman telah lama tersedia dan kebinasaan tidak akan tertunda.
Guru serakah dan guru palsu itu ialah mereka yang memelihara sikap benci, merasa diri benar sendiri, menyeleweng dari himpunan yang didirikan Tuhan, yang melakukan pengurangan Kitab Suci demi mendapat pengikut. Mereka kira jalan yang ditempuh adalah lurus, padahal mengarahkan ke kebinasaan.
Quote
Matius 15:3 Tetapi jawab Yesus kepada mereka: "Mengapa kamupun melanggar perintah Allah demi adat istiadat nenek moyangmu?
OOT.
Quote
Makna “kunci” berkaitan dengan satu satunya “pintu” untuk masuk kedalam Kerajaan Surga yaitu :
Yohanes 10:9 Akulah pintu; barangsiapa masuk melalui Aku, ia akan selamat dan ia akan masuk dan keluar dan menemukan padang rumput.
Apa kaitannya dengan pokok bahasan? Semua pemilik nalar sehat dan normal mengetahui bahwa kunci terkait dengan pintu. Apa yang ingin solideogloria kemukakan?
Quote
Jadi amanat agung Tuhan Yesus yang disampaikan pada mulanya melalui para Rasul adalah menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab semua orang kristen yang sejati karena mereka adalah pengemban imamat yang rajani (Royal Priesthood).
Matius 28:19 Karena itu pergilah, jadikanlah semua bangsa murid-Ku dan baptislah mereka dalam nama Bapa dan Anak dan Roh Kudus,
28:20 dan ajarlah mereka melakukan segala sesuatu yang telah Kuperintahkan kepadamu. Dan ketahuilah, Aku menyertai kamu senantiasa sampai kepada akhir zaman.
apakah solideogloria memutuskan kaitan Mat 28:19-20 itu dari Mat 28:16? Di AOL disebut bahwa Mat 28:16-20 adalah satu perikop, yaitu Perintah untuk memberitakan Injil. Kalau solideogloria seenak perutmu saja mengartikan Kitab Suci, yahh... engkau memang merdeka.

Mat 28:16 bilang, Dan kesebelas murid itu berangkat ke Galilea, ke bukit yang telah ditunjukkan Yesus kepada mereka. Perintah memberitakan Injil itu diberikan kepada sebelas murid, walaupun pada masa itu sudah banyak pengikut Yesus Kristus, terbukti dari kemanapun Yesus dan muridNya pergi, selalu diikuti oleh banyak orang. Kalau pemahaman solideogloria mengartikan bahwa pengabaran Injil adalah tugas dan tanggungjawab semua orang kristen yang sejati karena mereka adalah pengemban imamat yang rajani (Royal Priesthood), silahkan saja. Namun, harap pastikan, dari pengajar mana solideogloria mendapat ajaran? Dari pengajar yang disertai Tuhan sampai kepada akhir zaman, atau hanya dari pengajar yang menganggap diri kompeten?
Quote
Jadi jangan anda menggeser inti pernyataan Yesus dari pengertian “kunci” itu kepada otoritas eklusivitas seseorang,karena itu sudah keluar dari konteksnya dan pemahaman yang keliru.
Kalau solideogloria ingin mengedit Mat 16:19 Kepadamu (Petrus) akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga, menjadi sesuka solideogloria sendiri, Husada tidak ikut-ikut. Namun, menurut pemahaman Husada, ayat itu memperlihatkan dengan jelas bahwa orang yang diberi Kunci Kerajaan Sorga hanyalah Petrus. Kuasa melepas dan mengikat, memang diberikan kepada para rasul, tetapi Kunci Kerajaan Sorga diberikan hanya kepada Petrus.
Quote
Petrus mengaku dia hanya seorang penatua sama dengan Rasul lainnya :
1 Petrus 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:   
Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.
"The Catholic Church believes that St. Peter was the chief Apostle, exercising by Christ's appointment the supreme power of governing His church. The Vatican Council says: 'If anyone says that Christ the Lord did not constitute the Blessed Peter prince of all the Apostles and head of the whole church militant ... let him be anathema'" (Question Box, p. 145).
 But notice what God says:
All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; 14:26.
Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11,12,16,17; 2:6-9,11-14.
All apostles received the power to "bind and loose."
Some claim that Jesus, in Matthew 16:19, gave exclusively to Peter the power to bind and loose, but Matthew 18:18 shows that others also had the same power.
John 20:22,23 - All apostles had power to forgive or retain sins, but only as guided by the Holy Spirit. No apostle could originate laws but could only reveal the laws God made. They did this by revealing and preaching the gospel. If men obey, their sins are forgiven; if not, their sins are retained - Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:36-41; etc.
The gospel was the "keys" or authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter the church. Peter was the first to preach to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10), but all apostles had authority to preach the gospel. No passage anywhere says the other apostles submitted to Peter's authority.
Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way - 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11.
All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.
There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.
http://gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php
Kalau sub bahasan masih untuk menjelaskan judul trit, silahkan. Kalau bahasan melebar ke masalah selain judul trit, kita diskusikan di trit yang sesuai saja.

Sejauh ini, yang Husada ketahui, kewenangan mengikat dan melepas, diberikan oleh Tuhan Yesus Kristus kepada semua murid-Nya, sementara Kunci Kerajaan Sorga  hanya diberikan kepada Petrus (Mat 16:19).
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on August 16, 2014, 07:18:45 PM

Kunci palsu dalam bentuk tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol itulah relitas yang sebenarnya terjadi didalam sejarah GRK selama ribuan tahun berselang !

Berarti anda juga pengikut tradisi palsu itu dong..
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 16, 2014, 11:53:31 PM
Berarti anda juga pengikut tradisi palsu itu dong..

Siapapun tahu tradisi menyesatkan dari katolik penyembah berhala itu !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 17, 2014, 01:48:23 AM
Semua Rasul memiliki otoritas yang sama oleh Yesus
IMO yah... otoritas "menggembalakan" - YA, sama.

Kalo soli mau baca ayat2 menyangkut Petrus berangkat dengan "nge-blank-in" mengenai pandangan di pov soli bhw Petrus berotoritas = rasul lain, saya rasa soli bisa nemuin ("ngliat") bhw Petrus itu "stands-out" dari rasul2 lainnya.

Quote
hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja
tidakkah tiap2 Gereja (baik Katolik, Protestan, dlsb) mempunyai hirarki kepemimpinan ? Saya tidak tahu mengenai hal ini... so please CMIIW ?

Quote
hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja
IMO, ini mah tergantung dari anggotanya aja.

Quote
There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said to them, Men and brothers, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Pabila Petrus had no authority over other apostles, mao Petrus bangun/berdiri kek, jumpalitan kek, naek meja kek ... problem yang mereka lagi rame-in itu mungkin bisa ga dapet titik-temunya saat itu.

Mosok gak kliatan sih ?
bhw pas Petrus bangun lalu berbicara ---> Then all the multitude kept silence ?

and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul
Barnabas ama Paulus bisa nggak dapet kesempatan berbicara kale kalo Petrus nggak berdiri lalu berbicara :D.

Dari mana ampe bisa disimpulkan there is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, sementara padahal dari kisah itu saja bisa keliatan bhw IT IS the proof Peter had authority over other apostles ?

Mengenai suksesi apostolik, apa yang aneh ?
Dari jaman baheula, Allah kan juga nunjuk High Priest suksesi dari suku Lewi ?

Andreas ama Petrus tua-an mana ?
Barusan tak ubek2 internet, katanya Andreas kakaknya Petrus ... dan Andreas adalah orang pertama sebagai murid Yesus secara kronologi ketika dipilih.

(2) Inilah nama kedua belas rasul itu: Pertama Simon yang disebut Petrus dan Andreas saudaranya

IMO, kalo kita berangkatnya udah pake pedoman there is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, maka nggak "keliatan" itu Matius 10:2 bisa mengandung pengertian bhw Petrus memang punya authority over other apostles ... sekalipun "keliatan", mungkin kita akan dgn segala cara dicari mengenai ayat ini - agar bisa ketemu bhw ayat ini sama sekali nggak mendukung/mengandung pengertian ungu. Entah apa itu cara-nya :D.

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 17, 2014, 07:16:00 AM
IMO yah... otoritas "menggembalakan" - YA, sama.

Kalo soli mau baca ayat2 menyangkut Petrus berangkat dengan "nge-blank-in" mengenai pandangan di pov soli bhw Petrus berotoritas = rasul lain, saya rasa soli bisa nemuin ("ngliat") bhw Petrus itu "stands-out" dari rasul2 lainnya.


Pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem adalah Yakobus bukan Petrus dan kalau Petrus pemimpin mengapa pula  Dia yang diutus bukan mengutus ???

Kisah Para Rasul 8:14 Ketika rasul-rasul di Yerusalem mendengar, bahwa tanah Samaria telah menerima firman Allah, mereka mengutus Petrus dan Yohanes ke situ.

Petrus saja pernah ditegur oleh Paulus karena munafik.

Dan Petrus mengakui bahwa dia hanyalah teman sesama penatua dengan yang lainnya :

1 Petrus 5:1   5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:


Quote
Quote
hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja
tidakkah tiap2 Gereja (baik Katolik, Protestan, dlsb) mempunyai hirarki kepemimpinan ? Saya tidak tahu mengenai hal ini... so please CMIIW ?


Hanya satu Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus bukan Paus dan tidak ada jabatan Vicar of Christ didalam ajaran Kitab Suci.


Quote
Quote
hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja
IMO, ini mah tergantung dari anggotanya aja.


Menjadikan jabatan Paus sebagai Tuhan didunia sudah memberhalakan manusia menurut Kitab Suci yang berotoritas absolut sebagai alat ukur kebenaran doktrin gereja!


Quote
Quote
There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said to them, Men and brothers, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Pabila Petrus had no authority over other apostles, mao Petrus bangun/berdiri kek, jumpalitan kek, naek meja kek ... problem yang mereka lagi rame-in itu mungkin bisa ga dapet titik-temunya saat itu.

Mosok gak kliatan sih ?
bhw pas Petrus bangun lalu berbicara ---> Then all the multitude kept silence ?

and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul
Barnabas ama Paulus bisa nggak dapet kesempatan berbicara kale kalo Petrus nggak berdiri lalu berbicara .

Dari mana ampe bisa disimpulkan there is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, sementara padahal dari kisah itu saja bisa keliatan bhw IT IS the proof Peter had authority over other apostles ?

Mengenai suksesi apostolik, apa yang aneh ?
Dari jaman baheula, Allah kan juga nunjuk High Priest suksesi dari suku Lewi ?

Andreas ama Petrus tua-an mana ?
Barusan tak ubek2 internet, katanya Andreas kakaknya Petrus ... dan Andreas adalah orang pertama sebagai murid Yesus secara kronologi ketika dipilih.

(2) Inilah nama kedua belas rasul itu: Pertama Simon yang disebut Petrus dan Andreas saudaranya

IMO, kalo kita berangkatnya udah pake pedoman there is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, maka nggak "keliatan" itu Matius 10:2 bisa mengandung pengertian bhw Petrus memang punya authority over other apostles ... sekalipun "keliatan", mungkin kita akan dgn segala cara dicari mengenai ayat ini - agar bisa ketemu bhw ayat ini sama sekali nggak mendukung/mengandung pengertian ungu. Entah apa itu cara-nya .

Kisah Para Rasul 15:13 Setelah Paulus dan Barnabas selesai berbicara, berkatalah Yakobus: "Hai saudara-saudara, dengarkanlah aku:

Sidang konsili pertama gereja sekitar tahun 50 di Yerusalem sebagai pusat gereja Kristen dimasa itu dipimpin oleh Yakobus sipengambil keputusan bukan Petrus dan klaim GRK bahwa Petrus adalah Paus pertama sama sekali sudah anti Alkitab dan tidak ada bukti historisnya sama sekali.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 17, 2014, 12:28:56 PM

Pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem adalah Yakobus bukan Petrus dan kalau Petrus pemimpin mengapa pula  Dia yang diutus bukan mengutus ???

Kisah Para Rasul 8:14 Ketika rasul-rasul di Yerusalem mendengar, bahwa tanah Samaria telah menerima firman Allah, mereka mengutus Petrus dan Yohanes ke situ.
Lah kalo dalem pelayanan, kenapa nggak ? Kan di post sebelon-nya udah saya tulis :
Quote
otoritas "menggembalakan" - YA, sama

Barusan tak baca ayatnya .... dan kalo mau diperhatiin dari kisahnya, orang2 Samaria itu sudah di baptis.

Q : Siapa yang membaptis ?
A : saya nggak tau.

Q : lalu kenapa saat dibaptis itu mereka nggak dapet RK ?
A : saya nggak tau ... yang saya tau, lewat Petrus dan Yohanes - orang2 Samaria tsb menerima RK. So... mungkin saja di utusnya Petrus dan Yohanes ke Samaria bukan tanpa alasan atopun secara random dimana Petrus dan Yohanes kebetulan lagi sempet. Ada latar belakang (alasan) KENAPA yang diutus itu adalah Petrus dan Yohanes.

Quote
Petrus saja pernah ditegur oleh Paulus karena munafik.
Dimana ada pelarangan menegur Petrus ?

Quote
Dan Petrus mengakui bahwa dia hanyalah teman sesama penatua dengan yang lainnya :
1 Petrus 5:1   5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Coba deh soli perhatikan begimana itu ceritanya Petrus yang sesama penatua, namun exhort penatua2 lain :).

Quote
Hanya satu Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus
Yang saya maksud adalah secara organisasi, soli ---> tidakkah tiap2 Gereja (baik Katolik, Protestan, dlsb) mempunyai hirarki kepemimpinan ?

Quote
Kisah Para Rasul 15:13 Setelah Paulus dan Barnabas selesai berbicara, berkatalah Yakobus: "Hai saudara-saudara, dengarkanlah aku:
dan ini awal kalimat yang mereka mesti dengarkan : (14) Simon telah menceriterakan, bahwa sejak semula Allah menunjukkan rahmat-Nya kepada bangsa-bangsa lain, yaitu dengan memilih suatu umat dari antara mereka bagi nama-Nya.

Ada dua pihak disitu, pro-sunat  vs kontra-sunat.
Ada di pihak mana Petrus ? Ada dimana pihak Yakobus ?

(19) Sebab itu aku berpendapat, bahwa kita tidak boleh menimbulkan kesulitan bagi mereka dari bangsa-bangsa lain yang berbalik kepada Allah

kita bandingkan dengan kalimat Petrus sebelumnya :
(10) Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?

Q : So ... siapa pihak "kita" DAN pihak "kamu" disitu ?
A : pihak pro-sunat.

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 18, 2014, 05:40:57 AM
Lah kalo dalem pelayanan, kenapa nggak ? Kan di post sebelon-nya udah saya tulis :


Logikanya yang mengutus adalah pemimpin bukan yang dipimpin !


Quote
Quote
otoritas "menggembalakan" - YA, sama

Barusan tak baca ayatnya .... dan kalo mau diperhatiin dari kisahnya, orang2 Samaria itu sudah di baptis.

Q : Siapa yang membaptis ?
A : saya nggak tau.

Q : lalu kenapa saat dibaptis itu mereka nggak dapet RK ?
A : saya nggak tau ... yang saya tau, lewat Petrus dan Yohanes - orang2 Samaria tsb menerima RK. So... mungkin saja di utusnya Petrus dan Yohanes ke Samaria bukan tanpa alasan atopun secara random dimana Petrus dan Yohanes kebetulan lagi sempet. Ada latar belakang (alasan) KENAPA yang diutus itu adalah Petrus dan Yohanes.



Kis.15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)

Jelas sekali bahwa Yakobus yang mengambil keputusan dikonsili pertama di Yerusalem itu menunjukkan bahwa dialah pemimpin gereja (pengambil keputusan) pada masa itu bukan Petrus.

James, The Leader of the Jerusalem Church

We have seen that, despite attempts to suppress the fact, the primary sources show that James was the full brother of Jesus. Now it is time to examine the evidence showing that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church from the very beginning.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jamesleader.html


Quote
Quote
Petrus saja pernah ditegur oleh Paulus karena munafik.
Dimana ada pelarangan menegur Petrus ?


Hanya menunjukkan indikasi bahwa Petrus bukan pemimpin gereja dimasa itu sebab kelemahan kelemahan yang ada padanya !


Quote
Quote
Dan Petrus mengakui bahwa dia hanyalah teman sesama penatua dengan yang lainnya :
1 Petrus 5:1   5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Coba deh soli perhatikan begimana itu ceritanya Petrus yang sesama penatua, namun exhort penatua2 lain .

Hanya pemimpin yang mengambil suatu keputusan akhir didalam konsili dan dialah Yakobus bukan Petrus !

Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, writing about James, says, "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem

Eusebius records that Clement of Alexandria related, "This James, whom the people of old called the Just because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the record tells us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church.

James is also an authority in the early church at the Council of Jerusalem (James is quoting Amos 9:11–12).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just


Quote
Quote
Hanya satu Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus
Yang saya maksud adalah secara organisasi, soli ---> tidakkah tiap2 Gereja (baik Katolik, Protestan, dlsb) mempunyai hirarki kepemimpinan ?


Sudah saya buktikan diatas bahwa secara organisasipun Yakobuslah pemimpin gereja dimasa itu bukan Petrus !

Mau bukti lagi dari sejarah gereja ?

James, the brother of Jesus

For the remainder of the history given by Luke, James is barely mentioned again, and Peter is absent. In chapter 21 Paul makes another visit to Jerusalem to meet with the leadership and the only name mentioned is James.

Other than the letter attributed to James, he is only mentioned three times in all of the NT. How did James become the leader of the Church in Jerusalem? The answer comes from an early church tradition recorded in Eusebius' Church History.

Eusebius quotes from some earlier writings that now only exist through his quotations:
But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.  - Church History II.1.3-5

But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.

He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day....He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel...
  - Church History II.23.5-6

http://www.churchhistory101.com/century1-p6.php



Quote
Quote
Kisah Para Rasul 15:13 Setelah Paulus dan Barnabas selesai berbicara, berkatalah Yakobus: "Hai saudara-saudara, dengarkanlah aku:
dan ini awal kalimat yang mereka mesti dengarkan : (14) Simon telah menceriterakan, bahwa sejak semula Allah menunjukkan rahmat-Nya kepada bangsa-bangsa lain, yaitu dengan memilih suatu umat dari antara mereka bagi nama-Nya.

Ada dua pihak disitu, pro-sunat  vs kontra-sunat.
Ada di pihak mana Petrus ? Ada dimana pihak Yakobus ?

(19) Sebab itu aku berpendapat, bahwa kita tidak boleh menimbulkan kesulitan bagi mereka dari bangsa-bangsa lain yang berbalik kepada Allah

kita bandingkan dengan kalimat Petrus sebelumnya :
(10) Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?

Q : So ... siapa pihak "kita" DAN pihak "kamu" disitu ?
A : pihak pro-sunat.

Yang benar adalah apa yang sudah diilhamkan Roh Kudus kepada Paulus ahli teologi paling mumpuni disaat itu bahwa sunat PL sudah digantikan dengan baptisan PB !

CATATAN:

Sejarah sudah mencatat bahwa Petrus sudah menjadi batu pijakan bagi GRK untuk mengklaim bahwa semua gereja dunia harus tunduk kepada Vatican yang dikepalai oleh seorang Paus (Kepala seluruh Uskup) melalui polesan atau manipulasi ayat-ayat  Alkitab bahwa Petrus sebagai Kepala Gereja sedunia dan pewarisnya hanyalah Vatican.

Peninggian Petrus ini hanyalah salah satu contoh dari peninggian peninggian lainnya yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Kitab Suci seperti figur Maria,Orang Orang Kudus dan jabatan Paus yang dianggap setara dengan Tuhan (infallible) didalam tradisi mereka.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 18, 2014, 10:05:05 PM
Semua Rasul memiliki otoritas yang sama oleh Yesus,hanya gereja yang kerjanya meninggikan manusia secara berhala saja yang selalu hobinya memanipulasi ayat ayat Alkitab dengan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempolnya.

2 Petrus 2:3 Dan karena serakahnya guru-guru palsu itu akan berusaha mencari untung dari kamu dengan ceritera-ceritera isapan jempol mereka. Tetapi untuk perbuatan mereka itu hukuman telah lama tersedia dan kebinasaan tidak akan tertunda.

Matius 15:3 Tetapi jawab Yesus kepada mereka: "Mengapa kamupun melanggar perintah Allah demi adat istiadat nenek moyangmu?

Makna “kunci” berkaitan dengan satu satunya “pintu” untuk masuk kedalam Kerajaan Surga yaitu :

Yohanes 10:9 Akulah pintu; barangsiapa masuk melalui Aku, ia akan selamat dan ia akan masuk dan keluar dan menemukan padang rumput.

Jadi amanat agung Tuhan Yesus yang disampaikan pada mulanya melalui para Rasul adalah menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab semua orang kristen yang sejati karena mereka adalah pengemban imamat yang rajani (Royal Priesthood).

Matius 28:19 Karena itu pergilah, jadikanlah semua bangsa murid-Ku dan baptislah mereka dalam nama Bapa dan Anak dan Roh Kudus,

28:20 dan ajarlah mereka melakukan segala sesuatu yang telah Kuperintahkan kepadamu. Dan ketahuilah, Aku menyertai kamu senantiasa sampai kepada akhir zaman.

Jadi jangan anda menggeser inti pernyataan Yesus dari pengertian “kunci” itu kepada otoritas eklusivitas seseorang,karena itu sudah keluar dari konteksnya dan pemahaman yang keliru.
Petrus mengaku dia hanya seorang penatua sama dengan Rasul lainnya :

1 Petrus 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:   

Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.

"The Catholic Church believes that St. Peter was the chief Apostle, exercising by Christ's appointment the supreme power of governing His church. The Vatican Council says: 'If anyone says that Christ the Lord did not constitute the Blessed Peter prince of all the Apostles and head of the whole church militant ... let him be anathema'" (Question Box, p. 145).
 
But notice what God says:

All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; 14:26.
Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11,12,16,17; 2:6-9,11-14.

All apostles received the power to "bind and loose."

Some claim that Jesus, in Matthew 16:19, gave exclusively to Peter the power to bind and loose, but Matthew 18:18 shows that others also had the same power.

John 20:22,23 - All apostles had power to forgive or retain sins, but only as guided by the Holy Spirit. No apostle could originate laws but could only reveal the laws God made. They did this by revealing and preaching the gospel. If men obey, their sins are forgiven; if not, their sins are retained - Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:36-41; etc.

The gospel was the "keys" or authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter the church. Peter was the first to preach to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10), but all apostles had authority to preach the gospel. No passage anywhere says the other apostles submitted to Peter's authority.

Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way - 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11.
All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.

There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.

http://gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php

Supremasi Petrus atas rasul2 lainnya silakan dibaca penjelasannya di sini:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 19, 2014, 12:39:36 AM

Logikanya yang mengutus adalah pemimpin bukan yang dipimpin !
Nah, pabila soli pake logikanya... maka bisa diketahui bahwa logika lain-nya adalah para Rasul selain Petrus dan Yohanes tidak/belon mempunyai kuasa datengin RK - sekalipun orang2 Samaria sudah dibaptis.

Begitu loh maksud saya, soli.

Quote
Kis.15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
Ya... my sentence / my judgmentnya ke siapa ? ke : WE ---> KITA.

Quote
Jelas sekali bahwa Yakobus yang mengambil keputusan dikonsili pertama di Yerusalem itu menunjukkan bahwa dialah pemimpin gereja (pengambil keputusan) pada masa itu bukan Petrus.
Nggak bisa dikatakan jelas sekali, soli. Yang Yakobus bilang itu : KITA .... artinya juga possible Yakobus itu adalah ada di pihak golongan yang "cerewet", nggak sependapat tidak diberlakukannya sunat.

Yang Petrus bilang itu : KAMU.
Petrus tidak melibatkan dirinya di kelompok "KITA" tsb.
(10) Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?

So, kata "KAMU" di ayat tsb - didalamnya ada Yakobus.
Yakobus mengambil keputusan buat golongannya berdasarkan apa kata Petrus.


Quote
James, The Leader of the Jerusalem Church

We have seen that, despite attempts to suppress the fact, the primary sources show that James was the full brother of Jesus. Now it is time to examine the evidence showing that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church from the very beginning.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jamesleader.html
soli...

pertama,
kalo mengenai hal ini nyari di internet - maka masing2 pihak ada yang bilang Petrus the Leader - Yakobus yang the Leader.

kedua,
Quote
Hanya menunjukkan indikasi bahwa Petrus bukan pemimpin gereja dimasa itu sebab kelemahan kelemahan yang ada padanya !
Hanya pemimpin yang mengambil suatu keputusan akhir didalam konsili dan dialah Yakobus bukan Petrus !

ini kita lagi fokusnya mau yang mana ?
Tidak ada Leadership di gereja ?
ataukah mengenai siapa yang the leader ? Petrus atokah Yakobus ? ---> dengan demikian disini artinya ADA Leadership di gereja.


Quote
Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, writing about James, says, "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem

Eusebius records that Clement of Alexandria related, "This James, whom the people of old called the Just because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the record tells us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church.

James is also an authority in the early church at the Council of Jerusalem (James is quoting Amos 9:11–12).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just
Sudah saya buktikan diatas bahwa secara organisasipun Yakobuslah pemimpin gereja dimasa itu bukan Petrus !

Mau bukti lagi dari sejarah gereja ?

James, the brother of Jesus

For the remainder of the history given by Luke, James is barely mentioned again, and Peter is absent. In chapter 21 Paul makes another visit to Jerusalem to meet with the leadership and the only name mentioned is James.

Other than the letter attributed to James, he is only mentioned three times in all of the NT. How did James become the leader of the Church in Jerusalem? The answer comes from an early church tradition recorded in Eusebius' Church History.

Eusebius quotes from some earlier writings that now only exist through his quotations:
But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.  - Church History II.1.3-5

But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.

He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day....He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel...
  - Church History II.23.5-6

http://www.churchhistory101.com/century1-p6.php
seperti yang sudah saya sempet post sebelumnya, kalo berangkat dari apa yang kita pegang, ya kita "terkunci" dari info2 yang sudah kita tau dulu itu, soli. Kalo kita berangkatnya "blank" (me"nol"kan info2 yg sudah kita pegang duluan), maka kita bisa nemuin kelogikan yang lain  :)

btw, barusan ngebaca tulisan diatas ---> "James, the brother of the Lord"
Saya ubek internet, ternyata katanya memang masih belon bisa dipastikan secara absolut/mutlak mengenai identitas orang yg ditulis James tsb, yah ?

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 19, 2014, 06:03:32 AM
Supremasi Petrus atas rasul2 lainnya silakan dibaca penjelasannya di sini:


Argumentasi anda sudah dibantah pada website berikut ini :

http://www.christian-faith.com/roots-of-roman-catholic-authority/

Mengenai supremasi Petrus silahkan baca semua argumentasi saya sebelumnya.

Ayat Matthew 16:16-19 yang umumnya digunakan oleh GRK sebagai landasan teologis supremasi gereja ternyata bertentangan dengan banyak opini para pemimpin gereja klasik sendiri.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 19, 2014, 06:10:00 AM
Nah, pabila soli pake logikanya... maka bisa diketahui bahwa logika lain-nya adalah para Rasul selain Petrus dan Yohanes tidak/belon mempunyai kuasa datengin RK - sekalipun orang2 Samaria sudah dibaptis.

Begitu loh maksud saya, soli.


Manusia tidak punya kuasa untuk mendatangkan Roh Kudus karena Dia adalah Tuhan yang tidak bisa diatur-atur oleh manusia atau dibawah kuasa manusia untuk bisa datang.

Adalah inisiatif Tuhan untuk datang dengan cara dan waktu yang ditentukan sendiri oleh-Nya.

Hanya Yesus yang mengutus Roh Kudus datang kepada manusia bukan Petrus dll.

Yohanes 15:26 Jikalau Penghibur yang akan Kuutus dari Bapa datang, yaitu Roh Kebenaran yang keluar dari Bapa, Ia akan bersaksi tentang Aku.


Quote
Quote
Kis.15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
Ya... my sentence / my judgmentnya ke siapa ? ke : WE ---> KITA.


Yang penting dicamkan adalah hanya seorang pemimpin yang mengambil keputusan akhir.



Quote
Quote
Jelas sekali bahwa Yakobus yang mengambil keputusan dikonsili pertama di Yerusalem itu menunjukkan bahwa dialah pemimpin gereja (pengambil keputusan) pada masa itu bukan Petrus.
Nggak bisa dikatakan jelas sekali, soli. Yang Yakobus bilang itu : KITA .... artinya juga possible Yakobus itu adalah ada di pihak golongan yang "cerewet", nggak sependapat tidak diberlakukannya sunat.

Yang Petrus bilang itu : KAMU.
Petrus tidak melibatkan dirinya di kelompok "KITA" tsb.
(10) Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?

So, kata "KAMU" di ayat tsb - didalamnya ada Yakobus.
Yakobus mengambil keputusan buat golongannya berdasarkan apa kata Petrus.


Soal “cerewet” itu hanya karangan spekulatif anda belaka tetapi jelas sekali Yakobus yang mengambil keputusan akhir bukan Petrus yang hanya mengajukan persoalannya didalam konsili !

Hanya ada dua macam opini waktu itu yaitu antara Paulus yang paling mengerti Injil dan Hukum Kristus karena dia dipakai Tuhan sebab ahli Teologi dan filsafat murid Gamaliel guru terkemuka dimasa itu,dengan pihak para Rasul lainnya yg masih merasa dibawah bayang bayang Hukum Taurat.


Quote
Quote
James, The Leader of the Jerusalem Church

We have seen that, despite attempts to suppress the fact, the primary sources show that James was the full brother of Jesus. Now it is time to examine the evidence showing that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church from the very beginning.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jamesleader.html
soli...

pertama,
kalo mengenai hal ini nyari di internet - maka masing2 pihak ada yang bilang Petrus the Leader - Yakobus yang the Leader.


Kalau anda pakai sumber Katolik tentu tidak heran karena Petrus adalah satu satunya batu pijakan mereka untuk mengklaim diri sebagai Kepala Gereja sedunia.

Kalau argumentasi mereka runtuh maka klaim supremasinya juga runtuh bersama-sama.

Sumber internet tidak otomatis berarti mengada-ada karena mereka mengutip dari sumber aslinya.



Quote
kedua,
Quote
Hanya menunjukkan indikasi bahwa Petrus bukan pemimpin gereja dimasa itu sebab kelemahan kelemahan yang ada padanya !
Hanya pemimpin yang mengambil suatu keputusan akhir didalam konsili dan dialah Yakobus bukan Petrus !

ini kita lagi fokusnya mau yang mana ?
Tidak ada Leadership di gereja ?
ataukah mengenai siapa yang the leader ? Petrus atokah Yakobus ? ---> dengan demikian disini artinya ADA Leadership di gereja.


Leadership adalah kata sifat bukan subyek sedangkan subyeknya adalah manusia sebagai pemimpin.

Jadi jangan mengkontraskan apa yang tidak kontradiksi.



Quote
Quote
Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, writing about James, says, "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem

Eusebius records that Clement of Alexandria related, "This James, whom the people of old called the Just because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the record tells us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church.

James is also an authority in the early church at the Council of Jerusalem (James is quoting Amos 9:11–12).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

btw, barusan ngebaca tulisan diatas ---> "James, the brother of the Lord"
Saya ubek internet, ternyata katanya memang masih belon bisa dipastikan secara absolut/mutlak mengenai identitas orang yg ditulis James tsb, yah ?

Yang dipersoalkan adalah Yakobus yang mana tetapi tidak ada keraguan bahwa  pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem memang adalah  seorang yang bernama Yakobus,bukan Petrus.

Sudah jelas bahwa Yakobus itu saudara seibu Yesus kalau menurut Alkitab,tetapi kalau menurut GRK tidak sebab mereka memiliki ajaran tradisi non Alkitabiah bahwa Maria adalah perawan abadi.

Otoritas Alkitab adalah absolut diatas semua opini manusia !


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on August 19, 2014, 10:20:16 AM
Quote
Kalau anda pakai sumber Katolik tentu tidak heran karena Petrus adalah satu satunya batu pijakan mereka untuk mengklaim diri sebagai Kepala Gereja sedunia.

Kalau argumentasi mereka runtuh maka klaim supremasinya juga runtuh bersama-sama.

Sumber internet tidak otomatis berarti mengada-ada karena mereka mengutip dari sumber aslinya.

Laaaah sumber kamu cuma superpendeta tong dengan segala dongeng dan kotbah penuh amarah nya itu, kan?

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 19, 2014, 12:03:08 PM

Manusia tidak punya kuasa untuk mendatangkan Roh Kudus karena Dia adalah Tuhan yang tidak bisa diatur-atur oleh manusia atau dibawah kuasa manusia untuk bisa datang.

Adalah inisiatif Tuhan untuk datang dengan cara dan waktu yang ditentukan sendiri oleh-Nya.

Hanya Yesus yang mengutus Roh Kudus datang kepada manusia bukan Petrus dll.

Yohanes 15:26 Jikalau Penghibur yang akan Kuutus dari Bapa datang, yaitu Roh Kebenaran yang keluar dari Bapa, Ia akan bersaksi tentang Aku.
Kalo gitu saya tanya soli aja deh :

KENAPA yang diutus itu Petrus dan Yohanes ?

saya mempunyai jawaban versi saya sendiri :
(17) Kemudian keduanya menumpangkan tangan di atas mereka, lalu mereka menerima Roh Kudus. (18) Ketika Simon melihat, bahwa pemberian Roh Kudus terjadi oleh karena rasul-rasul itu menumpangkan tangannya


Quote
Yang penting dicamkan adalah hanya seorang pemimpin yang mengambil keputusan akhir.
dengan demikian ADA kepemimpinan didalam suatu Gereja.


Quote
Soal “cerewet” itu hanya karangan spekulatif anda belaka tetapi jelas sekali Yakobus yang mengambil keputusan akhir bukan Petrus yang hanya mengajukan persoalannya didalam konsili !
NOP.
Justru Petrus dihadapi persoalan dari pihak yang ngotot sunat.

Quote
Hanya ada dua macam opini waktu itu yaitu antara Paulus yang paling mengerti Injil dan Hukum Kristus karena dia dipakai Tuhan sebab ahli Teologi dan filsafat murid Gamaliel guru terkemuka dimasa itu,dengan pihak para Rasul lainnya yg masih merasa dibawah bayang bayang Hukum Taurat.
Bold underline, kecuali Petrus :

(10) Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?

soli pilih, pada kata "kamu" disitu ngerujuk pihak mana ?
A. pihak yang pro-sunat ?
B. pihak yang non pro-sunat ?

Quote
Sumber internet tidak otomatis berarti mengada-ada karena mereka mengutip dari sumber aslinya.
masing2 bilang berdasarkan sumber aslinya, soli :D

Quote
Leadership adalah kata sifat bukan subyek sedangkan subyeknya adalah manusia sebagai pemimpin.
Baik... so sekarang kita lagi ngomongin mengenai Leadership yah soli .... ngomogin mengenai : siapa manusia-nya yg sebagai pemimpim.

Quote
Yang dipersoalkan adalah Yakobus yang mana tetapi tidak ada keraguan bahwa  pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem memang adalah  seorang yang bernama Yakobus,bukan Petrus.
So, artinya ADA itu kepemimpinan dalam suatu Gereja, dan saat itu manusianya adalah Yakobus.

Quote
Sudah jelas bahwa Yakobus itu saudara seibu Yesus kalau menurut Alkitab
Lagi lagi soli ngomong "sudah jelas" ... kalo sudah jelas, gak akan timbul ungu - soli.

Namun baiklah, saya ambil posisi dgn menempatkan diri bhw pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem saat itu adalah Yakobus saudara Yesus .... dengan demikian kepemimpinan Petrus itu ada di Gereja yg didalam lingkar 12 Rasul yg nama2nya tercatat di Matius 10:1-4, dimana Yakobus sodara Yesus tidak termasuk didalamnya.

Ada dua jenis leader.
1. yang satu berasal dari dalam lingkar 12 Rasul
2. yang satu lagi berasal dari luar lingkar 12 Rasul

ADA Kepemimpinan dalam suatu gereja.

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 19, 2014, 07:32:51 PM

Argumentasi anda sudah dibantah pada website berikut ini :

http://www.christian-faith.com/roots-of-roman-catholic-authority/

Mengenai supremasi Petrus silahkan baca semua argumentasi saya sebelumnya.

Ayat Matthew 16:16-19 yang umumnya digunakan oleh GRK sebagai landasan teologis supremasi gereja ternyata bertentangan dengan banyak opini para pemimpin gereja klasik sendiri.

Likewise, argumentasi2 dalam website acuan Anda itu sudah aku bantah semua dalam tulisanku ini:

Silakan dilihat lagi argumen2ku tentang supremasi Petrus / Roma.  :)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 19, 2014, 07:57:52 PM
Yang penting dicamkan adalah hanya seorang pemimpin yang mengambil keputusan akhir.

Siapa bilang kalo Yakobus lah yang mengambil keputusan terakhir dalam Konsili Yerusalem (Kis 15:19)???  :grining:
Dalam naskah aslinya (bahasa Yunani), Yakobus adalah yg terakhir mengemukakan pendapatnya ("krino") sebelum konsili itu berakhir.
Kis 15 : 19 Sebab itu aku berpendapat ("krino"), bahwa kita tidak boleh menimbulkan kesulitan bagi mereka dari bangsa-bangsa lain yang berbalik kepada Allah (TB)

Menurut Lexicon Yunani, kata "krino" tidak mutlak berarti mengambil keputusan, melainkan dapat juga berarti:
5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong

Satu fakta menunjukkan bahwa BUKAN Yakobus yg mengambil keputusan, melainkan para rasul secara bersama lah yg memutuskannya, dapat dilihat pada ayat selanjutnya:
Kis 15 : 28Sebab adalah keputusan Roh Kudus dan keputusan kami, supaya kepada kamu jangan ditanggungkan lebih banyak beban dari pada yang perlu ini:
Ya!! Para rasul secara bersama2 dapat mengikat keputusan2 di dunia ini dan di surga (punya kuasa infilibilitas), mengikut amanat Yesus dalam Mat 18 : 18. Kuasa ini telah berkali2 digunakan oleh penerus para rasul dalam konsili2 ekumenis.
Tetapi kuasa infallibilitas para rasul secara bersama2 ini juga dimiliki oleh Petrus secara pribadi, sesuai sabda Kristus yang ditujukan secara pribadi kepada Petrus dalam Mat 16 : 18.

Yang dipersoalkan adalah Yakobus yang mana tetapi tidak ada keraguan bahwa  pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem memang adalah  seorang yang bernama Yakobus,bukan Petrus.

Sudah jelas bahwa Yakobus itu saudara seibu Yesus kalau menurut Alkitab,tetapi kalau menurut GRK tidak sebab mereka memiliki ajaran tradisi non Alkitabiah bahwa Maria adalah perawan abadi.

Otoritas Alkitab adalah absolut diatas semua opini manusia !

Lho... tidak ada keraguan sedikit pun bahwa Yakobus adalah pemimpin dari Gereja Yerusalem.
Begitu pula tidak ada keraguan sedikit pun bahwa pemimpin Gereja Antiokia adalah Petrus, yang diteruskan oleh St. Ignatius ketika Petrus meninggalkan Antiokia. Juga pemimpin Gereja Alexandria adalah St. Markus, pemimpin Gereja Konstantinopel adalah rasul Andreas, dan pemimpin Gereja Roma adalah rasul Petrus.
Tapi tidak ada satupun rasul2 dan penerus2 mereka yg mengajarkan bahwa pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem adalah pemimpin semua para rasul, malah sebaliknya mereka mengkonfirmasi supremacy (kepemimpinan) tetap dipegang oleh Petrus dan penerus2 Petrus yang adalah pemimpin Gereja Roma.
Silakan dilihat bukti2 sejarah yg menyatakan hal ini di sini:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 20, 2014, 12:27:48 AM
Jeno, numpang make post jeno ya....

Lho... tidak ada keraguan sedikit pun bahwa Yakobus adalah pemimpin dari Gereja Yerusalem.
Begitu pula tidak ada keraguan sedikit pun bahwa pemimpin Gereja Antiokia adalah Petrus, yang diteruskan oleh St. Ignatius ketika Petrus meninggalkan Antiokia. Juga pemimpin Gereja Alexandria adalah St. Markus, pemimpin Gereja Konstantinopel adalah rasul Andreas, dan pemimpin Gereja Roma adalah rasul Petrus.
Tapi tidak ada satupun rasul2 dan penerus2 mereka yg mengajarkan bahwa pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem adalah pemimpin semua para rasul, malah sebaliknya mereka mengkonfirmasi supremacy (kepemimpinan) tetap dipegang oleh Petrus dan penerus2 Petrus yang adalah pemimpin Gereja Roma.
Silakan dilihat bukti2 sejarah yg menyatakan hal ini di sini:
Nah tuh soli ... saya yang nggak baca bukti2 sejarah aja possible "ngliat" mengenai hal ini liwat pelan2 baca ayat terkait. Saya rasa soli juga sebenernya "ngliat", namun mungkin gak bisa menerima karena "bekal" awalnya soli adalah Petrus impossible sebagai pemimpin para Rasul ---vice versa--- impossible para Rasul "menuakan" atopun menjadikan Petrus sebagai pemimpin.

Sementara itu, dilain sisi - buat Jeno,
Quote
Siapa bilang kalo Yakobus lah yang mengambil keputusan terakhir dalam Konsili Yerusalem (Kis 15:19)???
Pada asumsi Yakobus memang pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem (imo) it's still possible bhw itu memang suatu keputusan dari Yakobus sebagai pemimpin Gereja ini ... namun BUKAN sebagai keputusan keseluruhan kesatuan para Rasul, dimana penggunaan kata "kita" ya bener2 "kita" yg sebagai kesatuan member dari Gereja Yerusalem (pro sunat). Dengan demikian, mungkin saja disini artinya - Yakobus "nurut" secara didalam sidang pada otoritas Petrus.

Sementara pada penjelasan Jeno berikutnya :
Quote
Dalam naskah aslinya (bahasa Yunani), Yakobus adalah yg terakhir mengemukakan pendapatnya ("krino") sebelum konsili itu berakhir.
Kis 15 : 19 Sebab itu aku berpendapat ("krino"), bahwa KITA tidak boleh menimbulkan kesulitan bagi mereka dari bangsa-bangsa lain yang berbalik kepada Allah (TB)

Menurut Lexicon Yunani, kata "krino" tidak mutlak berarti mengambil keputusan, melainkan dapat juga berarti:
5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong
saya juga tidak menampiknya. Dengan begitu, disini berarti kata "kita" ngerujuk secara kesatuan keseluruhan member2 Gereja (bukan ngerujuk hanya ke member2 yg pro sunat) ---> Still logical menurut saya :). (walaupun "khayalan" saya sebenernya cenderung berpendapat bhw Yakobus adalah perwakilan dari sayap pro-sunat mengingat Petrus menggunakan kata "kamu", Yakobus menggunakan kata "kita" saat sidang tsb... hehehe... :D).

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 20, 2014, 01:09:17 AM
Sementara itu, dilain sisi - buat Jeno,  Pada asumsi Yakobus memang pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem (imo) it's still possible bhw itu memang suatu keputusan dari Yakobus sebagai pemimpin Gereja ini ... namun BUKAN sebagai keputusan keseluruhan kesatuan para Rasul, dimana penggunaan kata "kita" ya bener2 "kita" yg sebagai kesatuan member dari Gereja Yerusalem (pro sunat). Dengan demikian, mungkin saja disini artinya - Yakobus "nurut" secara didalam sidang pada otoritas Petrus.

Sementara pada penjelasan Jeno berikutnya : saya juga tidak menampiknya. Dengan begitu, disini berarti kata "kita" ngerujuk secara kesatuan keseluruhan member2 Gereja (bukan ngerujuk hanya ke member2 yg pro sunat) ---> Still logical menurut saya :). (walaupun "khayalan" saya sebenernya cenderung berpendapat bhw Yakobus adalah perwakilan dari sayap pro-sunat mengingat Petrus menggunakan kata "kamu", Yakobus menggunakan kata "kita" saat sidang tsb... hehehe... :D).

Bro Oda,
dalam kacamata kami, kami melihat bahwa Petrus memiliki wibawa sebagai pemimpin dari para rasul dalam konsili Yerusalem ini.
Kita lihat bahwa sidang berlangsung lama, lalu sidang menjadi tenang dan menemukan kata sepakat setelah Petrus mengemukakan pendapatnya (Kis 15 : 7 - 12).

Bisa jadi juga seperti yg bro Oda katakan, bahwa Yakobus menjadi yg terakhir dalam mengemukakan pendapat, karena sebagai pemimpin Gereja yg menjadi tuan rumah konsili, wajar saja jika Yakobus memberikan kata penutup dan mengkonfirmasi pendapat Petrus.
Dan karena keputusan ini diambil dalam suatu sidang para rasul, mengikuti Mat 18 : 18, maka konsili secara definitif menyatakan bahwa keputusan mereka adalah keputusan Roh Kudus juga (kis 15 : 28).
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 20, 2014, 05:23:38 PM
Laaaah sumber kamu cuma superpendeta tong dengan segala dongeng dan kotbah penuh amarah nya itu, kan?

Kok kwalitas diskusimu tidak berbobot melulu mempermalukan group Katolik saja disini !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 20, 2014, 05:23:52 PM
Kalo gitu saya tanya soli aja deh :

KENAPA yang diutus itu Petrus dan Yohanes ?

saya mempunyai jawaban versi saya sendiri :
(17) Kemudian keduanya menumpangkan tangan di atas mereka, lalu mereka menerima Roh Kudus. (18) Ketika Simon melihat, bahwa pemberian Roh Kudus terjadi oleh karena rasul-rasul itu menumpangkan tangannya


Mereka yang diutus karena bukan mereka pemimpinnya melainkan Yakobus !

Yang mengutus itu adalah pemimpin bukan yang dipimpin.

Galatia 2:9   Dan setelah melihat kasih karunia yang dianugerahkan kepadaku, maka Yakobus, Kefas dan Yohanes, yang dipandang sebagai sokoguru jemaat, berjabat tangan dengan aku dan dengan Barnabas sebagai tanda persekutuan, supaya kami pergi kepada orang-orang yang tidak bersunat dan mereka kepada orang-orang yang bersunat;

Jadi ada tiga Rasul yang terkemuka pada waktu itu yaitu Yakobus,Petrus dan Yohanes dan yang diutus hanya Petrus dan Yohanes saja,sedangkan Yakobus tetap memimpin jemaat di Yerusalem.


Quote
Quote
Yang penting dicamkan adalah hanya seorang pemimpin yang mengambil keputusan akhir.
dengan demikian ADA kepemimpinan didalam suatu Gereja.


Terkenalnya pengarang ditunjukkan oleh cara ia menyebut dirinya, yaitu hanya "Yakobus" (Yak 1:1). Yakobus, saudara tiri Yesus dan pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem, pada umumnya dipandang sebagai penulis surat ini. Pidatonya dalam sidang di Yerusalem (Kis 15:13-21) dan gambaran mengenai dirinya di bagian lain dalam PB (mis. Kis 12:17; Kis 21:18; Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9,12; 1Kor 15:7) sangat cocok dengan apa yang diketahui mengenai penulis surat ini. Sangat mungkin Yakobus menulis surat ini pada dasawarsa 40-an. Tanggal yang agak dini untuk penulisan surat ini ditunjukkan oleh berbagai faktor, seperti kenyataan bahwa Yakobus menyebutkan istilah Yunani synagoge untuk menunjuk tempat pertemuan orang Kristen (Yak 2:2). Menurut keterangan sejarawan Yahudi, Yosefus, Yakobus, saudara tiri Tuhan mati syahid di Yerusalem tahun 62 M.

http://Alkitab.sabda.org/article.php?book=59&id=59

Petrus tidak pernah dianggap sebagai Kepala Gereja oleh kekristenan kecuali GRK yang memang mencari pijakan untuk mendukung ambisinya menguasai seluruh gereja didunia pada masa itu.


Quote
Quote
Soal “cerewet” itu hanya karangan spekulatif anda belaka tetapi jelas sekali Yakobus yang mengambil keputusan akhir bukan Petrus yang hanya mengajukan persoalannya didalam konsili !
NOP.
Justru Petrus dihadapi persoalan dari pihak yang ngotot sunat.


Justru Petrus tidak bisa segera memahami ajaran Paulus bahwa orang percaya didalam Hukum Kristus tidak perlu disunat,makanya Petrus membawa persoalannya kepada sidang Konsili Gereja yg pertama itu.


Quote
Quote
Hanya ada dua macam opini waktu itu yaitu antara Paulus yang paling mengerti Injil dan Hukum Kristus karena dia dipakai Tuhan sebab ahli Teologi dan filsafat murid Gamaliel guru terkemuka dimasa itu,dengan pihak para Rasul lainnya yg masih merasa dibawah bayang bayang Hukum Taurat.
Bold underline, kecuali Petrus :

(10) Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?

soli pilih, pada kata "kamu" disitu ngerujuk pihak mana ?
A. pihak yang pro-sunat ?
B. pihak yang non pro-sunat ?


Saya percaya ajaran Paulus !


Bersambung

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 20, 2014, 05:24:07 PM
Sambungan

Quote
Quote
Sumber internet tidak otomatis berarti mengada-ada karena mereka mengutip dari sumber aslinya.
masing2 bilang berdasarkan sumber aslinya, soli

Leo contributed to the development of the doctrine on papal primacy, based on his personal devotion to St Peter and on the veneration for the Apostle and his tomb in Rome. Besides recourse to biblical language, Leo also describes his own special relationship with St Peter in terms derived from Roman law.

He calls himself the (unworthy) heir and deputy (vicarius) of Peter, having received his apostolic authority and being obliged to follow his example. On the one hand, Peter stands before him with a claim on how Leo is to exercise his office; on the other hand, Leo, as the Roman bishop, represents the Apostle, whose authority he holds. Christ, however, always comes out as the source of all grace and authority, and Leo is responsible to him for how he fulfills his duties (cf. sermon 1).

Peter is indeed the example for Leo's relationship to Christ. Thus, the office of the Roman bishop, with its universal significance, is grounded on the special relationship between Christ and St Peter, a relationship that per se cannot be repeated; therefore, Leo depends on St Peter's mediation, his assistance and his example in order to be able to adequately fulfill his role and exercise his authority as the Bishop of Rome, both in the city and beyond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I

Inilah cikal bakal supremasi GRK dengabh membonceng status Petrus yang direkayasa tanpa dukungan Alkitab.



Quote
Quote
Leadership adalah kata sifat bukan subyek sedangkan subyeknya adalah manusia sebagai pemimpin.
Baik... so sekarang kita lagi ngomongin mengenai Leadership yah soli .... ngomogin mengenai : siapa manusia-nya yg sebagai pemimpim.

Alkitab sama sekali tidak pernah membicarakan :

1.   Petrus sebagai kepala gereja
2.   Paus sebagai Kepala Gereja
3.   Paus adalah penerus Petrus
4.   Paus adalah wakil Kristus
5.   Petrus adalah Batukarang Gereja
6.   Petrus pernah ke Roma
7.   Paus tidak mungkin salah (infallible)

Quote
Quote
Yang dipersoalkan adalah Yakobus yang mana tetapi tidak ada keraguan bahwa  pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem memang adalah  seorang yang bernama Yakobus,bukan Petrus.
So, artinya ADA itu kepemimpinan dalam suatu Gereja, dan saat itu manusianya adalah Yakobus.


Demikianlah adanya dan menurut sumber Katolik sendiri mengakui bahwa Yakobus (walau berbeda siapa ibunya yg sebenarnya dgn Protestan) adalah Uskup atau Bishop pertama di Yerusalem,berarti dialah pemimpin gereja pertama di Yerusalem.

According to tradition, he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and was at the Council of Jerusalem about the year 50. The historians Eusebius and Hegesippus relayed that St. James was martyred for the Faith by the Jews in the Spring of the year 62, although they greatly esteemed his person and had given him the surname of "James the Just."


http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=356



Quote
Quote
Sudah jelas bahwa Yakobus itu saudara seibu Yesus kalau menurut Alkitab
Lagi lagi soli ngomong "sudah jelas" ... kalo sudah jelas, gak akan timbul ungu - soli.

Namun baiklah, saya ambil posisi dgn menempatkan diri bhw pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem saat itu adalah Yakobus saudara Yesus .... dengan demikian kepemimpinan Petrus itu ada di Gereja yg didalam lingkar 12 Rasul yg nama2nya tercatat di Matius 10:1-4, dimana Yakobus sodara Yesus tidak termasuk didalamnya.

Ada dua jenis leader.
1. yang satu berasal dari dalam lingkar 12 Rasul
2. yang satu lagi berasal dari luar lingkar 12 Rasul

ADA Kepemimpinan dalam suatu gereja.

Soal pembagian otoritas kepemimpinan gereja di Yerusalem seperti spekulasi anda itu tidak ada sama sekali dasar alkitabnya makanya terserah anda saja berimprovisasi berpendapat demikian,tetapi saya tidak sependapat dengan spekulasi anda tsb.

Menurut pengakuan Petrus sendiri, bahwa dia dipercayakan Tuhan untuk memberitakan injil kepada bangsa lain supaya mereka percaya, inilah jawaban ayat dimana Yesus memberikan kunci kepada Petrus….. bukan untk menjadi pemimpin ! tetapi pemberita injil sebagai kunci pembuka pintu keselamatan,sebab iman keselamatan timbul dari pendengaran akan Firman Kristus (Roma 10:17) !

Kisah Para Rasul 15:7
Sesudah beberapa waktu lamanya berlangsung pertukaran pikiran mengenai soal itu, berdirilah Petrus dan berkata kepada mereka: "Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu, supaya dengan perantaraan mulutku bangsa-bangsa lain mendengar berita Injil dan menjadi percaya.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 20, 2014, 05:24:27 PM
Likewise, argumentasi2 dalam website acuan Anda itu sudah aku bantah semua dalam tulisanku ini:
[ author=Jenova link=topic=1719.msg55905#msg55905 date=1385130118]

Silakan dilihat lagi argumen2ku tentang supremasi Petrus / Roma.  :)



Makanya semua sudah saya bantah didalam argumen saya bro yang ditulis belakangan ketimbang argumen anda !

Petrus sendiri yang rendah hati mengaku bahwa dia hanyalah seorang Penatua yang memiliki istri,bukan Paus kepala dari semua Uskup dunia yang selibat (1 Pet.5:1)  !

Ini berbeda secara kontras sekali dengan Kepala Gereja di Vatikan yang mempunyai Mahkota emas berlian (Tiara) dan singasana penuh kebesaran, diusung pakai tandu kebesaran kemana mana dan pernah mengeluarkan peraturan agar setiap orang yang menghadapnya harus mencium kakinya terlebih dahulu.

Apalagi kalau Paus sudah duduk dikursi kebesarannya yang sakti itu (ex cathedra),maka dia sudah seperti Tuhan tidak mungkin salah lagi (infallible) kalau menciptakan doktrin gereja yg sudah dianggap setara dengan wahyu Allah.

(http://i62.tinypic.com/120near.png)


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 20, 2014, 05:24:40 PM
Siapa bilang kalo Yakobus lah yang mengambil keputusan terakhir dalam Konsili Yerusalem (Kis 15:19)???  :grining:
Dalam naskah aslinya (bahasa Yunani), Yakobus adalah yg terakhir mengemukakan pendapatnya ("krino") sebelum konsili itu berakhir.
Kis 15 : 19 Sebab itu aku berpendapat ("krino"), bahwa kita tidak boleh menimbulkan kesulitan bagi mereka dari bangsa-bangsa lain yang berbalik kepada Allah (TB)

Menurut Lexicon Yunani, kata "krino" tidak mutlak berarti mengambil keputusan, melainkan dapat juga berarti:
5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong

Satu fakta menunjukkan bahwa BUKAN Yakobus yg mengambil keputusan, melainkan para rasul secara bersama lah yg memutuskannya, dapat dilihat pada ayat selanjutnya:
Kis 15 : 28Sebab adalah keputusan Roh Kudus dan keputusan kami, supaya kepada kamu jangan ditanggungkan lebih banyak beban dari pada yang perlu ini:
Ya!! Para rasul secara bersama2 dapat mengikat keputusan2 di dunia ini dan di surga (punya kuasa infilibilitas), mengikut amanat Yesus dalam Mat 18 : 18. Kuasa ini telah berkali2 digunakan oleh penerus para rasul dalam konsili2 ekumenis.
Tetapi kuasa infallibilitas para rasul secara bersama2 ini juga dimiliki oleh Petrus secara pribadi, sesuai sabda Kristus yang ditujukan secara pribadi kepada Petrus dalam Mat 16 : 18.


Keputusan terakhirlah yang diadopsi oleh gereja perdana makanya itulah bukti kepemimpinan Yakobus !

Yakobus yang Adil

Yakobus ini biasa diidentifikasikan sebagai saudara Yesus (lihat Yakobus yang Adil untuk penjelasan lebih lanjut). Dia tidak disebut sebagai rasul dalam Injil-Injil, namun Gereja Ortodoks mengidentifikasikan dia sebagai pemimpin dari ketujuhpuluh orang dalam Lukas 10:1-20. Kelak dalam Kisah Para Rasul dia dikisahkan menjadi pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem, dan dia disebut pula sebagai rasul oleh Paulus dalam Galatia 1:19.

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keduabelas_Rasul

Tidak pernah Petrus disebut sebagai pemimpin gereja didalam Kitab Suci selain hanya rekayasa ajaran GRK menjadikan dia sebagai batu pijakan untuk mengklaim jabatan Paus sebagai kepala Uskup sedunia mewarisi Paus pertama yang disebut sebagai Petrus padahal Petrus sendiri tidak pernah menjadi Paus selama hidupnya.


Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 06:10:00 AM
Yang dipersoalkan adalah Yakobus yang mana tetapi tidak ada keraguan bahwa  pemimpin gereja di Yerusalem memang adalah  seorang yang bernama Yakobus,bukan Petrus.
Sudah jelas bahwa Yakobus itu saudara seibu Yesus kalau menurut Alkitab,tetapi kalau menurut GRK tidak sebab mereka memiliki ajaran tradisi non Alkitabiah bahwa Maria adalah perawan abadi.
Otoritas Alkitab adalah absolut diatas semua opini manusia !

Lho... tidak ada keraguan sedikit pun bahwa Yakobus adalah pemimpin dari Gereja Yerusalem.
Begitu pula tidak ada keraguan sedikit pun bahwa pemimpin Gereja Antiokia adalah Petrus, yang diteruskan oleh St. Ignatius ketika Petrus meninggalkan Antiokia. Juga pemimpin Gereja Alexandria adalah St. Markus, pemimpin Gereja Konstantinopel adalah rasul Andreas, dan pemimpin Gereja Roma adalah rasul Petrus.
Tapi tidak ada satupun rasul2 dan penerus2 mereka yg mengajarkan bahwa pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem adalah pemimpin semua para rasul, malah sebaliknya mereka mengkonfirmasi supremacy (kepemimpinan) tetap dipegang oleh Petrus dan penerus2 Petrus yang adalah pemimpin Gereja Roma.
Silakan dilihat bukti2 sejarah yg menyatakan hal ini di sini:

“Supremasi” berarti Petrus membawahi semua rasul lain seperti Paus mengklaim sebagai kepala dari semua Uskup didunia yang harus tunduk kepadanya,dan ini sama sekali tidak Alkitabiah karena Yesus sendiri memperlakukan semua Rasul secara setara,malah Petrus yang paling sering dikecam oleh Yesus dengan sebutan “Iblis” dan satu satunya Rasul yang munafik kepada Yesus dan Paulus.

Alkitab tidak pernah mengajarkan adanya kepemimpinan Tunggal bagi seluruh gereja tubuh Kristus selain dari Yesus Kristus sendiri yang adalah Kepala Gereja,Gembala Agung dan Batukarang Gereja satu satunya.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 20, 2014, 05:28:31 PM
Jeno, numpang make post jeno ya....
 Nah tuh soli ... saya yang nggak baca bukti2 sejarah aja possible "ngliat" mengenai hal ini liwat pelan2 baca ayat terkait. Saya rasa soli juga sebenernya "ngliat", namun mungkin gak bisa menerima karena "bekal" awalnya soli adalah Petrus impossible sebagai pemimpin para Rasul ---vice versa--- impossible para Rasul "menuakan" atopun menjadikan Petrus sebagai pemimpin.


Petrus sebagai pemimpin jemaat sangat berbeda dengan Petrus sebagai pemimpin para Rasul karena itu sama sekali tidak ada dasar alkitabiahnya.

Jadi jangan mempersamakan apa yang tidak sama scope-nya.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). SeeActs 15:1-23;Galatians 2:1-14; and1 Peter 5:1-5.

Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church.

Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13).

Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (seeMatthew 18:15-19;1 Corinthians 5:1-13;2 Corinthians 13:10;Titus 2:15;3:10-11).

http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 20, 2014, 10:01:04 PM
Makanya semua sudah saya bantah didalam argumen saya bro yang ditulis belakangan ketimbang argumen anda !

Petrus sendiri yang rendah hati mengaku bahwa dia hanyalah seorang Penatua yang memiliki istri,bukan Paus kepala dari semua Uskup dunia yang selibat (1 Pet.5:1)  !

Ini berbeda secara kontras sekali dengan Kepala Gereja di Vatikan yang mempunyai Mahkota emas berlian (Tiara) dan singasana penuh kebesaran, diusung pakai tandu kebesaran kemana mana dan pernah mengeluarkan peraturan agar setiap orang yang menghadapnya harus mencium kakinya terlebih dahulu.

Apalagi kalau Paus sudah duduk dikursi kebesarannya yang sakti itu (ex cathedra),maka dia sudah seperti Tuhan tidak mungkin salah lagi (infallible) kalau menciptakan doktrin gereja yg sudah dianggap setara dengan wahyu Allah.

(http://i62.tinypic.com/120near.png)

1 Pet 5 : 1 Aku menasihatkan para penatua di antara kamu, aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus, yang juga akan mendapat bagian dalam kemuliaan yang akan dinyatakan kelak.

Tidak ada tuh pernyataan Petrus yg mengatakan bahwa dia HANYA penatua?  :grining:
Katanya ga boleh menambahkan/mengurangi isi Alkitab, kalo Petrus mengatakan dia adalah teman penatua, apakah mengatakan Petrus HANYA penatua tidak termasuk menambahkan apa yg tertulis dalam Alkitab?


Keputusan terakhirlah yang diadopsi oleh gereja perdana makanya itulah bukti kepemimpinan Yakobus !

Yakobus yang Adil

Yakobus ini biasa diidentifikasikan sebagai saudara Yesus (lihat Yakobus yang Adil untuk penjelasan lebih lanjut). Dia tidak disebut sebagai rasul dalam Injil-Injil, namun Gereja Ortodoks mengidentifikasikan dia sebagai pemimpin dari ketujuhpuluh orang dalam Lukas 10:1-20. Kelak dalam Kisah Para Rasul dia dikisahkan menjadi pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem, dan dia disebut pula sebagai rasul oleh Paulus dalam Galatia 1:19.

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keduabelas_Rasul

Selamat!! Anda sudah selangkah lebih maju dalam diskusi ini.  :afro:
Anda mau menerima sumber lain dari tradisi Gereja Orthodox bahwa Yakobus adalah seorang rasul juga, sehingga Anda mau terima bahwa Yakobus adalah pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem (sedikit lagi Anda bisa keluar dari falacy sola-scriptura).

Tidak pernah Petrus disebut sebagai pemimpin gereja didalam Kitab Suci selain hanya rekayasa ajaran GRK menjadikan dia sebagai batu pijakan untuk mengklaim jabatan Paus sebagai kepala Uskup sedunia mewarisi Paus pertama yang disebut sebagai Petrus padahal Petrus sendiri tidak pernah menjadi Paus selama hidupnya.

“Supremasi” berarti Petrus membawahi semua rasul lain seperti Paus mengklaim sebagai kepala dari semua Uskup didunia yang harus tunduk kepadanya,dan ini sama sekali tidak Alkitabiah karena Yesus sendiri memperlakukan semua Rasul secara setara,malah Petrus yang paling sering dikecam oleh Yesus dengan sebutan “Iblis” dan satu satunya Rasul yang munafik kepada Yesus dan Paulus.

Alkitab tidak pernah mengajarkan adanya kepemimpinan Tunggal bagi seluruh gereja tubuh Kristus selain dari Yesus Kristus sendiri yang adalah Kepala Gereja,Gembala Agung dan Batukarang Gereja satu satunya.

Sama seperti kesaksian Gereja Timur yg mengatakan bahwa Yakobus adalah rasul pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem, silakan Anda cari catatan dari Gereja Timur awal, Anda juga akan menemukan kesaksian2 mereka bahwa Petrus dan penerus2nya adalah benar2 pemimpin para rasul. Bisa juga Anda lihat kumpulan kesaksian2 Gereja Timur ttg keutamaan Petrus di tulisanku ini.
Kalo Anda mau mencari jejak2 dalam Alkitab, silakan dilihat Yoh 21 : 15 – 17 di mana Yesus bersabda kepada Petrus di hadapan rasul2 lainnya, dan menyuruh Petrus (BUKAN rasul2 lainnya) utk menggembalakan domba2Nya. So... sudah jelas bahwa Petrus lah yg menjadi gembala di atas rasul2 lainnya. Dan tentu saja ayat yg termahsyur itu, Mat 16 : 18, bahwa di atas Petrus seorang saja lah (BUKAN kepada rasul2 lainnya) Yesus mendirikan GerejaNya, yang berarti bahwa Petrus adalah yg terutama di atas rasul2 lainnya.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on August 21, 2014, 10:18:27 AM
Kok kwalitas diskusimu tidak berbobot melulu mempermalukan group Katolik saja disini !

Menghadapi radio rusak merek superpendeta tongky, untuk apa berbobot? Toh gak kamu mengerti, kamu cuma pakai mulut tanpa pakai mata dan telinga.

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 21, 2014, 12:06:01 PM
Menghadapi radio rusak merek superpendeta tongky, untuk apa berbobot? Toh gak kamu mengerti, kamu cuma pakai mulut tanpa pakai mata dan telinga.

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Daripada hanya cuap cuap saja nggak ada isinya melainkan hanya makian belaka maka saya sarankan anda bawa semua argumentasi saya kepada Romo anda dan tanyakan mereka bagaimana cara menjawabnya secara berbobot agar pengetahuan anda tidak cetek seperti ini sehingga mempermalukan diri sendiri saja !

Mudah mudah dengan cara ini pengetahuan cetek anda bisa berubah sedikit tidak seperti sekarang jalan ditempat.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 21, 2014, 12:06:13 PM
1 Pet 5 : 1 Aku menasihatkan para penatua di antara kamu, aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus, yang juga akan mendapat bagian dalam kemuliaan yang akan dinyatakan kelak.

Tidak ada tuh pernyataan Petrus yg mengatakan bahwa dia HANYA penatua?  :grining:
Katanya ga boleh menambahkan/mengurangi isi Alkitab, kalo Petrus mengatakan dia adalah teman penatua, apakah mengatakan Petrus HANYA penatua tidak termasuk menambahkan apa yg tertulis dalam Alkitab?


1 Pet. 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Baca yang saya bold merah itu bro,jangan pura pura tidak tahulah.


Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 05:24:40 PM

Keputusan terakhirlah yang diadopsi oleh gereja perdana makanya itulah bukti kepemimpinan Yakobus !

Yakobus yang Adil

Yakobus ini biasa diidentifikasikan sebagai saudara Yesus (lihat Yakobus yang Adil untuk penjelasan lebih lanjut). Dia tidak disebut sebagai rasul dalam Injil-Injil, namun Gereja Ortodoks mengidentifikasikan dia sebagai pemimpin dari ketujuhpuluh orang dalam Lukas 10:1-20. Kelak dalam Kisah Para Rasul dia dikisahkan menjadi pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem, dan dia disebut pula sebagai rasul oleh Paulus dalam Galatia 1:19.

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keduabelas_Rasul

Selamat!! Anda sudah selangkah lebih maju dalam diskusi ini. 
Anda mau menerima sumber lain dari tradisi Gereja Orthodox bahwa Yakobus adalah seorang rasul juga, sehingga Anda mau terima bahwa Yakobus adalah pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem (sedikit lagi Anda bisa keluar dari falacy sola-scriptura).


Inti dari Sola Scriptura adalah bahwa semua ajaran gereja harus diuji melalui kebenaran Alkitab bukan tradisi bikinan manusia seperti yang gereja anda miliki !

Hali ini adalah ketaatan kepada perintah Tuhan yaitu :

1 Tesalonika 5:21 Ujilah segala sesuatu dan peganglah yang baik.

Apa yang salah dengan hal ini ???

Silahkan anda buktikan !

Yang tidak masuk akal sama sekali adalah kalau tradisi rekayasa gereja anda yang dijadikan alat ukur untuk menguji karena itu hanyalah karangan manusia yang berdosa belaka.

350 AD: Hilary of Poitiers:

1.    "Such is their error, such their pestilent teaching; to support it they borrow the words of Scripture, perverting its meaning and using the ignorance of men as their opportunity of gaining credence for their lies. Yet it is certainly by these same words of God that we must come to understand the things of God." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book IV, 14)

Comment:

An amazing text that refutes the Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists claim that the church refuted heresy with "tradition" because they found that arguing scripture with the heretics futile, since the heretics also quoted scripture. Here we see as late as 350 AD, the church realized that the word of God, not tradition, was the source of how to "understand the things of God".


2.But now let us continue our reading of this Scripture, to shew how the consistency of truth is unaffected by these dishonest objections. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 5, 9)


Comment:

Contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, even after the Nicene creed, the church still used scripture as the primary force against the false doctrine of the Arians!


3."Having therefore held this faith from the beginning, and being resolved to hold it to the end in the sight of God and Christ, we say anathema to every heretical and perverted sect, and if any man teaches contrary to the wholesome and right faith of the Scriptures, saying that there is or was time, or space, or age before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema.

And if any one say that the Son is a formation like one of the things that are formed, or a birth resembling other births, or a creature like the creatures, and not as the divine Scriptures have affirmed in each passage aforesaid, or teaches or proclaims as the Gospel anything else than what we have received: let him be anathema. For all those things which were written in the divine Scriptures by Prophets and by Apostles we believe and follow truly and with fear." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns, 30)

Inilah inti ajaran Sola Scriptura yaitu taat kepada kebenaran yang ada didalam Scriptura.


Bersambung




Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 21, 2014, 12:06:24 PM
sambungan


Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 05:24:40 PM

Tidak pernah Petrus disebut sebagai pemimpin gereja didalam Kitab Suci selain hanya rekayasa ajaran GRK menjadikan dia sebagai batu pijakan untuk mengklaim jabatan Paus sebagai kepala Uskup sedunia mewarisi Paus pertama yang disebut sebagai Petrus padahal Petrus sendiri tidak pernah menjadi Paus selama hidupnya.

“Supremasi” berarti Petrus membawahi semua rasul lain seperti Paus mengklaim sebagai kepala dari semua Uskup didunia yang harus tunduk kepadanya,dan ini sama sekali tidak Alkitabiah karena Yesus sendiri memperlakukan semua Rasul secara setara,malah Petrus yang paling sering dikecam oleh Yesus dengan sebutan “Iblis” dan satu satunya Rasul yang munafik kepada Yesus dan Paulus.

Alkitab tidak pernah mengajarkan adanya kepemimpinan Tunggal bagi seluruh gereja tubuh Kristus selain dari Yesus Kristus sendiri yang adalah Kepala Gereja,Gembala Agung dan Batukarang Gereja satu satunya.

Sama seperti kesaksian Gereja Timur yg mengatakan bahwa Yakobus adalah rasul pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem, silakan Anda cari catatan dari Gereja Timur awal, Anda juga akan menemukan kesaksian2 mereka bahwa Petrus dan penerus2nya adalah benar2 pemimpin para rasul. Bisa juga Anda lihat kumpulan kesaksian2 Gereja Timur ttg keutamaan Petrus di tulisanku ini.
Quote from: Jenova on November 22, 2013, 09:23:46 PM
Kalo Anda mau mencari jejak2 dalam Alkitab, silakan dilihat Yoh 21 : 15 – 17 di mana Yesus bersabda kepada Petrus di hadapan rasul2 lainnya, dan menyuruh Petrus (BUKAN rasul2 lainnya) utk menggembalakan domba2Nya. So... sudah jelas bahwa Petrus lah yg menjadi gembala di atas rasul2 lainnya. Dan tentu saja ayat yg termahsyur itu, Mat 16 : 18, bahwa di atas Petrus seorang saja lah (BUKAN kepada rasul2 lainnya) Yesus mendirikan GerejaNya, yang berarti bahwa Petrus adalah yg terutama di atas rasul2 lainnya.


Jabatan gembala dan jabatan gerejawi lainnya itu bersifat plural kalau menurut ajaran Kitab Suci :

Efesus 4:11 Dan Ialah yang memberikan baik rasul-rasul maupun nabi-nabi, baik pemberita-pemberita Injil maupun gembala-gembala dan pengajar-pengajar,

Apa yang berlaku bagi Petrus juga berlaku bagi semua Rasul lainnya dan jabatan gembala digereja gereja kristen.

Dan hanya satu Gembala Agung maupun Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus :

Ibrani 13:20 Maka Allah damai sejahtera, yang oleh darah perjanjian yang kekal telah membawa kembali dari antara orang mati Gembala Agung segala domba, yaitu Yesus, Tuhan kita,

1 Petrus 5:4 Maka kamu, apabila Gembala Agung datang, kamu akan menerima mahkota kemuliaan yang tidak dapat layu.

Memanipulasi status Petrus hanya untuk mendukung ambisi menjadikan Paus Tuhan didunia ini dan kepala dari semua gereja didunia hanyalah menunjukkan arogansi yang anti ajaran Kitab Suci.

ORIGEN (A.D. 185—253/254)

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles?

Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

Dengan demikian sesuai dengan ayat Kitab Suci maka hanya Yesus satu satunya Batu Karang gereja.

1 Korintus 10:4 dan mereka semua minum minuman rohani yang sama, sebab mereka minum dari batu karang rohani yang mengikuti mereka, dan batu karang itu ialah Kristus.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 21, 2014, 11:24:05 PM
Bro Oda,
dalam kacamata kami, kami melihat bahwa Petrus memiliki wibawa sebagai pemimpin dari para rasul dalam konsili Yerusalem ini.
Begini Jeno ....
maksud saya di post sblmnya adalah didalam asumsi Yakobus itu secara di pov soli ... dimana Yakobus di pov soli adalah Yakobus yg sodara Yesus, bukan Yakobus anak Alpheus ataupun Yakobus yang anak Zebedeus.

Karena saya sendiri gak hapal, kemarin ini saya nyempetin cross-check apakah ungu masuk dalam 12 Rasul yang tercatat di Matius, dan saya nggak menemukan ungu di daftar ke 12 org tsb ... demikian juga nyempetin nyari2 mengenai ungu, saya nggak menemukan pengangkatan ungu sebagai salah satu dari lingkar 12 Rasul.

So dengan paparan pengertian saya di post sebelumnya, justru ini malah sebenernya nambah "tinggi"-in Petrus, Jeno....  dimana ungu sbg Leader Gereja Yerusalem juga "tunduk" atas apa kata Petrus disaat sidang tsb ---> so, ini ibaratnya Petrus itu Leader dari segala Gereja Leaders :D.

Quote
Bisa jadi juga seperti yg bro Oda katakan, bahwa Yakobus menjadi yg terakhir dalam mengemukakan pendapat, karena sebagai pemimpin Gereja yg menjadi tuan rumah konsili, wajar saja jika Yakobus memberikan kata penutup dan mengkonfirmasi pendapat Petrus.
Kacamata saya wkt nulis post buat Jeno itu, ada secara ungu ... dimana ungu adalah "kepala" dari pihak yg pro-sunat, dimana penggunaan kata "kita" ya mewakili kelompok pro-sunat, bukan mewakili 12 Rasul ataupun Petrus krn jelas2 Petrus ngomongnya "kamu"  ataupun mewakili keseluruhan "gereja".



Namun kalo pada asumsi Yakobus yang anak Alpheus dia ini kan masuk sbg 12 Rasul, ya laen lagi pola pendapat saya :D. Disini saya sependapat dgn quote Jeno :
Quote
Menurut Lexicon Yunani, kata "krino" tidak mutlak berarti mengambil keputusan, melainkan dapat juga berarti: 5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong
.

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 22, 2014, 12:41:52 AM

Mereka yang diutus karena bukan mereka pemimpinnya melainkan Yakobus !
saya lagi nggak ngomongin tentang kepemimpinan, melainkan kenapa Petrus dan Yohanes yang di utus ?

Ya itu dah .... karena Petrus, Yohanes dan Yakobus dipandang sebagai soko-guru. Dan ini : (17) Kemudian keduanya menumpangkan tangan di atas mereka, lalu mereka menerima Roh Kudus. (18) Ketika Simon melihat, bahwa pemberian Roh Kudus terjadi oleh karena rasul-rasul itu menumpangkan tangannya

karena saat itu possible baru cuma liwat Petrus dan Yohanes aja datang RK.

Quote
Yang mengutus itu adalah pemimpin bukan yang dipimpin.
IMO, nggak juga begitu. Kesepakatan bersama bisa menyebabkan pemimpin yang di utus ataupun yang dianggap "tua".

Quote
Jadi ada tiga Rasul yang terkemuka pada waktu itu yaitu Yakobus,Petrus dan Yohanes dan yang diutus hanya Petrus dan Yohanes saja,sedangkan Yakobus tetap memimpin jemaat di Yerusalem.
Ya... dan jangan lupa - secara di pov soli Yakobus adalah anak Maria, maka Yakobus tidak masuk didalam lingkar 12 Rasul.

Quote
Justru Petrus tidak bisa segera memahami ajaran Paulus bahwa orang percaya didalam Hukum Kristus tidak perlu disunat,makanya Petrus membawa persoalannya kepada sidang Konsili Gereja yg pertama itu.
NOP. Terbalik.

Petrus jelas memahami ajaran Paulus, kalo dia nggak memahami - Petrus tidak akan ngomong sbb : Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?

Begimana itu ceritanya Petrus memahami ajaran Paulus ?
Ini jawabnya : Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu, supaya dengan perantaraan mulutku bangsa-bangsa lain mendengar berita Injil dan menjadi percaya.

Merah bullshit ?
NOP. Event Kornelius itulah pijakan-nya. Dan Petrus bilang "kamu tahu" ---> versi kalimat tanya yg tidak butuh jawabannya : kamu tau kan tentang pembaptisan Kornelius ?

Quote
Saya percaya ajaran Paulus !
Yang saya tanya, pada kata "KAMU" yang dipake Petrus itu lebih ditujukan ke siapa ? ke golongan yg pro-sunat ? atokah ke yg non pro-sunat, soli ?
Golongan mana yg di pov Petrus sbg golongan yg "mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid2 itu suatu kuk" ?

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: odading on August 22, 2014, 12:59:56 AM
Kisah Para Rasul 15:7
Sesudah beberapa waktu lamanya berlangsung pertukaran pikiran mengenai soal itu, berdirilah Petrus dan berkata kepada mereka: "Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu, supaya dengan perantaraan mulutku bangsa-bangsa lain mendengar berita Injil dan menjadi percaya.
oopss... ternyata di pos soli berikutnya, soli juga pake ayat ini ... hehehe... :D.

Quote
Menurut pengakuan Petrus sendiri, bahwa dia dipercayakan Tuhan untuk memberitakan injil kepada bangsa lain supaya mereka percaya, inilah jawaban ayat dimana Yesus memberikan kunci kepada Petrus….. bukan untk menjadi pemimpin !
Petrus gak perlu ngaku2 dirinya sebagai pemimpin ... ketika dirinya dianggap sebagai salah satu soku-guru oleh yang lainnya... ya otomatis Petrus ini malah yang jadi "pelayan".

Soli, coba deh soli naroh diri soli ada di jaman tsb.
Naroh diri soli gak tau apa2 mengenai keKatolikan/Paus segala macem, dan juga taroh diri soli tidak tau pula mengenai isi kalimat2 PB. Maka soli bisa "ngliat" bhw Petrus sekalipun nggak ngaku2 sbg pemimpin, Petrus itu yang paling "dituakan" diantara ke 12 Rasul.

Matius mencatat Petrus didalam urutan pertama dari 12 Rasul, padahal Andreas lebih tua drpd Petrus.

:)
salam.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on August 22, 2014, 05:40:22 AM
Siapapun tahu tradisi menyesatkan dari katolik penyembah berhala itu !

Lha berarti kamu juga pengikut katolik , kan ? lha wong gerejamu berasal dari katolik.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 22, 2014, 12:26:34 PM
saya lagi nggak ngomongin tentang kepemimpinan, melainkan kenapa Petrus dan Yohanes yang di utus ?

Ya itu dah .... karena Petrus, Yohanes dan Yakobus dipandang sebagai soko-guru. Dan ini : (17) Kemudian keduanya menumpangkan tangan di atas mereka, lalu mereka menerima Roh Kudus. (18) Ketika Simon melihat, bahwa pemberian Roh Kudus terjadi oleh karena rasul-rasul itu menumpangkan tangannya

karena saat itu possible baru cuma liwat Petrus dan Yohanes aja datang RK.

Karena bukan mereka yang memipin di Yerusalem melainkan Yakobus,makanya Yakobus harus tetap tinggal untuk memimpin jemaat disana.

Quote
Quote
Yang mengutus itu adalah pemimpin bukan yang dipimpin.
IMO, nggak juga begitu. Kesepakatan bersama bisa menyebabkan pemimpin yang di utus ataupun yang dianggap "tua".

Tidak demikia apa yang dikatakan Alkitab !

Quote
Quote
Jadi ada tiga Rasul yang terkemuka pada waktu itu yaitu Yakobus,Petrus dan Yohanes dan yang diutus hanya Petrus dan Yohanes saja,sedangkan Yakobus tetap memimpin jemaat di Yerusalem.
Ya... dan jangan lupa - secara di pov soli Yakobus adalah anak Maria, maka Yakobus tidak masuk didalam lingkar 12 Rasul.

Diluar lingkar tidak berarti tidak boleh menjadi pemimpin jemaat !


Quote
Quote
Justru Petrus tidak bisa segera memahami ajaran Paulus bahwa orang percaya didalam Hukum Kristus tidak perlu disunat,makanya Petrus membawa persoalannya kepada sidang Konsili Gereja yg pertama itu.
NOP. Terbalik.

Petrus jelas memahami ajaran Paulus, kalo dia nggak memahami - Petrus tidak akan ngomong sbb : Kalau demikian, mengapa kamu mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid-murid itu suatu kuk, yang tidak dapat dipikul, baik oleh nenek moyang kita maupun oleh kita sendiri?


Kalau dia paham tidak akan dia persoalkan dengan membawanya kedalam sidang konsili Yeriusalem yang dipimpin oleh Yakobus.


Quote
Begimana itu ceritanya Petrus memahami ajaran Paulus ?
Ini jawabnya : Hai saudara-saudara, kamu tahu, bahwa telah sejak semula Allah memilih aku dari antara kamu, supaya dengan perantaraan mulutku bangsa-bangsa lain mendengar berita Injil dan menjadi percaya.

Merah bullshit ?
NOP. Event Kornelius itulah pijakan-nya. Dan Petrus bilang "kamu tahu" ---> versi kalimat tanya yg tidak butuh jawabannya : kamu tau kan tentang pembaptisan Kornelius ?

Quote
Saya percaya ajaran Paulus !
Yang saya tanya, pada kata "KAMU" yang dipake Petrus itu lebih ditujukan ke siapa ? ke golongan yg pro-sunat ? atokah ke yg non pro-sunat, soli ?
Golongan mana yg di pov Petrus sbg golongan yg "mau mencobai Allah dengan meletakkan pada tengkuk murid2 itu suatu kuk" ?

Seperti sudah saya katakan hanya ada 2 golongan disana yaitu Paulus disatu pihak dengan semua Rasul lainnya dipihak lain sebab sebagai Rasul yang baru ternyata Paulus menurut mereka memberikan ajaran baru yaitu meniadakan sunat seperti menurut ajaran PL.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 22, 2014, 12:28:21 PM
oopss... ternyata di pos soli berikutnya, soli juga pake ayat ini ... hehehe... :D.


Itulah ayat yang mengindikasikan bahwa Petrus memegang kunci pembuka berita Injil kepada bangsa lain sedangkan yang melanjutkannya adalah Paulus.

Quote
Quote
Menurut pengakuan Petrus sendiri, bahwa dia dipercayakan Tuhan untuk memberitakan injil kepada bangsa lain supaya mereka percaya, inilah jawaban ayat dimana Yesus memberikan kunci kepada Petrus….. bukan untk menjadi pemimpin !
Petrus gak perlu ngaku2 dirinya sebagai pemimpin ... ketika dirinya dianggap sebagai salah satu soku-guru oleh yang lainnya... ya otomatis Petrus ini malah yang jadi "pelayan".

Soli, coba deh soli naroh diri soli ada di jaman tsb.
Naroh diri soli gak tau apa2 mengenai keKatolikan/Paus segala macem, dan juga taroh diri soli tidak tau pula mengenai isi kalimat2 PB. Maka soli bisa "ngliat" bhw Petrus sekalipun nggak ngaku2 sbg pemimpin, Petrus itu yang paling "dituakan" diantara ke 12 Rasul.

Matius mencatat Petrus didalam urutan pertama dari 12 Rasul, padahal Andreas lebih tua drpd Petrus.

Petrus memang salah satu Rasul yang menonjol,tetapi bukan dalam hal yang positif saja juga hal hal yang negatif dia menonjol al :

1.   Menyangkal Yesus sampai 3 kali

2.   Menolak penyaliban Yesus sehingga dipanggil sebagai Iblis

3.   Memotong kuping orang

4.   Ditegur sebagai munafik

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 22, 2014, 12:29:39 PM
Lha berarti kamu juga pengikut katolik , kan ? lha wong gerejamu berasal dari katolik.

Gerejaku tidak menyembah berhala seperti gerejamu !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:14:57 PM

1 Pet. 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Baca yang saya bold merah itu bro,jangan pura pura tidak tahulah.

Tolong baca baik2 pertanyaanku!
Aku tidak mempermasalahkan Petrus berkata:
 aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus   atau (I) who am also an elder

Yang aku permasalahkan adalah Anda mengatakan bahwa Petrus berkata:
 aku HANYA sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus   atau (I) who am ONLY also an elder

Apakah Anda lihat bedanya???

Inti dari Sola Scriptura adalah bahwa semua ajaran gereja harus diuji melalui kebenaran Alkitab bukan tradisi bikinan manusia seperti yang gereja anda miliki !

Hali ini adalah ketaatan kepada perintah Tuhan yaitu :

1 Tesalonika 5:21 Ujilah segala sesuatu dan peganglah yang baik.

Apa yang salah dengan hal ini ???

Silahkan anda buktikan !

Yang tidak masuk akal sama sekali adalah kalau tradisi rekayasa gereja anda yang dijadikan alat ukur untuk menguji karena itu hanyalah karangan manusia yang berdosa belaka.

350 AD: Hilary of Poitiers:

1.    "Such is their error, such their pestilent teaching; to support it they borrow the words of Scripture, perverting its meaning and using the ignorance of men as their opportunity of gaining credence for their lies. Yet it is certainly by these same words of God that we must come to understand the things of God." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book IV, 14)

Comment:

An amazing text that refutes the Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists claim that the church refuted heresy with "tradition" because they found that arguing scripture with the heretics futile, since the heretics also quoted scripture. Here we see as late as 350 AD, the church realized that the word of God, not tradition, was the source of how to "understand the things of God".


2.But now let us continue our reading of this Scripture, to shew how the consistency of truth is unaffected by these dishonest objections. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 5, 9)


Comment:

Contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, even after the Nicene creed, the church still used scripture as the primary force against the false doctrine of the Arians!


3."Having therefore held this faith from the beginning, and being resolved to hold it to the end in the sight of God and Christ, we say anathema to every heretical and perverted sect, and if any man teaches contrary to the wholesome and right faith of the Scriptures, saying that there is or was time, or space, or age before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema.

And if any one say that the Son is a formation like one of the things that are formed, or a birth resembling other births, or a creature like the creatures, and not as the divine Scriptures have affirmed in each passage aforesaid, or teaches or proclaims as the Gospel anything else than what we have received: let him be anathema. For all those things which were written in the divine Scriptures by Prophets and by Apostles we believe and follow truly and with fear." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns, 30)

Inilah inti ajaran Sola Scriptura yaitu taat kepada kebenaran yang ada didalam Scriptura.


Bersambung

Waduh... OOT lagi... Diskusi tentang Kunci Kerajaan Surga kok larinya ke sola scriptura lagi?
Supaya ga OOT, argumentasi seperti ini sudah aku balas di sini:


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:16:20 PM
 
Jabatan gembala dan jabatan gerejawi lainnya itu bersifat plural kalau menurut ajaran Kitab Suci :

Efesus 4:11 Dan Ialah yang memberikan baik rasul-rasul maupun nabi-nabi, baik pemberita-pemberita Injil maupun gembala-gembala dan pengajar-pengajar,

Apa yang berlaku bagi Petrus juga berlaku bagi semua Rasul lainnya dan jabatan gembala digereja gereja kristen.

Dan hanya satu Gembala Agung maupun Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus :

Ibrani 13:20 Maka Allah damai sejahtera, yang oleh darah perjanjian yang kekal telah membawa kembali dari antara orang mati Gembala Agung segala domba, yaitu Yesus, Tuhan kita,

1 Petrus 5:4 Maka kamu, apabila Gembala Agung datang, kamu akan menerima mahkota kemuliaan yang tidak dapat layu.

Lho... emangnya kami bilang kalo rasul2 lain dan penerus2nya (uskup2 Gereja Katolik) bukan gembala domba Tuhan?

Memanipulasi status Petrus hanya untuk mendukung ambisi menjadikan Paus Tuhan didunia ini dan kepala dari semua gereja didunia hanyalah menunjukkan arogansi yang anti ajaran Kitab Suci.

ORIGEN (A.D. 185—253/254)

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles?

Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

Dengan demikian sesuai dengan ayat Kitab Suci maka hanya Yesus satu satunya Batu Karang gereja.

1 Korintus 10:4 dan mereka semua minum minuman rohani yang sama, sebab mereka minum dari batu karang rohani yang mengikuti mereka, dan batu karang itu ialah Kristus.

Bagus!! Kali ini Anda memberikan referensi yang valid dan benar, tidak memutilasi maupun menyelewengkan ajaran Origen.  :afro:
Benar bahwa Origen dalam tulisannya ini tidak mendukung kepemimpinan Petrus dan penerus2 Petrus.
TETAPI, tulisan seorang Origen tidak dapat melawan ajaran Gereja.

Pertama, Origen adalah BUKAN seorang penerus rasul. Origen bukanlah seorang uskup, jadi Origen tidak memiliki kuasa untuk menyuruh umat beriman menerima ajarannya, tanpa persetujuan dari seorang gembala penerus rasul (uskup).

Kedua, sekalipun seorang uskup menyatakan ajaran untuk diterima umat dalam wilayah penggembalaannya, ajaran seorang uskup tidak serta merta menjadi ajaran yg infallible jika tidak direstui oleh pemegang kuasa infallibility, yaitu konsili para uskup dalam persatuan dengan Paus Roma. Jadi Origen jelas tidak sedang mengajar secara infallible ketika mengatakan bahwa kedudukan batu karang dipegang oleh semua orang beriman. Lagi pula, Origen pada akhir masa hidupnya terpisah dari Gereja Universal karena mengajarkan ajaran2 yang bertentangan dengan iman Gereja.

Ketiga, dan yang paling penting, ajaran Origen di sini bertentangan dengan ajaran bapa2 Gereja lainnya yang lebih memiliki otoritas dalam mengikat ajaran sebagai penerus rasul. Ada banyak ajaran bapa2 Gereja yang memiliki otoritas sebagai penerus rasul yang mengkonfirmasi keutamaan dan kepemimpinan Petrus dan penerus2nya, juga terlihat dalam konsili2 ekumenis di mana keputusan2 / dekrit2 / kanon2 dalam konsili ekumenis tidak dapat mengikat seluruh umat beriman dalam Gereja Universal jika tidak mendapat restu dan pengesahan dari paus Gereja Roma.

Bisa Anda lihat bukti2nya di sini:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:20:38 PM
@bro soli,
Ini aku berikan lagi kutipan2 bapa2 Gereja yang menganulir ajaran Origen di atas:
(diambil dari tulisan "Thunderman" di http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/printthread.php?t=7832&pp=25&page=1)

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross." Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..." Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..." Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

“For if when here he loved men so, that when he [Peter] had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32 (c. A.D. 391).

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?" Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city, [Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon [Magus]." John Cassian, Institutes, X (ante A.D. 435).

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries [of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth.” Pope Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), Sermon LXXXII (ante A.D. 461).
"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

(bersambung ... ... ...)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:23:39 PM
(... ...sambungan)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

"And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before." Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent.” Council of Sardica, Canon V (A.D. 343-344).

(bersambung... ...)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:24:29 PM
(... ...sambungan)
"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defense concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all." Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome, 13 (A.D. 352).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

"No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], About Council at Arminum, Epistle 1 (A.D. 371).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378).

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

"To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs." Pope Sircius [regn. A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, Epistle 1 (A.D. 385).

"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here...” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32:24 (c. A.D. 391).

(bersambung... ...)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:25:54 PM
(... ...sambungan)
"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council, by preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigour of our religion, no less now in consulting us than before in passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow the Apostle from the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived. Following in his footsteps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good.” Pope Innocent [regn A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, Epistle 29 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429).

"Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius'] false teachings in a written confession." Pope Celestine [regn. A.D. 422-432], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430).

"The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"Peter in his successors has delivered what he received." Pope Sixtus III [regn. A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch, Epistle 6 (A.D. 433).

"For he [Pope Sixtus] wrote what was in accord with the holy synod [Council of Ephesus], and confirmed all of its acts, an is agreement with us." Cyril of Alexandria, To Acacius of Meletine, Epistle 40 (A.D. 434).

“Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down.’” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 6 (A.D. 434).

"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view, African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city (first the venerable Innocent, and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them, and cut them off from the members of the Church, giving letters to the African Churches in the West, and to the Churches of the East, and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics. The judgment pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered, and are yet returning, as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius, Life of Augustine, 18 (A.D. 437).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:27:18 PM
(... ...sambungan)
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

"The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo...being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness..." Pope Leo the Great, Chalcdeon to Pope Leo, Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

“For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter...The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

(bersambung... ...)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:28:19 PM
(... ...sambungan)
"We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry....Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church....I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body....And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons." Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

"Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth." Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400).

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated ... by bishops ... as you have done, the example of ancient tradition ... For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived ... that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)...you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

"It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches...Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision." Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).

"For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).

"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

"None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgment of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus and bishops of Macedonia (c. A.D. 420).

"Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity." Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).

"The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?" Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

"But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445).

"And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the Lord’s own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter's See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 2 (A.D ante 461).

"'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

(bersambung... ...)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
(... ...sambungan)

“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others...” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail'” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom...” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

“The Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all.” Pacian, To Sympronianus, Epistle 3:2 (AD 372).

"Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures." Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).

“The first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).

“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 375).

“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380).

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it..."...The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382).

”It was right indeed that he (Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches.” Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians, PL 17:344 (A.D. 384).

"Peter bore the person of the church.” Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430).

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393).

“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one (Peter) among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1 (A.D. 393).

“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” Wherefore where Peter is the Church is...” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397).

“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once...The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times 'Lovest thou me?' And he receive the world in charge...” Asterius, Homily 8 (A.D. 400).

"(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples." John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407).

(bersambung... ...)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:30:49 PM
(... ...sambungan)

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).

“This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church...” Maximus of Turin, Homily 63 (A.D. 408).

“...the most firm rock, who (Peter) from the principal Rock received a share of his virtue and his name.” Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, 2:28(A.D. 426).

“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428).

“But that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God.” John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430).

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place...” Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

“Blessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See...to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore...believe that he is speaking whose representative we are:..” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 3:3-4 (A.D. 442).

“We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great, To Bishops of Vienne, Epistle 10 (A.D. 450).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith...” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. 'Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church.'” Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Peter is again called 'the coryphaeus of the Apostles.’” Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25 (ante A.D. 468).

“The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel, 'Thou art Peter...'” Pope Gelasius, Decree of Gelasium (A.D. 492).

“[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'...These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.'” Pope Hormisdas, Libellus professionis fidei, (A.D. 519).

“To Peter, that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth.” Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum, 2:20 (A.D. 523).

(bersambung... ...)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 22, 2014, 05:31:55 PM
(... ...sambungan)

“Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the 'rock', when the voice of the Truth says, 'I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. To him again is said "When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.” Pope Gregory the Great, Epistle 40 (A.D. 604).

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” Isidore of Seville, (ante A.D. 636).

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650).

“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord...the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced...” Pope Agatho, To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople, (A.D. 680).

"A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up..” Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680).

“For, although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed my him; and to Peter also was committed the care of 'feeding the sheep'(John 21:15);and to him also did the Lord hand over the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'(Matthew 16:19),and upon him did He promise to 'build His Church' (Matthew 16:18);and He testified that 'the gates of Hell would not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:19).” Pope Pelagius II, Quod Ad Dilectionem (c. A.D. 685).

“'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, 'It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?' He answered, 'It is true O king!' Then says he, 'Can you show any such power given to your Columba?' Colman answered, 'None.' Then added the king, "Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?' They both answered, 'We do.'” Venerable Bede, (A.D. 700), Ecclesiastical History, 3:5 (A.D. 700).

Selamat membaca!!  :)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 05:59:25 PM
Tolong baca baik2 pertanyaanku!
Aku tidak mempermasalahkan Petrus berkata:
 aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus   atau (I) who am also an elder

Yang aku permasalahkan adalah Anda mengatakan bahwa Petrus berkata:
 aku HANYA sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus   atau (I) who am ONLY also an elder

Apakah Anda lihat bedanya???


Didalam ayat tsb setahu saya dia memang hanya menyebutkan satu jabatan yaitu Penatua saja tidak ada yang lain !

Kalau saya menjelaskan ayat berbeda dengan saya mengutip ayat karena tidak pernah saya merubah ayat yang saya kutip !



Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:03:57 PM

Lho... emangnya kami bilang kalo rasul2 lain dan penerus2nya (uskup2 Gereja Katolik) bukan gembala domba Tuhan?

Saya kutip pernyataan anda : “So... sudah jelas bahwa Petrus lah yg menjadi gembala di atas rasul2 lainnya. “

Semua Rasul lainnya juga mendapat tugas menggembala jemaat bukan menggembala para Rasul lainnya.

Gembala dari para Rasul dan semua gereja tubuh Kristus hanyalah Tuhan Yesus saja yaitu Gembala Agung itu !


Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on August 21, 2014, 12:06:24 PM
Memanipulasi status Petrus hanya untuk mendukung ambisi menjadikan Paus Tuhan didunia ini dan kepala dari semua gereja didunia hanyalah menunjukkan arogansi yang anti ajaran Kitab Suci.

ORIGEN (A.D. 185—253/254)

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles?

Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

Dengan demikian sesuai dengan ayat Kitab Suci maka hanya Yesus satu satunya Batu Karang gereja.

1 Korintus 10:4 dan mereka semua minum minuman rohani yang sama, sebab mereka minum dari batu karang rohani yang mengikuti mereka, dan batu karang itu ialah Kristus.

Bagus!! Kali ini Anda memberikan referensi yang valid dan benar, tidak memutilasi maupun menyelewengkan ajaran Origen. 
Benar bahwa Origen dalam tulisannya ini tidak mendukung kepemimpinan Petrus dan penerus2 Petrus.
TETAPI, tulisan seorang Origen tidak dapat melawan ajaran Gereja.

Pertama, Origen adalah BUKAN seorang penerus rasul. Origen bukanlah seorang uskup, jadi Origen tidak memiliki kuasa untuk menyuruh umat beriman menerima ajarannya, tanpa persetujuan dari seorang gembala penerus rasul (uskup).

Kedua, sekalipun seorang uskup menyatakan ajaran untuk diterima umat dalam wilayah penggembalaannya, ajaran seorang uskup tidak serta merta menjadi ajaran yg infallible jika tidak direstui oleh pemegang kuasa infallibility, yaitu konsili para uskup dalam persatuan dengan Paus Roma. Jadi Origen jelas tidak sedang mengajar secara infallible ketika mengatakan bahwa kedudukan batu karang dipegang oleh semua orang beriman. Lagi pula, Origen pada akhir masa hidupnya terpisah dari Gereja Universal karena mengajarkan ajaran2 yang bertentangan dengan iman Gereja.

Ketiga, dan yang paling penting, ajaran Origen di sini bertentangan dengan ajaran bapa2 Gereja lainnya yang lebih memiliki otoritas dalam mengikat ajaran sebagai penerus rasul. Ada banyak ajaran bapa2 Gereja yang memiliki otoritas sebagai penerus rasul yang mengkonfirmasi keutamaan dan kepemimpinan Petrus dan penerus2nya, juga terlihat dalam konsili2 ekumenis di mana keputusan2 / dekrit2 / kanon2 dalam konsili ekumenis tidak dapat mengikat seluruh umat beriman dalam Gereja Universal jika tidak mendapat restu dan pengesahan dari paus Gereja Roma.

Saya kutip lagi secara lengkap sumber saya  (tanpa mutilasi) mengenai pendapat apa yang disebut para Bapa Gereja mengenai status Petrus dari seorang ex-Catholics sbb :


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:04:58 PM
The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
 
An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

(Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys)


By William Webster


Matthew 16:18 is the critical passage of Scripture for the establishment of the authority claims of the Roman Catholic Church. It is upon the interpretation of the rock and keys that the entire structure of the Church of Rome rests. And Vatican I plainly states that its interpretation of Matthew 16 is that which has been held by the Church from the very beginning and is therefore not a doctrinal development. The Council asserted that its interpretation was grounded upon the unanimous consent of the fathers. In saying this Vatican I is claiming a two thousand year consensus for its interpretation and teaching. It specifically states that the Roman Catholic Church alone has authority to interpret scripture and that it is unlawful to interpret it in any way contrary to what it calls the 'unanimous consent of the fathers.' This principle does not mean that every single father agrees on a particular interpretation of scripture, but it does mean that there is a general consensus of interpretation, and Vatican I claims to be consistent with that consensus. This is very important to establish because it has direct bearing on the Roman Church’s claim, that of being the one true Church established by Christ, unchanged from the very beginning.
Roman Catholic apologists, in an effort to substantiate the claims of Vatican I, make appeals to certain statements of Church fathers which they claim give unequivocal and unambiguous evidence of a belief in papal primacy in the early Church. Briefly, the arguments can be summarized as follows:
•   The fathers often speak in lofty language when referring to the apostle Peter implying a personal primacy.
•   Numerous fathers interpret the rock of Matthew 16 as the person of Peter.
•   While some of the fathers interpret the rock to be Peter’s confession of faith, they do not separate Peter’s confession from his person.
•   The fathers refer to the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter.
Roman apologists historically have often resorted to the use of selected statements of major Church fathers, interpreting them as supportive of papal primacy. An example of this type of argumentation can be seen in the following references to the writings of Cyprian, Ambrose and Augustine by a Roman Catholic apologist:
St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 A.D.) in his letter to Cornelius of Rome (c. 251 A.D.) speaks of the Church of Rome as the ‘chair of Peter (cathedra Petri)’ and ‘the principle Church in which sacerdotal unity has its source’ (Ep. 59, 14). St Ambrose (d. 397 A.D.) states that ‘where Peter is, there is the Church’ (Commen.. on the Psalms 40, 30)...St. Augustine’s recognition of the authority of the Pope is manifested by the famous words with which he welcomes the decision made by the Pope: Roma locuta est; causa finita est—Rome has spoken the case is concluded (Sermon 131, 6:10). Why does Augustine believe the Bishop of Rome has the final word? The answer is because the Pope is the successor of St. Peter—a fact clearly recognized by Augustine in his Letter to Generosus (c. 400 A.D.) in which he names all 34 of the bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius (Letter 53, 1,2).
The above arguments are very common. They are precisely the same citations found in The Faith of the Early Fathers by the Roman Catholic patristics scholar William Jurgens as proof for the purported belief in papal primacy in the early Church. And Karl Keating uses the same reference to Augustine in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. But do the statements of these fathers actually support the claims of papal primacy? Is this what they meant by these statements? The facts do not support this contention. These statements are given completely out of context of the rest of the writings of these fathers thereby distorting the true meaning of their words. And in the case of Augustine, as we will see, his words are actually misquoted. All too frequently statements from the fathers are isolated and quoted without any proper interpretation, often giving the impression that a father taught a particular point of view when, in fact, he did not. But for those unfamiliar with the writings of the Church fathers such arguments can seem fairly convincing. An example of this kind of methodology is seen in a recent Roman Catholic work entitled Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This work is being touted by Roman Catholics as providing definitive evidence of the teaching of the Church fathers on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16 and of Peter’s role. But the actual references from the fathers cited in this work are very selective, often omitting important citations of their overall works that demonstrate a view contrary to that which is being proposed. What we will discover, if we give the statements of the fathers in context and in correlation with their overall writings, is that their actual perspective is often the opposite of that claimed by Vatican I and these Roman apologists.
In his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating states that the reformers had invented a novel exegesis of Matthew 16 in order to aid them in their rebellion against the papacy. This is a complete misrepresentation. As historian Oscar Cullmann points out, the view of the Reformers was not a novel interpretation invented by them but hearkened back to the patristic tradition: ‘We thus see that the exegesis that the Reformers gave...was not first invented for their struggle against the papacy; it rests upon an older patristic tradition’ (Oscar Cullmann, Peter:Disciple–Apostle–Martyr (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), p. 162).
An examination of the writings of the fathers does reveal the expression of a consistent viewpoint, but it is not that of the Roman Catholic Church, as the documentation of the major fathers of the East and West in this article will demonstrate. This particular article is strictly historical in nature. Its purpose is to document the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. And the evidence will demonstrate that the Protestant and Orthodox understanding of the

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:05:34 PM
text is rooted in this patristic consensus. From a strictly scriptural point of view, the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is divorced from its proper biblical context. The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is built upon Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching. And in addition, the Roman Catholic interpretation imports a meaning into the Matthew 16 text that is completely absent. This text says absolutely nothing about infallibility or about successors.
The fathers of the Church did not isolate particular verses from their overall biblical context and consequently they have a biblical perspective of the foundation of the Church, not that which is Roman. The documentation of the interpretation of the fathers will also be supplemented by the comments of major Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox historians in order to provide a scholarly consensus on the true understanding of the church fathers cited. In particular we will examine the comments of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Augustine, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Epiphanius, Basil of Seleucia, Paul of Emesa and John of Damascus.
TERTULLIAN (A.D. 155/160—240/250)
Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity ca. A.D. 193. As a Christian he was a prolific writer and has been called the ‘Father of Latin Christianity’. He was most likely a layman and his writings were widely read. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian. He is the first of the Western fathers to comment on Matthew 16. In one of his writings Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built:
Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth? (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume III, Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 22).
Though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock he does not mean it in a pro–papal sense. We know this because of other comments he has made. But if we isolate this one passage it would be easy to read a pro–Roman interpretation into it. However, in other comments on Matthew 16:18–19, Tertullian explains what he means when he says that Peter is the rock on which the Church would be built:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).
When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome. The patristic scholar, Karlfried Froehlich, states that even though Tertullian teaches that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in the same sense as the Roman Catholic Church:
‘Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18–19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members.’ (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989)
It is a common practice of Roman Catholic apologists to omit part of the quotation given above by Tertullian in order to make it appear that he is a proponent of papal primacy. A prime example off this is found in a recently released Roman Catholic defense of the papacy entitled Jesus, Peter and the Keys. The authors give the following partial citation from Tertullian:
I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:1819a] or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), pp. 216-217).
When comparing this citation with the one given above it is clear that these authors have left out the last half of the quotation. The part of the quotation that is omitted defines what Tertullian means by the statement that Christ built his Church on Peter and invested him with authroity. Again, what he means by these words is that Christ built his church on Peter by building it

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:06:27 PM
through him as he preached the gospel. This is a meaning that is clearly contrary to the Roman Catholic perspective. To omit this is to distort the teaching of Tertullian and to give the impression that he taught something he did not teach. So, though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock, he does not mean this in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does. Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men. This is similar to the view expressed by Maximus of Tours when he says: ‘For he is called a rock because he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations' (Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1989), The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, Sermon 77.1, p. 187).
Not only do we see a clear denial of any belief in a papal primacy in Tertullian’s exegesis of Matthew 16, but such a denial is also seen from his practice. In his later years Tertullian separated himself from the Catholic Church to become a Montanist. He clearly did not hold to the view espoused by Vatican I that communion with the Bishop of Rome was the ultimate criterion of orthodoxy and of inclusiveness in the Church of God.
ORIGEN (A.D. 185—253/254)
Origen was head of the catechetical school at Alexandria during the first half of the third century. He was an individual of enormous intellect and was by far the most prolific writer of the patristic age. Eusebius states that his writings numbered in the neighborhood of six thousand. He has been called the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity. He had immense influence upon fathers in both the East and West in subsequent centuries. Origen is the first father to give a detailed exposition of the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:18. His interpretation became normative for the Eastern fathers and for many in the West. Apart from the specific passage of Matthew 16 he states that Peter is the rock:
Look at the great foundation of that Church and at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: ‘Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?' (Exodus, Homily 5.4. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelaiter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), p. 100).
But, like Tertullian, he does not mean this in the Roman Catholic sense. Often, Origen is cited as a proponent of papal primacy because he says that Peter is the rock. Quotes such as the one given above are isolated from his other statements about Peter and his actual interpretation of Matthew 16:18 thereby inferring that he taught something which he did not teach. In his mind Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments:
And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
This is one of the most important passages in all the writings of Origen for an understanding of his view of the rock of Matthew 16. Yet this passage is is not included in those referenced by the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This is a glaring omission given the importance of the passage and the fact that it is easily accessible in the work the Ante-Nicene Fathers. One can only conclude that the authors purposefully omitted the passage because it is antithetical to the position they are seeking establish.
John Meyendorff was a world renowned and highly respected Orthodox theologian, historian and patristics scholar. He was dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and Professor of Church History and Patristics. He gives the following explanation of Origen’s interpretation and of his influence on subsequent fathers in the East and West:
Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus’ answer to Peter’s confession: Simon became the ‘rock’ on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: ‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’ According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first ‘believer,’ and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can ‘imitate’ Peter and receive the same keys. Thus the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:07:02 PM
 ‘Petrie’ logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature...Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham, 1974), pp. 97-98).
James McCue in Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue affirms these views of Origen in these statements:
When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18f, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be...(His) is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18f. and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church (Paul Empie and Austin Murphy, Ed., Papal Primacy in the Universal Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 60-61).
Origen and Tertullian are the first fathers, from the East and West respectively, to give an exposition on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16 and the role and position of Peter. Their views are foundational for the interpretation of this important passage for the centuries following. Strands of their teaching will appear in the views of the fathers throughout the East and West. It is important to point out that the first Eastern and Western fathers to give an exegesis of Ma
tthew 16 do not interpret the passage in a pro–Roman sense.
CYPRIAN (A.D. 200–210—ca. 258)
Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage in North Africa in the mid–third century. He was one of the most influential theologians and bishops of the Church of his day and gave his life in martydom for his faith. He was greatly influenced by the writings of Tertullian, the North African father who preceded him. He is often cited by Roman Catholic apologists as a witness for papal primacy. In his treatise On the Unity of the Church Cyprian gives the following interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:
The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).
Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock. If his comments were restricted to the above citation it would lend credence to the idea that he was a proponent of papal primacy. However Cyprian’s comments continue on from the statements given above. His additional statements prove conclusively that although he states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro–Roman sense. His view is that Peter is a symbol of unity, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words:
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).
Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).
Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock. The bishops of Rome are not endowed with divine authority to rule the Church. All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co–equals. If Cyprian meant to say that the Church was built upon Peter and he who resists the bishop of Rome resists the Church (cutting himself off from the Church), then he completely contradicts himself, for, as we will see in Part II, he opposed Stephen, the bishop of Rome in his interpretation of Matthew 16 as well as on theological and jurisdictional issues. His actions prove that his comments about Peter could not coincide with the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. To do so is a distortion of his true meaning.
Historically there has been some confusion on the interpretation of Cyprian’s teaching because there are two versions of his treatise, The Unity of the Church. In the first Cyprian speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true Church with that chair. He states that there is only one Church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. In the second, the references to a Petrine primacy are softened to give greater emphasis to the theme of unity and co–equality of bishops. Most Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree that Cyprian is the author of both versions. He wrote the second in order to offset a pro–Roman interpretation which was being

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:07:35 PM
attached to his words which he never intended. The episcopate is to him the principle of unity within the Church and representative of it. The ‘chair of Peter’ is a figurative expression which applies to every bishop in his own see, not just the bishops of Rome. The bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor but he does not have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church for Cyprian expressly states that all the apostles received the same authority and status as Peter and the Church is built upon all the bishops and not just Peter alone. Some object to these conclusions about Cyprian citing his statements about the chair of Peter. Roman Catholic apologists would lead us to believe that Cyprian’s comments refer exclusively to the bishops of Rome and that they therefore possess special authority as the successors of Peter.
The Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, repudiates this point of view as a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s view. As he points out Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were all equals::
Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5).
The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.
Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.
The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘...a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).
Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3).
It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).
As Charles Gore has pointed out, Cyprian used the phrase, the Chair of Peter’ in his Epistle 43, which Roman apologists often cite in defense of an exclusive Roman primacy, to refer to his own see of Carthage, not the see of Rome. This is confirmed as a general consensus of Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic historians. James McCue, writing for Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, in the work Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, affirms this interpretation of Cyprian’s view in the following comments:
According to Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Jesus first conferred upon Peter the authority with which he subsequently endowed all the apostles. This, according to Cyprian, was to make clear the unity of the power that was being conferred and of the church that was being established. Cyprian frequently speaks of Peter as the foundation of the church, and his meaning seems to be that it was in Peter that Jesus first established all the church–building powers and responsibilities that would subsequently also be given to the other apostles and to the bishops.
Peter is the source of the church’s unity only in an exemplary or symbolic way...Peter himself seems, in Cyprian’s thought, to have had no authority over the other apostles, and consequently the church of Peter cannot reasonably claim to have any authority over the other churches (Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Edited by Paul Empie and Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 68-69).
This judgment is further affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian, Michael Winter:
Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48).
This Roman Catholic historian insists that it is a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s true teaching to assert that he is a father who supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. And he says that both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars are now agreed on this. Once again, Roman Catholic historians specifically repudiate what some Roman apologists often teach about Cyprian and his comments on the ‘Chair of Peter’. Karlfried Froehlich states:


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:08:05 PM
Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome...He understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the privileged officers of penance...For (Cyprian), the one Peter, the first to receive the penitential keys which all other bishops also exercise, was the biblical type of the one episcopate, which in turn guaranteed the unity of the church. The one Peter equaled the one body of bishops (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 36, 13, n. 28 p. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).
John Meyendorff explains the meaning of Cyprian’s use of the phrase ‘chair of Peter’ and sums up the Cyprianic ecclesiology which was normative for the East as a whole:
The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter....Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98).
Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage...For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152).
And finally, Reinhold Seeberg explains Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16 and his ecclesiology in these words:
According to Matt. 16:18f., the church is founded upon the bishop and its direction devolves upon him: ‘Hence through the changes of times and dynasties the ordination of bishops and the order of the church moves on, so that the church is constituted of bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these leaders’ (Epistle 33.1)...The bishops constitute a college (collegium), the episcopate (episcopatus). The councils developed this conception. In them the bishops practically represented the unity of the church, as Cyprian now theoretically formulated it. Upon their unity rests the unity of the church...This unity is manifest in the fact that the Lord in the first instance bestowed apostolic authority upon Peter: ‘Hence the other apostles were also, to a certain extent, what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of both honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, in order that the church of Christ may be shown to be one’ (de un. eccl. 4)...In reality all the bishops—regarded dogmatically—stand upon the same level, and hence he maintained, in opposition to Stephanus of Rome, his right of independent opinion and action...(Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume I, p. 182-183).
The above quotations from world renowned Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox historians reveal a consensus of scholarly opinion on Cyprian’s teaching effectively demonstrating the incompatibility of Cyprian’s views with those espoused by Vatican I. This consensus also reveals the danger of taking the statements of Church fathers at face value without regard for the context of those statements or for seeking a proper interpretation of the meaning of the terms they use. It is easy to import preconceived meanings into their statements resulting in misrepresentation of their teaching.
The authors of Jesus Peter and the Keys are guilty of this very thing. They list quotations from Cyprian in total disregard of the true facts as they have been enumerated by the above historians giving the impression that Cyprian believed in papal primacy when in fact he did not. Their point of view and that of many of the Roman apologists of our day is thoroughly repudiated even by conservative Roman Catholic historians. Cyprian is an excellent example of a father who states that Peter is the rock but who does not mean this in a Roman Catholic sense. But without giving the proper historical context and understanding of his writings it would be quite easy to mislead the unintiated by investing Cyprian’s words with the doctrinal development of a later age thereby misrepresenting his actual position.
EUSEBIUS
Eusebius was born in Caesarea in Palestine around the year 263 A.D. He took the name Eusebius Pamphilus after his mentor and teacher Pamphilus. He was consecrated bishop of Caesarea in 313 A.D. and was a participant at the Council of Nicaea. He is known as the father of ecclesiastical history for his work on the history of the Church. He has very clearly expressed his views on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:
‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)...By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:08:38 PM
and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).
Eusebius unambiguously teaches that the rock is Christ. He correlates this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 10:4 and 3:11. He goes on to say that there is a subsidiary foundation, from Ephesians 2:20, of the apostles and prophets, the Church also built upon them, but the cornerstone is Christ. However he interprets this to mean that the Church is to be built upon the words or teachings of the apostles and prophets as opposed to their persons. It is in this sense that it can be said that the Church is built upon Peter and the other apostles. It is clear that Christ alone is the true foundation and rock of the Church and that Eusebius sees no peculiar Petrine primacy associated with Christ’s statements in Matthew 16. Peter is simply one of a number of the apostles who is a foundation of the Church. This has nothing to do with his person, but everything to do with his words—his confession. This helps us to properly understand other references of Eusebius to Peter. For example, when he says: ‘But Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one epistle undisputed,’ (Ecclesiastical History II.XXV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), p. 246), he does not mean that Christ established a papal office in Peter and that the Church is built upon him in a personal sense and through him upon his supposed successors. The Church is built upon Peter by being built upon his confession of faith. In light of his comments from his Commentary on the Psalms we can conclude that Eusebius did not interpret Matthew 16:18 in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. It is Christ and Christ alone that fills Eusebius’ vision from this passage. However, one will search in vain for the above quotation from Eusebius in the Roman Catholic work Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This work purports to give a definitive patristic perspective on the rock of Matthew 16. But the failure to give a full documentation of what this father has actually written on the subject once again leaves the authors open to the charge of a biased and manipulative presentation of the facts.
The interpretation of Eusebius, along with that of Origen, had an immense influence upon the Eastern and Western fathers. Over and over again, as we will see, we find the fathers of subsequent generations interpreting this rock passage with the focus on the person of Christ. The corresponding passages of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4 are used as justification for the interpretation. Michael Winter describes Eusebius’ point of view and influence:
In the Ecclesiastical History he says without any explanation or qualification: ‘Peter upon whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...’ Elsewhere he speaks of Christ as the foundation of the church in such a way as to exclude St. Peter. For instance in his commentary on the Psalms the reference to the foundation of the earth in Psalm 17 leads him to consider the foundation of the church. Using Matthew 16, he declares that this foundation is a rock, which is then identified as Christ on authority of 1 Cor. 10:4. This interpretation of the text of Matthew which seems so strange to the modern reader indicates a problem which perplexed quite a number of the early fathers. Their theology of the church was, thanks to Paul, so thoroughly Christocentric that it was difficult for them to envisage a foundation other than Christ...The third opinion which Eusebius put forward was an interpretation of Matthew 16 which envisaged the rock of the church neither as Christ nor precisely Peter himself, but as the faith which he manifested in his acknowledgment of Christ. This latter view of Eusebius, together with his other innovation, namely that the rock was Christ, had considerable influence on the later exegesis of the text in question, both in the Eastern and Western church (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), p. 53).
AUGUSTINE
Augustine is considered by many the most important theologian in the history of the Church for the first twelve hundred years. No other Church father has had such far reaching influence upon the theology of the Church. His authority throughout the patristic and middle ages is unsurpassed. He was the bishop of Hippo in North Africa from the end of the fourth century and on into the first quarter of the fifth, until his death in 430. William Jurgens makes these comments about his importance:
If we were faced with the unlikely proposition of having to destroy completely either the works of Augustine or the works of all the other Fathers and Writers, I have little doubt that all the others would have to be sacrificed. Augustine must remain. Of all the Fathers it is Augustine who is the most erudite, who has the most remarkable theological insights, and who is effectively most prolific (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Vol. 3, p. 1).
He was a prolific writer and he has made numerous comments which relate directly to the issue of the interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. In fact, Augustine made more comments upon this passage than any other Church father. At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ. The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position. He does leave the interpretation open for individual readers to decide which was the more probable interpretation but it is clear what he has concluded the interpretation should be and that he believes the view that the rock is Christ is the correct one. The fact that he would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated. Can the

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:09:40 PM
reader imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16? But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes. And his view was not a novel interpretation, come to at the end of his life, but his consistent teaching throughout his ministry. Nor was it an interpretation that ran counter to the prevailing opinion of his day. The following quotation is representative of the overall view espoused by this great teacher and theologian:
And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
Augustine could not be clearer in his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16. In his view, Peter is representative of the whole Church. The rock is not the person of Peter but Christ himself. In fact, in the above statements, in exegeting Matthew 16, he explicitly says that Christ did not build his Church on a man, referring specifically to Peter. If Christ did not build his Church on a man then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome. Again, if one examines the documentation from the writings of Augustine that are provided in Jesus, Peter and the Keys, this particular reference will not be found. Clearly, the authors neglected to provide such documentation because it completely undermines their position. The following extensive documentation reveals that Augustine taught that Peter was simply a figurative representative of the Church, not its ruler—a view reminiscent of Cyprian:
But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).
And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:10:14 PM
I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’ (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198).
According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peter—for example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choir—that they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? No. In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the coryphaeus, the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation. This view is clearly validated from the following statements of Augustine:
This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship (Sermon 26).
The blessed Peter, the first of the apostles (Sermon 295)
Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged preeminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all (Sermon 295).
Previously, of course, he was called Simon; this name of Peter was bestowed on him by the Lord, and that with the symbolic intention of his representing the Church. Because Christ, you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky, is the Christian people (Sermon 76).
So then, this self–same Peter, blessed by being surnamed Rocky from the rock, representing the person of the Church, holding chief place in the apostolic ranks (Sermon 76).
For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples; as it is written, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other passages of like purport: so Judas doth represent those Jews who were enemies of Christ (Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 119).
You will remember that the apostle Peter, the first of all the apostles, was thrown completely of balance during the Lord’s passion (Sermon 147).
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).
And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
Augustine states that Peter is the first and head of the apostles and that he holds a primacy. However he does not interpret that primacy in a Roman Catholic sense. He believes that Peter’s


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:10:44 PM
primacy is figurative in that he represents the universal Church. Again, he explicitly states that Christ did not build his Church upon a man but on Peter’s confession of faith. Peter is built on Christ the rock and as a figurative representative of the Church he shows how each believer is built on Christ. In Augustine’s view, Peter holds a primacy or preeminence, but none of this applies to him in a jurisdictional sense, because he says that ‘Christ did not build his Church upon a man.’ We can not get a clearer illustration that the fathers did indeed separate Peter’s confession of faith from Peter’s person. In commenting on one of Augustine’s references to Peter and the rock, John Rotelle, the editor of the Roman Catholic series on the Sermons of Augustine, makes these observations:
‘There was Peter, and he hadn’t yet been confirmed in the rock’: That is, in Christ, as participating in his ‘rockiness’ by faith. It does not mean confirmed as the rock, because Augustine never thinks of Peter as the rock. Jesus, after all, did not in fact call him the rock...but ‘Rocky.’ The rock on which he would build his Church was, for Augustine, both Christ himself and Peter’s faith, representing the faith of the Church (emphasis mine) (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993), Sermons, Sermon 265D.6, p. 258-259, n. 9)
Augustine does not endorse the Roman Catholic interpretation. Again and again he states that the rock is Christ, not Peter. Augustine claims no exclusive Petrine succession in the Roman bishops and no papal office. Karlfried Froehlich sums up Augustine’s views on Peter and the rock of Matthew 16 in these comments:
Augustine’s formulation (of Matthew 16:18-19), informed by a traditional North African concern for the unity of the church, that in Peter unus pro omnibus (one for all) had answered and received the reward, did not suggest more than a figurative reading of Peter as an image of the true church. In light of Peter’s subsequent fall and denial, the name itself was regularly declared to be derived from Christ, the true rock. Augustine, who followed Origen in this assumption, was fascinated by the dialectic of the ‘blessed’ Peter (Matt. 16:17) being addressed as ‘Satan’ a few verses later (v. 23). In Peter, weak in himself and strong only in his connection with Christ, the church could see the image of its own total dependence on God’s grace.
Augustine rigorously separated the name-giving from its explanation: Christ did not say to Peter: ‘you are the rock,’ but ‘you are Peter.’ The church is not built upon Peter but upon the only true rock, Christ. Augustine and the medieval exegetes after him found the warrant for this interpretation in 1 Cor. 10:4. The allegorical key of this verse had already been applied to numerous biblical rock passages in the earlier African testimonia tradition. Matt. 16:18 was no exception. If the metaphor of the rock did not refer to a negative category of ‘hard’ rocks, it had to be read christologically (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 3, 8-14. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).
Karl Morrison sums up Augustine’s views of ecclesiology in these words:
Peter was said to have received the power of the keys, not in his own right, but as the representative of the entire Church. Without contesting Rome’s primacy of honor, St. Augustine held that all the Apostles, and all their successors, the bishops, shared equally in the powers which Christ granted St. Peter (Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church 300-1140 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1969), p. 162).
Reinhold Seeberg, the Protestant Church historian, makes these comments on Augustine’s interpretation of Peter pointing out that it reflects the view of Cyprian:
The idea of the Roman Primacy likewise receives no special elucidation at the hands of Augustine. We find a general acknowledgment of the ‘primacy of the apostolic chair,’ but Augustine knows nothing of any special authority vested in Peter or his successors. Peter is a ‘figure of the church’ or of ‘good pastors,’ and represents the unity of the church (serm. 295.2; 147.2). In this consists the significance of his position and that of his successors...As all bishops (in contradistinction from the Scriptures) may err (unit. eccl. II.28), so also the Roman bishop. This view is plainly manifest from the bearing of Augustine and his colleagues in the Pelagian controversy...Dogmatically, there had been no advance from the position of Cyprian. The Africans, in their relations with Rome, played somewhat the role of the Gallicanism of a later period (Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume I, p. 318-319).
W.H.C. Frend affirms the above consensus of Augustine’s ecclesiology and his interpretation of Peter’s commission:
Augustine...rejected the idea that ‘the power of the keys’ had been entrusted to Peter alone. His primacy was simply a matter of personal privilege and not an office. Similarly, he never reproached the Donatists for not being in communion with Rome, but with lack of communion with the apostolic Sees as a whole. His view of Church government was that less important questions should be settled by provincial councils, greater matters at general councils (W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), p. 222).
Augustine is the greatest Church father and theologian of the patristic age writing after 400 years of Church history. The constitution of the Church should have been a firmly settled issue, especially since Vatican I claims that its papal teachings and interpretation of Matthew 16 upon which they rest have been the belief and teaching of the Church from the very beginning. Yet Augustine interprets Matthew 16 in a Protestant and Orthodox way, explicitly repudiating the Roman Catholic interpretation of Vatican I. How are we to explain this? Vatican I states the rock of Matthew 16 is the person of Peter and has been the unanimous opinion of the Church fathers. Then why did Augustine hold a contrary view to that which was supposedly the universal opinion of the Church of his day and in all preceding Church history? According to Rome, this passage holds the key to the constitution of the Church given by Christ himself which was fully recognized from the very beginning. If this was so, why would Augustine purposefully contradict the universal interpretation of so fundamental and important a passage? The answer, quite simply, is that the fathers did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 the way Vatican I does. Augustine is merely a prominent representative of the opinion of the Church as a whole.
The authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys suggest that Augustine invented a novel interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16 in stating that the rock is Christ. Specifically they state: ‘St. Augustine invented a new exegesis (of Matthew 16:18-19)—that the rock is Christ' (Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), p. 252). This is a

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:11:14 PM
completely misinformed statement. As we have seen this interpretation was utilized by Eusebius in the fourth century, many years before Augustine.
AMBROSE (ca. A.D. 333—397)
Ambrose was bishop of the see of Milan in the latter part of the fourth century. He was one of the greatest fathers of the Western Church, the mentor of St. Augustine, and universally recognized as one of the greatest theologians of the patristic age. He is one of a handful of Western fathers who would be recognized theologically by the Roman Catholic Church as a doctor of the Church. He was the leading theologian and outstanding bishop of the Western Church. He is a father who is often cited in support of the present day Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18. The following quotation is the one that is most often given in support of this view:
It is to Peter himself that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume 2, St. Ambrose, On Twelve Psalms 440, 30, p. 150).
The impression given by Roman Catholic apologists is that in these comments Ambrose supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. They apply the following logic to his statement: The above quote seems to suggest that Peter’s person is the rock. And since the bishops of Rome are the successors to Peter they are, therefore, by succession, the rocks of the Church. Therefore, according to Ambrose, the Church is founded upon the universal rule of the bishops of Rome. To be in communion with Rome is to be in the Church. To be out of communion with Rome is to be out of the Church for where Peter (that is, the bishop of Rome) is, there is the Church. Is this what Ambrose meant? If we divorce this one sentence from its context and from the rest of his comments on Peter in other writings, we could certainly lean towards that interpretation. However, Ambrose made other comments on Peter and Matthew 16 which explain exactly what he meant when he said that Peter is the rock. Unfortunately, these other comments are often neglected in discussions by Roman Catholic apologists. Often a quote like this is given out of the context. The result is that an interpretation is given the words of Ambrose that is completely foreign to his true meaning. This becomes clear upon examination of his other statements:
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).
Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’...Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’...Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).
What does Ambrose mean when he says that Peter is the foundation? In the sense that he was the first to openly confess faith in Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. The rock is not Peter himself but Peter’s confession of faith! It is this faith which is the foundation of the Church. Peter possesses a primacy, but he explains that primacy as one of confession and faith and not of rank in the sense of ruling over the other apostles. Thus, when Ambrose says that ‘where Peter is there is the Church,’ he means that where Peter’s confession is, there is the Church. He does not mean the bishop of Rome at all. He goes on to give an exposition of the rock reminiscent of the interpretation of Origen who says that all believers are rocks. As Robert Eno points out, when the overall context of Ambrose’s statement is taken into account, it demonstrates that the interpretation given by Fastiggi and others is a complete misrepresentation of Ambrose’s statement since his statement has nothing to do with ecclesiology and papal authority. Robert Eno gives the following explanation:
There is no question then that Ambrose honored the Roman see, but there are other texts which seem to establish a certain distance and independence as well. He commented, for example, that Peter’s primacy was a primacy of confession, not of honor; a primacy of faith, not rank...Finally, one further text should be mentioned in connection with Ambrose since it is a text which like Roma locuta est has become something of a shibboleth or slogan. This is the brief phrase from his commentary on the fortieth Psalm: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the Church)...As Roger Gryson has shown, in his study on Ambrose and the priesthood, the context of such a statement has nothing to do with any treatise on ecclesiology. It is but one statement in a long chain of allegorical exegesis starting with the line from Ps. 41:9: ‘Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted...has lifted his heel against me.’ This is not to deny the fairly common association of Peter as the symbol of the Church, the figura ecclesiae we have seen in Augustine.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:11:41 PM
But it says little that is new and nothing at all about papal authority (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 83-84).
In the view of the fathers, as seen in the examples of Cyprian, Ambrose and Augustine, the Church is not embodied in one individual but in a confession of right faith. Where you have that right confession you have Peter. This is explicitly stated for example by Chrysostom. Like Ambrose, he says that where Peter is there is the Church in the sense of Peter’s confession and he applies it not to Rome but to Antioch: ‘Though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter’ (On the Inscription of Acts, II. Taken from E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p.168).
It is important to note also that Ambrose, like Augustine, separates Peter’s confession of faith from the person of Peter himself: ‘Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.’ This conclusively demonstrates the spuriousness of some Roman apologists’ claims that the fathers did not separate the confession of Peter from the person of Peter. Ambrose did this as did Augustine, and other fathers as well, as we will see. These fathers did not believe that the Church was built on the person of Peter but on Christ alone or on Peter’s confession of faith in a secondary sense. And generally speaking, when the fathers state that the Church is built on Peter, they mean it is built upon his faith. Karlfried Froehlich makes this very point in his comments on the patristic exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16:18:
Most of the Eastern exegetes, especially after the doctrinal controversies of the fourth century, read v. 18 as the culmination of vv. 16-17: ‘upon this rock’ meant ‘upon the orthodox faith which you have just confessed.’ Introduced in the West by Ambrose and the translation of the Antiochene exegetes, this Petra=fides equation maintained an important place alongside the christological alternative, or as its more precise explanation: the rock of the church was Christ who was the content of Peter’s confession (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 12. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).
This can be seen from the example of Ambrose himself. In other passages he refers to Christ as the rock:
‘They sucked honey out of the firm rock,’ (Deut. xxxii.13): for the flesh of Christ is a rock, which redeemed heaven and the whole world (1 Cor. x.4) (Epistle 43.9. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 76).
When the cock crew, the very rock of the Church did away with his guilt (Hymn. Aeterne rerum conditor. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 76).
For Ambrose, then, the rock is not Peter but his confession of faith. It points to the person of Christ as the ultimate rock. So it is possible to make it appear that Ambrose holds a particular view when in fact he does not, by not presenting his complete teaching on this subject.
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
John Chrysostom was an Eastern father who lived during the second half of the fourth century. He was a priest of Antioch, bishop of Constantinople and contemporary of some of the greatest Church fathers in the history of the Church (such as Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome). He was the most prolific writer of the Eastern fathers and is considered by many to be the greatest preacher, commentator and theologian to grace the Eastern Church. He was known as the golden–mouthed preacher for his eloquence. He died in exile in 407 A.D. William Jurgens makes these comments about him:
Some will say that John Chrysostom is unparalleled anywhere, while others will say that he is matched only by Augustine...No one else among the Greek Fathers has so large a body of extant writings as has Chrysostom (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979), Volume 2, pp. 84-86).
What was Chrysostom’s view of Peter and his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16? Does it coincide with the teaching of papal primacy espoused by the Church of Rome? The answer is no. Chrysostom’s views are very similar to those of Augustine. As we have seen Augustine held a very high view of Peter. He called him the chief and first of the apostles and yet stated that the rock was not Peter but Christ. A very similar picture presents itself in the writings of Chrysostom. In his book Studies in the Early Papacy, the Roman Catholic apologist Dom Chapman has referenced approximately ninety citations from Chrysostom’s writings which he claims as proof of a clear and unambiguous affirmation of a Petrine and thereby a papal primacy. But Dom Chapman has committed a primary error of historiography—that of reading back into the writings of a previous age the presuppositions and conclusions of a later age. He assumes that because a particular father makes certain statements about Peter that he must have a primacy of jurisdiction in mind and that this applies in his thinking to the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense as well. But as we have seen with Augustine this is not the case. A close examination of the comments of Chrysostom demonstrates this to be true in his case as well. Like Augustine, Chrysostom makes some very exalted statements about Peter:
Peter, that chief of the apostles, first in the Church, the friend of Christ who did not receive revelation from man but from the Father, as the Lord bore witness to him saying: ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar–Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven’: this same Peter (when I say ‘Peter,’ I name an unbreakable rock, an immovable ridge, a great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first obeying), this same Peter, I say, did not perpetrate a minor misdeed but a very great one. He denied the Lord. I say this, not accusing a just man, but offering to you the opportunity of repentance. Peter denied the Lord and governor of the world himself, the savior of all...(De Eleemos III.4, M.P.G., Vol. 49, Col. 298)
Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race from the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than boldness (Hom. de decem mille talentis 3, PG III, 20. Cited by Dom Chapman, Studies in the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 74.).
These are exalted titles but in using them Chrysostom does not mean that Peter possesses a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church or that he is the rock upon which the Church is built. Again, we have already seen this in Augustine. He uses similar language in describing Peter but

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:12:08 PM
without its having a Roman Catholic meaning. We know this is also true for Chrysostom because he applies similar titles to the other apostles and did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be Peter. The term coryphaeus, for example, was a general title applied by Chrysostom to several of the apostles, not to Peter exclusively. It carries the idea of leadership but implies no jurisdiction. Chrysostom uses this term to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul. He states that just as Peter received the charge of the world, so did the apostles Paul and John. Just as Peter was appointed teacher of the world, so was Paul. Just as Peter was a holder of the keys of heaven, so was the apostle John. He places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority:
He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart...Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer...'We are able to drink the chalice' (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2; p. 345).
Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI, p. 169)
The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election (Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 76)
And if any should say ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world...And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere (Homily 24, On Genesis..Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 165).
It is clear from these statements that Chrysostom, while certainly granting a large leadership role to Peter, does not consider him to have been made the supreme ruler of the Church. These passages demonstrate that the exalted titles applied to Peter were not exclusively applied to Peter. But these passages are completely absent from the work Jesus, Peter and the Keys. The passage in which Chrysostom exegetes the rock of Matthew 16 explaining that it is Peter’s confession of faith is also not included. How can the authors of this work claim to give a truthful and balanced presentation of Chrysostom’s perspective when they are guilty of such blatant and purposeful disregard of his writings? There is one passage in which Chrysostom does state that Peter received authority over the Church:
For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally with Peter:
And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
He goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter:
Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love....I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it...Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!...what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38) (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24, pp. 561-562.).
Further, Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:12:34 PM
Dom Chapman interprets these statements in a limited sense this way:
Obviously, it is James who has the ‘rule’ and the ‘great power’ as bishop of those believing Pharisees who had initiated the discussion. But the idea that he had (rule) over Peter is, of course, ludicrous, and the notion that he could possibly be the president of the council certainly never occurred to Chrysostom’s mind (Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 90).
The problem with what Chapman says is that this is not what Chrysostom says. Chrysostom says nothing about the chief rule of James being limited to that of the believing Pharisees. There is not one word said about Pharisees. His reference to the chief rule is of the overall Council over which James presided. When all of his statements about Peter, Paul, James and John are taken together, it becomes clear that in the mind of Chrysostom, all the apostles together held the care of the world and headship of the Church universally. Peter did not hold a primacy of jurisdiction but of teaching, which he says is equally true of John and Paul:
And if anyone would say ‘How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?’ I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
Chrysostom interprets the keys given to Peter as a declarative authority to teach and preach the gospel and to extend the kingdom of God, not a primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles:
For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the Church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford, Parker, 1844), Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 54.3).
This authority was shared equally by all the apostles. Chrysostom states, for example, that John also held the authority of the keys and, like Peter, he held a universal teaching authority over the Churches throughout the world:
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
It is also evident from Chrysostom’s exegesis of Matthew 16 that he did not teach that Peter was made supreme ruler of the Church. He did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, but his confession of faith, pointing to Christ himself as the rock and only foundation of the Church:
‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).
He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).
‘For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ I say, no man can lay it so long as he is a master–builder; but if he lay it...he ceases to be a master–builder. See how even from men’s common notions he proves the whole of his proposition. His meaning is this: ‘I have preached Christ, I have delivered unto you the foundation. Take heed how you build thereon, lest haply it be in vainglory, lest haply so as to draw away the disciples unto men.’ Let us not then give heed unto the heresies. ‘For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid.’ Upon this then let us build, and as a foundation let let us cleave to it, as a branch to a vine; and let there be no interval between us and Christ...For the branch by its adherence draws in the fatness, and the building stands because it is cemented together. Since, if it stand apart it perishes, having nothing whereon to support itself. Let us not then merely keep hold of Christ, but let us be cemented to Him, for if we stand apart, we perish...And accordingly, there are many images whereby He brings us into union. Thus, if you mark it, He is the ‘Head’, we are ‘the body’: can there be any empty interval between the head and the body? He is a ‘Foundation’, we are a ‘building’: He a ‘Vine’, we ‘branches’: He the ‘Bridegroom’, we the ‘bride’: He is the ‘Shepherd’, we the ‘sheep’: He is the ‘Way’, we ‘they who walk therein.’ Again, we are a ‘temple,’ He the ‘Indweller’: He the ‘First–Begotten,’ we the ‘brethren’: He the ‘Heir,’ we the ‘heirs together with Him’: He the ‘Life,’ we the ‘living’: He the ‘Resurrection,’ we ‘those who rise again’: He the ‘Light,’ we the ‘enlightened.’ All these things indicate unity; and they allow no void interval, not even the smallest (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XII, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, Homily VIII.7, p. 47).
Chrysostom argues that the rock is not Peter but Peter’s confession of faith in Christ as the Son of God. Even Dom Chapman is forced to admit that Chrysostom consistently interpreted the rock to be Peter’s confession of faith:
‘The rock on which the Church is to be built is regularly taken by St. Chrysostom to be the confession of Peter, or the faith which prompted this confession' (Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 77).
It is Peter’s confession that is the foundation of the Church. Peter is not the foundation. According to Chrysostom that position belongs to Christ alone. Dom Chapman objects to this claiming that in Chrysostom’s mind, the rock is not only Peter’s faith but also Peter’s person. He cites a quote where Chrysostom speaks of Peter as being strengthened by Christ to stand as a rock against a hostile world:

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:13:07 PM
For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve from sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as ‘a brazen pillar, and as a wall;’ but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world (A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford, Parker, 1844), Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 54.3).
In light of these statements Chapman says:
I think this statement alone would have made it clear that the Rock is Peter, in St. Chrysostom’s view, as well as, and because of, the firmness of his confession. He has no idea of the two notions, ‘Peter is the Rock’ and ‘his faith is the Rock’ being mutually exclusive, as, in fact, they are not (Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 79).
But this statement is a complete misrepresentation. In exegeting the rock of Matthew 16, just prior to the above statements, Chrysostom states that Peter is not the rock. In the quotes given by Chapman, what Chrysostom is saying is that just as the Lord strengthened Jeremiah for his calling so he would strengthen Peter. He says he will be like a rock, not that he is the rock of Matthew 16. This is very similar to Augustine’s position on Peter:
So is it the case that Peter is now true, or that Christ is true in Peter? When the Lord Jesus Christ wished, he left Peter to himself, and Peter was found to be a man; and when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, he filled Peter, and Peter was found to be true. The Rock had made Rocky Peter true, for the Rock was Christ (John Rotelle, The Works of Saint Augustine (Brooklyn: New City, 1992), Sermons, Sermon 147.3, p. 449).
According to Augustine, the rock is Christ and Christ made Peter a rock of strength in his faith. But Peter is not the rock of Matthew 16. He simply derives strength to be a rock from the rock, Christ Jesus himself. And what is true for Peter becomes true for all Christians because Peter is a figurative representative of the Church. In contradistinction to Chapman’s assertions the fathers do in fact separate Peter’s faith from Peter’s confession, making them mutually exclusive, as we have seen with Augustine and Ambrose. While it is true that it is the person of Peter who makes the confession, the focus of Chrysostom is not on Peter’s person but on Peter’s faith. Chrysostom holds a similar view to that of Ambrose which we referenced earlier. Ambrose says that where Peter is (his confession), there is the Church. Chrysostom affirms the same point when he says:
‘For though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter’ (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
While holding a very high view of the status of the apostle Peter, Chrysostom, like Augustine, did not transfer this status to the bishops of Rome. In his thinking, along with Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose, all bishops are successors of Peter. There is no supreme authority of one bishop over another. In all his remarks about Peter, where does Chrysostom apply them to the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense? He never does that. He never personally makes that application in his statements and it is historically dishonest to assert that that is what he meant when he personally never said it. In similar fashion to Cyprian, Chrysostom refers to the chair of Peter, stating that the bishop of Antioch possesses that chair, demonstrating that in his mind all legitimate bishops are successors of Peter and not just the bishop of Rome:
In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
In his book, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, Herbert Scott makes the assertion that John Chrysostom held to the view of papal primacy because he expressed exalted views about the apostle Peter. He makes the assumption that because Chrysostom speaks of Peter in exalted terms that such statements apply to the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. But when pressed by the question as to whether Chrysostom actually makes this application himself, Scott is forced to this significant admission:
Granted that Chrysostom reiterates that Peter is the coryphaeus, ‘the universal shepherd,’ etc., what evidence is there, it is asked, that he recognised these claims in the Bishop of Rome? Is there anything in his writings to that effect?...If it be held that all this labouring by Chrysostom of the honour and powers of Peter does not of itself demand the exalted position of his successors as its explanation, it must be conceded that there is little or nothing in his writings which explicitly and incontestably affirms that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of S. Peter in his primacy (S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 133).
In other words, there is no evidence in any of the writings of Chrysostom that he applied his statements about Peter to the bishops of Rome. Nevertheless, Scott goes on to suggest that Chrysostom’s statements imply a papal interpretation to his words. As Scott puts it:
Surely, however, if Peter is the foundation of the Church as Chrysostom constantly affirms, and if the Church is eternal as the Founder made it, he must last as long as the building, the Church, which is erected upon him (S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 133).
The logic employed here by Scott is flawed. Chrysostom never makes such a statement. He has in fact explained what he means when he says that Peter is the foundation. There is no reason to suppose that Chrysostom envisioned a papal office when he speaks of Peter as the foundation of the Church. We have seen quite clearly from Chrysostom’s statements that he taught that the Church was built on Peter’s confession of faith. It can be said to be built on Peter only in the sense that it is built on his confession. Chrysostom’s comments given above on Antioch demonstrate that he teaches that the Church’s foundation is preserved throughout history as Peter’s confession of faith is preserved. It is not preserved by being built upon the bishops of

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:13:34 PM
Rome as supposed exclusive successors of Peter, but upon Peter’s confession. As Chrysostom put it, ‘Where you have Peter’s confession there you have Peter: ‘for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter’ (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
Nevertheless, Scott goes on to offer what he considers incontrovertible proof of the expression of papal primacy from Chrysostom’s writings:
There is indeed one passage which may be a categorical affirmation of the primacy of the pope: De Sacerdotio 53: ‘Why did Christ shed His Blood? To purchase the sheep which He confided to Peter and those who came after him.’ It may be urged that S. Chrysostom means no more by this than all those who have the care of souls. On the other hand, there may be a reference to Peter only and to his personal commission: ‘Feed my sheep’; and Chrysostom soon afterwards actually quotes these words. And when one recalls his comments on them given above, as meaning Peter’s ‘government’ and ‘ruling the brethren,’ it is at least likely that here is a reference to Peter’s successors in the see of Rome (S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 133).
These assertions are refuted by Dom Chrysostom Baur, the Roman Catholic biographer on the life of John Chrysostom. He points out that Chrysostom’s writings contain no allusion to a papal primacy and that the supposed evidence as that appealed to by Scott twists his writings to say what one wants them to say. It is to read a preconceived theology into his writings that Chrysostom himself never expressed. Baur comments:
A more important question is whether Chrysostom considered the primacy of Peter as only personal, or as an official primacy, hence a permanent arrangement of the Church, and whether he correspondingly attributed the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church also to the Bishops of Rome...Chrysostom never made in his works any questionable deductions, never passed sentence with clear words on the jurisdiction of the Pope. Even P. Jugie admits this frankly. N. Marini, who later became a Cardinal, published a book on this question. In this he seeks, with the help...of a number of quotations from Chrysostom, to prove that this must pass for unqualified evidence of the jurisdictional primacy of the successors of Peter in Rome. His first argument is borrowed from the Treatise on the Priesthood. In Book 2.1 Chrysostom asks: ‘Why did Christ shed His blood? In order to ransom His sheep, which He entrusted to Peter and to those after him.’ Marioni translates here ‘Peter and his successors,’ which naturally facilitates his proof. But Chrysostom actually expressed himself in a more general way, and means by ‘those after him’ all the pastors generally, to whom the sheep of Christ had been entrusted after Peter.
So it is not practicable to interpret this passage so narrowly as Marini has done. Still less convincing is Marini’s second piece of evidence. In a letter which Chrysostom addressed to Pope Innocent from his exile, he says that he would gladly assist in putting an end to the great evil, ‘for the strife has spread over almost the entire world.’ So then, one concludes, Chrysostom ascribes to the Pope authority over the whole world. Then Chrysostom writes once more, to the Bishop of Thessalomki: ‘Do not grow weary of doing that which contributes to the general improvement of the Church,’ and he praises Bishop Aurelius of Carthage, because he put forth so much effort and struggle for the churches of the whole world. It would not occur to anyone to wish to construe from this a possible proof of the primacy of the bishops of Saloniki or of Carthage (Dom Chrysostumus Baur, O.S.B., John Chrysostom and His Time (Westminster: Newman, 1959), Vol. I, pp. 348-349).
Clearly, Chrysostom cannot be cited as a proponent of a Petrine or papal primacy in the Roman Catholic sense any more than Augustine. Michael Winter candidly admits that Chrysostom’s views, especially his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16, were antithetical to those of Rome and greatly influenced the Eastern fathers who followed him. He states that such Eastern fathers as Theodore of Mopsuestia, Palladius of Helenopolis, Theodore of Ancyra, Basil of Seleucia and Nilus of Ancyra held to an opinion that was unfavourable to the superiority of Peter, an opinion that was widespread in the East in the first half of the fifth century:
The antipathy to Rome which finds its echo even in the works of St. John Chrysostom became more pronounced as the Eastern Church came more and more under the control of the emperor and effected eventually their estimate of St. Peter. Although they were not influenced by the Eusebian idea that the ‘rock’ of the church was Christ, the lesser Antiocheans betray an unwillingness to admit that Peter was the rock. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died a quarter of a century after Chrysostom, declared that the rock on which the church was built was Peter’s confession of faith. The same opinion is repeated by Palladius of Helenopolis in his Dialogues on the life of St. John Chrysostom. Without any elaboration he states that the rock in Matthew 16 is Peter’s confession. The complete absence of reasons or arguments in support of the contention is an indication of how widely the view was accepted at that date. Such an opinion was, in fact, held also by Theodore of Ancyra, Basil of Seleucia, and Nilus of Ancyra, in the first half of the fifth century...The opinion unfavourable to the superiority of St. Peter gained a considerable following in the East under the influence of the school of Antioch...(Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), p. 73).
THEODORET OF CYR (A.D. 393—466)
Theodoret was the leading theologian of Antioch in the fifth century. In interpreting the rock passage of Matthew 16 he shares the opinion of the Eastern fathers, especially that of Chrysostom. The ‘opinion unfavourable to the superiority of St. Peter’ in the school of Antioch mentioned by Winter in the above quote finds representative expression in the following comments of Theodoret:
Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for ‘On this rock,’ He says, ‘I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. ‘I,’ he says, ‘as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 146, To John the Economus, p. 318).


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:14:01 PM
Other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. iii.11). It is necessary to build upon, not to lay foundations. For it is impossible for him who wishes to build wisely to lay another foundation. The blessed Peter also laid this foundation, or rather the Lord Himself. For Peter having said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;’ the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Therefore call not yourselves after men’s names, for Christ is the foundation (117Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1,12. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 149).
Surely he is calling pious faith and true confession a ‘rock.’ For when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said he was, blessed Peter spoke up, saying ‘You are Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To which the Lord answered: ‘Truly, truly I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Commentary on Canticle of Canticles II.14, M.P.G., Vol. 81, Col. 108).
‘Its foundations are on the holy mountains.’ The ‘foundations’ of piety are divine precepts, while the ‘holy mountains’ upon which these foundations are laid are the apostles of our Saviour. Blessed Paul says concerning these foundations: ‘You have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets whose cornerstone is Christ Jesus.’ And again he says: ‘Peter, James and John who are perceived to be pillars.’ And after Peter had made that true and divine confession, Christ said to him: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ And elsewhere Christ says: ‘You are the light of the world, and a city set on a hill cannot be hid.’ Upon these holy mountains Christ the Lord laid the foundations of piety (Commentary on Psalms 86.1, M.P.G., Vol. 80, Col. 1561).
Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ permitted the first of the apostles, whose confession He had fixed as a kind of groundwork and foundation of the Church, to waver to and fro, and to deny Him, and then raised him up again (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 77, To Eulalius, p. 273).
According to Theodoret the rock is Peter’s confession of faith in Christ which points to Christ as the foundation of the Church. The main cornerstone is Jesus Christ and the subsidiary foundation includes all the apostles equally in their teachings and faith. He does refer to Peter personally as the foundation:
For if they say that these things happened before baptism, let them learn that the great foundation of the Church was shaken, and confirmed by divine grace. For the great Peter, having denied thrice, remained first; cured by his own tears. And the Lord commanded him to apply the same cure to the brethren, ‘And thou,’ He says, ‘converted, confirm thy brethren’ (Luke xxii.32) (Haeret. Fab. Book 5, Chapter 28. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 152).
Peter is called the foundation because of his confession of faith. It is his confession which is the rock of the Church. The rock and foundation is Jesus Christ alone. Theodoret does state that Peter is first among the apostles and the coryphaeus but, like Chrysostom and Augustine, these titles carry no unique jurisdictional primacy in a Roman Catholic sense. All the apostles are equal in authority and all bishops are successors of Peter. In a statement reminiscent of Cyprian and Chrysostom, Theodoret speaks of the bishop of Antioch as possessing the throne and authority of Peter demonstrating that this was not something unique to the see of Rome:
Dioscurus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the see of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochean metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphaeus of the apostles (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 86, To Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, p. 281).
In Jesus, Peter and the Keys, the authors list only one very short passage from Theodoret omitting completely all the others that have been listed here. That passage is the one referred to above where Peter is spoken of as ‘the great foundation of the Church.’ As we have seen Theodoret’s understanding of Peter as a foundation must be interpreted in the light of his other comments about Peter and his confession of faith. This is consistent with the prevailing patristic view of the East in that day as we have seen represented by Chrysostom and in the West by Ambrose and Augustine. But one can easily mislead people if one chooses to disregard the other references and to cite only that one which superficially seems to support one’s position because it speaks of Peter as a foundation. Without a proper reading of this one passage in the context of Theodoret’s other writings one cannot possibly fairly and objectively represent what he actually taught. By citing only this one passage, in isolation from the others, the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys impose a preconceived papal theology onto Theodoret’s words which was not true to his own thought. They have misrepresented the writings of this Church father and they are at odds with their own historians. The Roman Catholic historian, Michael Winter, demonstrates this to be the case when he sums up Theodoret’s views this way:
He declared at one time that the rock foundation of the church was faith, and at another that it was Christ. Elsewhere he applies the notion to all the Apostles...It is evident that he did not acknowledge the primacy of St. Peter (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), p. 74).
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (Died A.D. 444)
Cyril is one of the most important and influential theologians of the Eastern Church. He was bishop of Alexandria in the first half of the fifth century from 412 A.D to 444 A.D. He presided over the Council of Ephesus and is considered the great defender of the orthodox faith against Nestorius. His views on the rock of Matthew 16 and the foundation of the Church are unambiguously presented in his writings:
For that reason divine Scripture says that Peter, that exceptional figure among the apostles, was called blessed. For when the Savior was in that part of Caesarea which is called Philippi, he asked who the people thought he was, or what rumor about him had been spread throughout Judea and the town bordering Judea. And in response Peter, having abandoned the childish and abused opinions of the people, wisely and expertly exclaimed: ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God.’ Now when Christ heard this true opinion of him, he repaid Peter by saying: ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar–Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ The surname, I believe, calls nothing other than the unshakable

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:14:29 PM
and very firm faith of the disciple ‘a rock,’ upon which the Church was founded and made firm and remains continually impregnable even with respect to the very gates of Hell. But Peter’s faith in the Son was not easily attained, nor did it flow from human apprehension; rather it was derived from the ineffable instruction from above; since God the Father clearly shows his own Son and causes a sure persuasion of him in the minds of his people. For Christ was in no way deceptive when he said, ‘Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.’ If, therefore, blessed Peter, having confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God, are those not very wretched and abandoned who rashly rail at the will and undoubtedly true teaching of God, who drag down the one who proceeds from God’s own substance and make him a creature, who foolishly reckon the coeternal author of life to be among those things which have derived their life from another source? Are such people not at any rate very ignorant? (Dialogue on the Trinity IV, M.P.G., Vol. 75, Col. 866).
But why do we say that they are ‘foundations of the earth’? For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all things—Christ who restrains and holds together all things, that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built, a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple. Likewise, the psalmist says: ‘Its foundations are the holy mountains.’ Very truly should the holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets would not fall into a false faith (Commentary on Isaiah IV.2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col. 940).
The Church is unshaken, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ according to the voice of the Saviour, for it has Him for a foundation (Commentary on Zacharias. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 143).
It is likely that by these words (Is. 33:16) our Lord Jesus Christ is called a rock, in Whom, as some cave or sheepfold, the Church is conceived as having a safe and unshaken abiding place for its well-being; ‘For thou art Peter,’ the Saviour says, ‘and upon this rock I will build My Church’ (Commentary on Isaiah 3.iii, on Isaiah 28:16. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 142).
Cyril’s views are very similar to those of Chrysostom. He identifies the rock of the Church to be Peter’s confession of faith and not the person of Peter himself. He separates Peter’s faith from Peter’s person, just as Augustine, Chrysostom and Ambrose did. All of the apostles according to Cyril are Shepherds and foundations. It is their teaching on Christ which is foundational and points to Christ as the true rock and only foundation upon which the Church is built. He interprets the rock of Matthew 16 to be Christ as well as Peter’s confession of faith. This amounts to the same thing as Peter’s confession points to the person of Christ. Cyril’s views are completely antithetical to those of the Roman Catholic Church. He is no proponent of the teaching of papal primacy. Michael Winter summarizes Cyril’s views in the following statements:
Cyril of Alexandria’s theology on the question of St. Peter resembles closely that of the Antiochean fathers. The life work of St. Cyril, for which he is renowned in the church, was his upholding of the orthodox faith against Nestorius, principally at the Council of Ephesus in 431. This preoccupation with Christological questions influenced his exegesis of the text of Matthew 16 in a manner which is reminiscent of the earliest fathers who were writing against Gnosticism. Although he alludes frequently to the text, it is the Christological application which interests him and the resultant picture of St. Peter is inconclusive. For instance when, commenting on the passage he writes: ‘Then he also names another honour: “Upon this rock I will build my church; and to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Observe how he summarily manifests Himself Lord of heaven and earth for. . . He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. Then He says, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Neither an angel nor any other spiritual being is able to speak thus.’
The application to Peter of the title ‘shepherd’ is deceptive, since he applies it elsewhere to all the Apostles and it cannot therefore indicate a peculiar authority for Peter. It seems to have been his consistent opinion that the ‘rock–foundation’ of the church was Peter’s immovable faith. Although it seems a small matter to distinguish Peter’s faith from his person in the function of being the foundation of the church, it does appear that Cyril did, in fact, isolate St. Peter himself for that role and in this respect he is at one with the later Antiocheans...The school of Antioch (and those who were influenced by it) presents a conflicting set of opinions. St Chrysostom and some followers uphold the primacy of St. Peter, while St. Cyril of Alexandria and others deny it (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 74-76).
It is significant that this Roman Catholic historian is forced by the evidence of Cyril’s writings to conclude that his use of the word shepherd as applied to Peter did not imply any peculiar authority to him and that he was not a proponent of Petrine primacy. In fact, that he actually denied it. He deals honestly with the facts. This cannot be said of the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys. They give selective quotations from this father, purposefully omitting those that are unfavorable to their position. There is no attempt at an honest assessment of what Cyril actually meant by the words that he used leading the reader to conclude that Cyril taught that Peter was the rock and was a supporter of a primacy of Peter in a pro-Roman, papal sense, neither of which is true. Cyril’s views are consistent with those of the other major fathers of the East and West which we have examined. Peter’s faith is the rock and foundation of the Church. It points to the person of Christ as the true rock and only foundation.
The views of the fathers that have been cited are representative of the fathers as a whole. This can be demonstrated by the examples of other major fathers such as the following:
HILARY OF POITIERS
Hilary was consecrated bishop of Poitiers in 350 A.D. He is known as the Athanasius of the West due to his staunch stand for Nicene orthodoxy in opposition to Arianism. He died in 367–

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:14:54 PM
368 A.D. and was declared a doctor of the Church by pope Pius IX. His views on the rock of Matthew 16 are consistent with those of Augustine and Ambrose:
A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles...whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?...And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built...that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God.
This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven...The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20.
JEROME
Jerome is the great biblical scholar of the Western Church of the patristics age. He spent time in both the East and West and was a master of three languages: Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Along with Origen, he is considered the only true biblical scholar of the entire patristic age:
The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built...For the Church was founded upon a rock...upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18) (Commentary on Matthew 7.25, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 51. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelalter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), Footnote #200, p. 49).
EPIPHANIUS
Epiphanius was born in Palestine and was bishop of Salamis on Cyprus. He was an ardent defender of Nicene orthodoxy. He gives an interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16 that is consistent with the overall Eastern exegesis:
He confessed that ‘Christ’ is ‘the Son of the living God,’ and was told, ‘On this rock of sure faith will I build my church’—for he plainly confessed that Christ is true Son (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Leiden: Brill, 1994), Books II and III, Haer. 59.7, 6-8,3, pp. 108-109).
BASIL OF SELEUCIA
Basil was a fifth century Eastern bishop of Seleucia in Isauria. He took part in the Council of Chalcedon in 451:
Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it ‘Peter,’ perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: ‘For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ To whom be glory and power forever (Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297).
PAUL OF EMESA (Died—ca. A.D. 444)
Paul was consecrated bishop of Emesa just after 410 A.D. He took part in the Council of Ephesus:
Whom do you say that I am?’ Instantly, the Coryphaeus of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God...Upon this faith the Church of God has been founded. With this expectation, upon this rock the Lord God placed the foundations of the Church (Homily of the Nativity. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 148).
JOHN OF DAMASCUS
The death of John of Damascus (around 749 A.D.) is considered to be the close of the patristic age. He was an Eastern father with a reputation as a great preacher and prolific writer. In his writings he clearly identifies the rock of the Church as the person of Christ or Peter’s faith which points to Christ:
This is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines of demons—for they will attack—will not prevail. They will take up arms but they will not conquer (Homily on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., Vol. 96, Col. 554-555).
This rock was Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the Lord, for Paul clearly teaches us: ‘The rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:4) (Homily on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., Vol. 96, Col. 548).
The evidence presented on the history of the patristic exegesis of Matthew 16 is similar for Luke 22:32 and John 21:15–17. This evidence reveals that the fathers did not interpret these passages in favor of an exclusive Roman primacy or papal infallibility. There is no patristic exegesis of Matthew 16:18 or Luke 22:32 which even implies that the bishops of Rome are infallible.
Summary Statements of Historians
The following comments from the writings of major Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant historians which summarize the patristic understanding of the person of Peter and the rock of Matthew 16 affirm the above assertions.
Brian Tierney
Brian Tierney is a world renowned medieval scholar. He gives the following analysis of the medieval interpretation of Luke 22 which was grounded in the patristic interpretation as

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:15:20 PM
documented by Froehlich. He demonstrates that the doctrine of papal infallibility was unknown in the patristic and medieval ages:
The scriptural text most commonly cited in favor of papal infallibility is Luke 22.32. There is no lack of patristic commentary on the text. None of the Fathers interpreted it as meaning that Peter’s successors were infallible. No convincing argument has ever been put forward explaining why they should not have stated that the text implied a doctrine of papal infallibility if that is what they understood it to mean. Again, it is difficult for us to know exactly what men of the sixth and seventh centuries understood by formulas like those of Hormisdas and Agatho. But we do know that the general council which accepted Agatho’s formula also anathematized Agatho’s predecessor, Pope Honorius, on the ground that he ‘followed the views of the heretic Sergius and confirmed his impious dogmas.’ Agatho’s successor, Pope Leo II, in confirming the decrees of the council, added that Honorius ‘did not illuminate the apostolic see by teaching the apostolic tradition but, by an act of treachery strove to subvert its immaculate faith.’ Whatever the council fathers may have meant by the formula they accepted concerning the unfailing faith of the apostolic see, their meaning can have had little connection with the modern doctrine of papal infallibility (Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 11-13).
Luis Bermejo is a Spanish Jesuit who has taught theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum at Puna, India for the last thirty years. In a recently published book (1992), he makes the following compelling argument in confirmation of Brian Tierney’s historical research:
To my knowledge, nobody seems to have challenged Tierney’s contention that the entire first millennium is entirely silent on papal infallibility and that, therefore, Vatican I’s contention concerning the early roots of the doctrine is difficult to maintain. Practically the only objection of some substance raised against Tierney seems to be his interpretation of the twelfth century decretists: is the future dogma of Vatican I implicitly contained in them? Even after granting for the sake of argument that it is—something that Tierney does not concede in any way—the formidable obstacle of the first millennium remains untouched. In my opinion his critics have fired their guns on a secondary target (the medieval decretists and theologians)leaving the disturbing silence of the first millennium out of consideration. Nobody seems to have been able to adduce any documentary proof to show that this long silence was illusory, that the doctrine was—at least implicitly—already known and held in the early centuries. It is not easy to see how a given doctrine can be maintained to be of apostolic origin when a thousand years of tradition do not echo it in any way (Luis Bermejo, Infallibility on Trial (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1992), pp. 164-165).
Jaroslav Pelikan
Pelikan provides this overview of the Eastern Church’s understanding of the rock and Peter in Matthew 16:16–19:
The identification of the gates of hell with the great heresies of the second, third, and fourth centuries was generally accepted. Against these gates of hell not only the apostle Peter, but all the apostles, especially John, had successfully contended with the authority of the word of God. Indeed, the power of the keys conferred upon Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:19 was not restricted either to him or to his successors on the throne of Old Rome; all the faithful bishops of the church were imitators and successors of Peter. They had this status as orthodox adherents of the confession of Peter in Matthew 16:16: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By attaching the promise in the following verses to that confession it was possible to admonish orthodox believers to ‘run to the faith...of this immovable rock...and let us believe that Christ is both God and man.’ The unshakable foundation of the church was the rock that was Christ, but at the same time Peter could be called ‘the foundation and support of our faith.’ He was this, however, principally because of his confession, which was repeated by all true believers. It was a polemical extension of this general Greek tendency when a later treatise, falsely ascribed to Photius, stated flatly that the rock in Christ’s promise was the confession of Peter rather than his person.
Thus Peter was the foundation of the church, so that whoever believed as he believed would not go astray. But for most Greek theologians Peter was above all ‘the chief of the theologians’ because of his confession. All the titles of primacy, such as foundation and basis and ‘president of the disciples,’ pertained to him as trinitarian theologian. The church was to be built on the rock, on Christ the cornerstone, on which Peter, as coryphaeus of the disciples of the Logos, had also been built—‘built that is by the Holy and divine dogmas.’ Primacy belonged to Peter on account of his confession, and those who confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God, as he had, were the beneficiaries of the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church built on the rock (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 160-161).
Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger
Dollinger taught Church history as a Roman Catholic for 47 years in the 19th century and was one of the greatest and most influential historians in the Church of his day. He sums up the Eastern and Western understanding of Matthew 16 in the patristic period:
In the first three centuries, St. Irenaeus is the only writer who connects the superiority of the Roman Church with doctrine; but he places this superiority, rightly understood, only in its antiquity, its double apostolical origin, and in the circumstance of the pure tradition being guarded and maintained there through the constant concourse of the faithful from all countries. Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, know nothing of special Papal prerogative, or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matter of doctrine. In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Gregories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The most copious of the Greek Fathers, St. Chrysostom, is wholly silent on the subject, and so are the two Cyrils; equally silent are the Latins, Hilary, Pacian, Zeno, Lucifer, Sulpicius, and St. Ambrose.
St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:15:46 PM
them, he says not a word.
We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and, later, Leontius and Timotheus—have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith.
All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation–stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi.14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
Karlfried Froehlich
Karlfried Froehlich, one of the foremost medieval and patristic scholars living today, wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the history of the patristic and medieval exegesis of Matthew 16. He affirms the above facts in discussing the history of the exegesis of the Petrine texts, demonstrating how the medieval theologians interpreted Matthew 16 in harmony with a clear patristic tradition contrary to the Roman Catholic point of view:
Three biblical texts have traditionally been cited as the religious foundation of papal primacy: Matt. 16:18–19; Luke 22:32; and John 21:15–17...The combination of the three passages in support of the primatial argument reaches far back in the history of the Roman papacy. Leo I and Gelasius I seem to have been the first to use it...However, it would be a mistake to assume that the papal interpretation was the standard exegesis everywhere...Quite on the contrary, the understanding of these Petrine texts by biblical exegetes in the mainstream of the tradition was universally nonprimatial before Innocent III.
Perhaps the most instructive case is that of Matt. 16:18–19. It is quite clear to modern exegetes that all three parts of the passage, the name–giving, its interpretation by Jesus’ word about the founding of the church on the rock, and the promise of the keys, speak about the person of Peter, even if the nature of his prerogative and the application to any successors is set aside. The medieval interpretation shows a very different picture. The name–giving (v. 18a) was generally regarded as Jesus’ answer to Peter’s confession which, as the context suggested to medieval exegetes, Peter had uttered pro omnibus (for all). Following Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome, exegetes widely assumed that in Peter the reward for the correct confession of Christ, the Son of God was given to all true believers; all Christians deserved to be called petrae. Even Augustine’s formulation, informed by a traditional North African concern for the unity of the church, that in Peter unus pro omnibus (one for all) had answered and received the reward, did not suggest more than a figurative reading of Peter as an image of the true church. In light of Peter’s subsequent fall and denial, the name itself was regularly declared to be derived from Christ, the true rock. Augustine, who followed Origen in this assumption, was fascinated by the dialectic of the ‘blessed’ Peter (Matt. 16:17) being addressed as ‘Satan’ a few verses later (v. 23). In Peter, weak in himself and strong only in his connection with Christ, the church could see the image of its own total dependence on God’s grace.
Augustine rigorously separated the name-giving from its explanation: Christ did not say to Peter: ‘you are the rock,’ but ‘you are Peter.’ The church is not built upon Peter but upon the only true rock, Christ. Augustine and the medieval exegetes after him found the warrant for this interpretation in 1 Cor. 10:4. The allegorical key of this verse had already been applied to numerous biblical rock passages in the earlier African testimonial tradition. Matt. 16:18 was no exception. If the metaphor of the rock did not refer to a negative category of ‘hard’ rocks, it had to be read christologically.
The same result was obtained when exegetes focused on the image of ‘the building of the church.’ The rock metaphor in Matt. 16:18 stressed the firmness of the church’s foundation. But the foundation image itself, fundamentum ecclesiae, was clearly explained in another key passage of the New Testament: ‘Another foundation can no one lay except the one that is laid, which is Christ Jesus’ (1 Cor. 3:11). The same interpretation of the ‘firm foundation’ being Christ seemed inevitable when exegetes associated Matt. 16:18 with Jesus’ parable of Matt. 7:24 which spoke of the building of a house on firm ground. The exegetical tradition since Origen and the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum identified the house with the church so that the wise master builder had to be Christ who builds the church upon the firm rock, himself. Even in a secondary moral interpretation which explained the master builder as the virtuous Christian, the image of the strong foundation was invariably christologized, often with direct reference to 1 Cor. 3:11 and 10:4, or even Matt. 16:18. A good Christian must build the house of his life on Christ. Applied to the imagery of Matt. 16:18, the final scope of Jesus’ parable again reinforced a christological reading: the house of the wise master builder, Jesus taught, stands firm against all assaults of wind, flood, and weather. The parallel to Matt. 16:18c was very obvious to the interpreter: if the portae inferi (gates of hell) cannot prevail against it, the church must indeed be built on the one rock that cannot be moved, Christ.
The logic of these parallel texts must have seemed inevitable to medieval exegetes. In none of the biblical building and foundation passages which were understood as referring to the church was Matt. 16:18 used as a hermeneutical key that would suggest Peter as the foundation. On the contrary, the clear Petrine meaning of the verse was silenced by the weight of the christological parallels. In medieval exegesis these keys governed not only all references to the building of the church in the New Testament but also its Old Testament prefigurations: Christ was the foundation of the church prefigured in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 5ff), in the house which Wisdom built for herself (Prov. 9), and in the cosmological foundation images of the Psalms (Ps. 76:69; 86:1; 101:26; 103:5 etc.).
Most of the Eastern exegetes, especially after the doctrinal controversies of the fourth century, read v. 18 as the culmination of vv. 16–17: ‘upon this rock’ meant ‘upon the orthodox faith which you have just confessed.’ Introduced in the West by Ambrose and the translation of the

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:16:22 PM
Antiochene exegetes, this petra=fides equation maintained an important place alongside the christological alternative, or as its more precise explanation: the rock of the church was Christ who was the content of Peter’s confession.
The North African catechetical tradition, on the other hand, understood the word about Peter, the rock of the church, as the preface to v. 19: Peter was the rock, because he received the keys of the kingdom, which signified the church’s exercise of penitential discipline. Tertullian, nevertheless, regarded the Peter of Matt. 16:18-19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members. Cyprian understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the priveleged officers of penance.
A basic lack of the primatial context also characterizes the exegetical tradition about the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 16:19). Again, the major reason may have to be sought in the influence of biblical parallels. In the patristic commentaries, the keys were understood as penetential authority, primarily the priestly power of excommunication and reconciliation. This understanding was nourished by the parallel passages of Matt. 18:18...and especially John 20:23, where binding and loosing seemed to be explained as the retaining and forgiving of sins. Both texts, however, extended this power beyond the one Peter to all apostles. Thus, the exegetes were faced with the fact that ‘what was bestowed on Peter, was also given to all apostles.’
We can now summarize our findings. The earlier exegetical history of Matt. 16:18–19, Luke 22:32, and John 21:15–17 was largely out of step with the primatial interpretation of these passages which had itself a long history among papal writers since the fifth, perhaps even the third century. The mainstream of exegesis followed an agenda set by patristic precedent, especially Augustine, but also other Western fathers. In the case of Matt. 16:18-19, the tradition was dominated by the christological interpretation of the ‘rock’ of the church, nourished by powerful biblical parallels such as 1 Cor. 10:4, Matt. 7:24–25, and 1 Cor. 3:11. For Luke 22:32, the tradition focused on the context of Jesus’ passion and Peter’s denial, applying the verse in tropological way to the theme of the ‘humble prelate.’ In the case of John 21:15–17, the traditional interpretation drew on the biblical imagery of flock and shepherds as a metaphor of the cura pastoralis in the church and saw in the text a lesson about the qualities of a ‘good prelate’ (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 3, 8-14, 42. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).
John Meyendorff
John Meyendorff documents the overall Eastern exegesis of Matthew 16 and its view of ecclesiology:
The reformed papacy of the eleventh century used a long-standing Western tradition of exegesis when it applied systematically and legalistically the passages on the role of Peter (especially Mt. 16:18, Lk. 22:32, and Jn. 21:15-17) to the bishop of Rome. This tradition was not shared by the East.226
(After) the schism between East and West...Greek scholars and prelates continued the tradition of the Fathers without the slightest alteration...Origen is the common teacher of the Greek fathers in the field of biblical commentary. Origen gives an extensive explanation on Mt. 16:18. He rightly interprets the famous words of Christ as a consequence of the confession of Peter on the road of Caesarea Philippi: Simon became the Rock on which the Church is founded, because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Thus, according to Origen, all those saved by faith in Jesus Christ receive also the keys of the Kingdom: in other words, the successors of Peter are all believers. ‘If we also say,’ he writes, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes the Rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’
This same interpretation implicitly prevails in all the patristic texts dealing with Peter: the great Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine all concur in affirming that the faith of Simon made it possible for him to become the Rock on which the Church is founded and that in a certain sense all those who share the same faith are his successors. This same idea is to be found in later Byzantine writers. ‘The Lord gives the keys to Peter,’ says Theophanes Kerameus, a preacher of the twelfth century, ‘and to all those who resemble him, so that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven remain closed for heretics, yet are easily accessible to the faithful.’
On the other hand, a very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St. Cyprian of Carthage on the ‘See of Peter’ as being present in every local church, and not only in Rome, is well known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read De unitate ecclesiae of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as a part of the catholic tradition of the Church...A careful analysis of Byzantine ecclesiastical literature...would certainly show that this tradition is a persistent one, and indeed it belongs to the essence of Orthodox ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfil sacramentally, through the apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter (John Meyendorff, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology. Taken from The Primacy of Peter (London: Faith, 1963), pp. 7-29).
Yves Congar
Yves Congar is one of the most influential Roman Catholic historians and theologians of this century. He makes the following statements on the Eastern Church’s ecclesiology and of the patristic understanding of the rock of Matthwe 16:
Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62).
It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 398).

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:17:15 PM
Pierre Batiffol
Batiffol likewise affirms the fact that the Eastern Church, historically, has never embraced the ecclesiology of Roman primacy:
I believe that the East had a very poor conception of the Roman primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome herself saw and what the West saw in Rome, that is to say, a continuation of the primacy of St. Peter. The bishop of Rome was more than the successor of Peter on his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, invested with Peter’s responsibility and power. The East has never understood this perpetuity. St. Basil ignored it, as did St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. In the writings of the great Eastern Fathers, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is an authority of singular grandeur, but in these writings it is not considered so by divine right (Cited by Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62).
Conclusion
From the primary documentation of the writings of the fathers and the comments of Church historians we can summarize the patristic understanding of Peter and the rock from Matthew 16. Generally speaking, the fathers viewed the rock and foundation of the Church as the person of Christ, or Peter’s confession of faith which pointed to Christ. Sometimes they speak of Peter as the rock or foundation in the sense that he is the example of true faith—that he exemplified faith. But they do not teach that he is representative of a papal office or that the Church was built upon him in a legalistic sense. They also viewed Peter figuratively as representative of the unity of the entire Church. What Christ spoke to Peter he spoke to the Church as a whole and what was given to Peter was given to all the apostles and through them to the entire Church. The keys are a declarative authority to teach truth, preach the gospel and exercise discipline in the Church.
Though the fathers spoke in very exalted terms about the apostle Peter, their comments were not applied in an exclusive sense to the bishop of Rome, nor did they view the Roman bishops as given universal jurisdiction over the Church. Although they saw the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter, they did not see them as the exclusive successors of Peter, nor as the universal rulers of the Church, nor the see of Rome as the only apostolic see. Roman Catholics assume that when a Church father speaks of Peter he is also talking about the bishops of Rome but this is not the case. That is to read a preconceived theology into their writings. The fathers teach that all bishops are successors of Peter. In their interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21 we do not find any affirmation of the teaching of Vatican I on papal jurisdiction and infallibility.
This reveals two important points from both a theological and historical perspective. Theologically, there is no evidence of patristic consensus to support the Vatican I papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 equating the rock with the person of Peter, assigning to him and the Roman bishops the place of preeminence of rule in the Church through the authority of the keys. The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to the ‘universal consent of the fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from both the East and West demonstrates that the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman Catholic Church today. The fact is, apart from the popes themselves—beginning in the late fourth century—and with those who have an interest in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:19:00 PM
PAPACY AND THE ROCK OF MATTHEW 16


William Webster
 
Having looked at the subject of Roman Catholic tradition in a general sense, we now turn to specific areas of teaching which make up the content of that tradition. This is important because, as we have already noted, the ultimate issue at stake in the debate concerning Scripture and tradition is that of authority. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be sanctioned with an ultimate ruling and infallible teaching authority over the entire Church of Jesus Christ through the unbroken succession of popes and bishops from Peter. Vatican I, which met in 1869-1870, essentially set out the following propositions on the right of papal rule and infallibility:1
1.   Christ gave Peter the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church as well as the entire world.
2.   Inherent in the primacy of jurisdiction is also an infallible teaching authority over the entire Church.
3.   This right of jurisdiction is passed down to Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome, for all time.
4.   When speaking ex cathedra, that is, when speaking in his official capacity as pope, and defining a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals, the Roman pontiff teaches infallibly.
5.   The Roman pontiff has absolute authority in himself; possesses authority over all councils; his judgment cannot be questioned; he, himself, can be judged by no human tribunal.
6.   The Roman Church has ever remained free from all blemish of error and the doctrines of the Catholic faith have always been kept undefiled by her.
7.   If any questions of faith arise within the Church universal they must be defined by the judgment of the Roman pontiff.
8.   It has at all times in the history of the Church been necessary that every Church throughout the world should agree with the Roman Church.
9.   These teachings have always been held by the entire Church through all ages and can be validated by the Scriptures, the canons of general councils and the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
10.   It is necessary for salvation that everyone who professes to be a Christian must be submitted to the authority of the Roman pontiff in all areas of faith, morals and discipline, and if anyone disagrees with these teachings of Vatican I they are anathematized.
This is the cornerstone of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church’s tradition. According to Vatican I, papal rule and infallibility rest on two foundations: the Scriptures and the facts of history. In this and the next chapter we want to analyze the scriptural and historical claims for these papal teachings.
The scriptural foundation is Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19,John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. Our examination of these crucial issues must therefore begin with Jesus’ words to Peter in these passages. In this chapter we will see how Roman Catholic theologians have interpreted them and consider whether they can be interpreted in a different and more accurate way, and how the early Church and the Church Fathers interpreted them. Does their interpretation support the Roman Catholic claim for papal authority and infallibility? We take first the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18-19:
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
As is well-known, ‘this rock’ is interpreted by Rome to mean the person of Peter himself. The exegesis is that Christ changes the apostle’s name from Simon to Peter, and then tells Peter that he is going to build his Church on him personally. That this is the meaning Christ intends is placed beyond all doubt, it is claimed, by his words which immediately follow. He promises to give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven with authority to bind and loose. Roman Catholic apologists point out that since keys represent authority in Scripture, Peter is given supreme authority over the entire Church and this is passed on to the Roman bishops who are his successors. But it is not only authority over the Church which is handed down. Rome teaches that the gift of infallibility is implied in Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church, and that the promises of Christ to be with the Church by his Spirit (Matt. 28:20, John 14:16-17, 26) and Christ’s words to Peter in John 21 and Luke 22 likewise presuppose infallibility.
The Protestant Church, on the other hand, generally asserts that this exegesis is incorrect. It maintains that when Christ states he will build his Church on a rock, he is not referring to Peter personally but to Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of God, and therefore to Jesus as the rock. This point of view is validated by a number of lines of reasoning without having to repeat the worn-out arguments on the differences between the Greek terms petros and petra in Matthew 16. In particular, these supporting evidences are Peter’s own interpretation of the rock of the Church; the larger contextual meaning of the word rock as it is used in both the Old and New Testaments; the contextual interpretation of the entire Matthew 16 passage, beginning with verse 13 and going through verse 19; and finally the overall patristic interpretation of Matthew 16. We will look at each of these evidences in turn, If there is one person who should have known what Christ meant by the words he spoke as recorded in Matthew 16:18 it was Peter himself. Did Peter consider himself to be the first pope and the rock on which the Church would be built? Peter himself gives us the answer in 1 Peter 2:4-8, where he says:


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:19:36 PM
And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: ‘Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed.’ This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.’
The precious stone and cornerstone, the rock upon which the Church will be built, according to Peter, is not himself, but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor does Peter view himself as being vested with authority over the other apostles. In 1 Peter 5:1-4 he states:
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
Peter refers to himself simply as a fellow elder with the other elders of the Church, all of whom are under the ultimate authority of the Chief Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not think of himself as the vicar of Christ or the visible head of the Church. He is an apostle among other apostles of equal standing and a fellow elder with other elders. There is only one head and one ruler of the Church and that is Jesus Christ. This exegesis of the rock as being Christ who is the foundation of the Church as the One upon whom the Church would be built finds support from both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament we find the Lord himself described as the rock, the one sure foundation of security and salvation. For example:
Psa. 62:5-6: My soul, wait in silence for God only, For my hope is from Him. He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.
Psa. 18:1-2: I love Thee, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge.
Psa. 89:26: He will cry to Me, ‘Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.’
Over and over again in the Old Testament it is God himself who is referred to as the rock — as the one and only source and foundation and refuge for salvation and deliverance.
In the familiar prophecy in Daniel 2:31-44 we read of the stone which strikes the kingdoms of the world and then itself stands for ever. The Jews saw the stone as the person of the Messiah. Obviously it represents that which is divine for it is described as a stone ‘cut out without hands’.
The word ‘foundation’ is another important word, parallel with the word rock, and it is also used in reference to the person of the Lord himself, In the Old Testament, the word in a literal sense refers to the foundation upon which a building rests. For example in Ezra 3:10 it says, ‘Now when the builders had laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord the priests stood in their apparel with trumpets. . . to praise the Lord.’ This word is important for it is used in a key passage in the Old Testament that is appropriated by the New Testament apostles as speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Isaiah 28:16 we read:
Therefore thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.’
Notice the threefold description here. The stone or rock is not only a cornerstone, but a foundation. And this is the very passage which we have seen Peter use with reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter also, along with Paul, applies to Christ the descriptions of the Messiah in Isaiah 8:13 and Psalm 118:22 as the rejected stone, the stone of stumbling and rock of offence. In Acts 4:11-12 he says:
He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.
So here we see the terms stone and cornerstone being identified with the salvation which is in Jesus Christ alone. Paul re-emphasizes this in three other passages. In Ephesians 2:20 he states that the Church is built upon the foundation of Christ as the cornerstone, and in 1 Corinthians 10:4 he states specifically that the rock is Christ. In 1 Corinthians 3:11 he says, ‘For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid — which is Jesus Christ.’
To whom then do the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament, consistently point as the rock, the stone, the cornerstone and the foundation upon which the Church would be built? Jesus Christ the Lord, the Son of the living God, he alone is the rock of our salvation.
These facts then give the broader context in which to interpret Christ’s words to Peter in Matthew 16. Peter does not refer to himself as the rock, but to Christ, and the broader context of the scriptural teaching on the rock justifies our interpreting the rock of Matthew 16 as referring to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ as opposed to Peter. But, in addition to this, there are other considerations in Matthew 16 which do not support the Roman Catholic interpretation. There is absolutely nothing in this passage which speaks of successors to Peter and the passing on of his personal prerogatives to them. The keys, rather than signifying the establishment of the institution of the papacy and supreme authority to rule the Church and the world, are representative of the authority to exercise discipline in the Church and to proclaim the gospel, declaring the free forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a declaration opens the kingdom of God to men or, if they reject the message, closes it to them. The keys are not the

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:20:06 PM
possession of a single individual, for exactly the same authority which Christ promises to Peter he also grants to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22-23. They are all given authority to bind or loose by declaring the forgiveness of sins through Christ. They are all equals under the authority of one head, the Lord Jesus. The authority they are given is a delegated, declarative authority, which is in Christ’s name and comes from him who alone possesses the supreme authority to rule the Church.
To justify such an interpretation, we must make a careful investigation of Matthew 16:13-19 and the passages related to it. Jesus tells his disciples that he will build his Church and that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. He reveals that there are two kingdoms on this earth: the kingdom of God or of heaven, and all who are part of the true Church are part of this kingdom; and the kingdom of Satan as represented by the gates of Hades. The two are obviously in conflict with one another. Gates are defensive, enclosing Satan and the men and women whom he would lead to eternal destruction. When Jesus says that he will build his Church, he is saying that he is going to invade Satan’s kingdom and his defences will not be able to withstand the attack. The Church will be built, the kingdom of God will be advanced. But how are the prisoners within Satan’s kingdom set free into the kingdom of God, so that the Church is built? The answer is through the proclamation of the gospel which declares the forgiveness of sins, deliverance from Satan and eternal judgment, and the certain gift of eternal life — all based on the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Men enter the kingdom when they are born again and redeemed by the blood of Christ, and it is this to which the terms ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in Matthew 16:19 refer. The Greek word for ‘loose’ is luo. It means to destroy; to set free one who is bound; to loosen; to release; to dissolve. It is used in 1 John 3:8 where the apostle writes: ‘The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.’ The word ‘destroy’ here is luo and it has direct reference to Satan and sin. This emphasis is brought out even more emphatically by Revelation 1:5: ‘To Him who loves us, and released [luo] us from our sins by His blood’ which could just as accurately be translated, ‘who [loosed] us from our sins by His blood.’ This is the basic idea behind loosing. It speaks of deliverance from Satan and coming under the dominion of God, and therefore entering into his kingdom and receiving forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ.2
The Greek word Jesus uses in Matthew 16:19 for ‘binding’ is deo, which simply means to be bound; to be in bonds; to be a captive. So ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ have to do with the proclamation of the gospel and the certainty of forgiveness and deliverance in Jesus Christ for those who repent and believe. Men and women who receive the message and come to Christ will be loosed from their sins, and will enter into the kingdom of God.
It is significant that in the thematically parallel passage in John 20, just before Jesus commissioned his disciples and vested them with the authority of the keys on the night before he was crucified, he told them: ‘As the Father has sent Me, I also send you’ (John 20:21). He then granted them authority to continue to do what the Father had sent him to do. The Father sent Jesus with authority to preach the gospel, and in giving the disciples authority to forgive and retain sins he is simply authorizing them to preach the gospel also. The authority they receive is a delegated authority, as is clear from Matthew 28:18-19 where Jesus says, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.’ This delegated authority was not jurisdictional, it was declarative — to proclaim the message of the gospel, which is clear from the recorded history of the activity of the disciples after the ascension of Christ and of the amplification of Christ’s commission given in Luke 24:46-49:
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.
Following the anointing of all the disciples at Pentecost, the book of Acts relates how they exercised the function of the keys in proclaiming the gospel they were commanded to preach. They faithfully testified to the person and work of Christ and the urgent need for repentance and faith, assuring men that they could be loosed, but warning them that if they rejected the message they would be bound (Acts 2:14-40; 3:11-26; 5:29-32; 8:25-37; 10:34-48; 13:17-52; 14:14-18; 16:30-31; 17:1-4, 22-34; 19:20-21; 24:10-27; 26:1-29; 28:23-31). This is the meaning of binding and loosing as Jesus describes it in Matthew 16:19. It is authority to declare the gospel and offer men the kingdom of God and free forgiveness of sins. As Christ is preached and men respond, the kingdom of God will be extended and the Church will be built.
In an attempt to find some biblical sanction for the Roman Catholic teaching that the ‘rock’ of Matthew 16 refers to Peter, his successors and the establishing of a papal office, some contemporary Roman Catholic apologists appeal to the key of David mentioned in Isaiah 22:20-22:
Then it will come about in that day, that I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah and I will clothe him with your tunic, and tie your sash securely about him, I will entrust him with your authority, and he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open.
Roman apologists assert the following: First, the position Eliakim was put into was a dynastic position, i.e., one that had successors. Second, usage of the term ‘key’ connects this passage with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:19, and Jesus may even be quoting Isaiah 22:22. They then parallel the ‘opening and shutting’ of Isaiah 22 with the ‘binding and loosing’ of Matthew 16. Peter, they assert, is the ‘prime minister’ of the Church. There is no tension or ‘tug-of-war’ between Peter and Jesus, just as there was none between the king and prime minister in the Old

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:20:46 PM
Testament. Since the passage in Isaiah refers to an office that has successors, then Jesus must mean Peter to have successors as the ‘prime minister’ of the Church.
But the Lord Jesus Christ has already given the correct interpretation and application of the Isaiah 22 passage: in Revelation 3:7 Jesus quotes from Isaiah 22:22 and applies it to himself: ‘And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this . . .’ Who is the one who holds the key? (note the present tense — since this is spoken after the resurrection, and, it would seem probable, after the death of Peter). The Lord Jesus Christ, and nobody else.3
Scripture teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church (Col. 1:18) and that the Holy Spirit is his vicar on earth. In John 14:l6 Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit to his Church permanently to indwell believers. He says, ‘And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth.’ Note that he refers to the Holy Spirit as ‘another’ Helper. The word ‘another’ here obviously implies that just as Jesus had been the Helper to the disciples during his ministry on earth, so the Holy Spirit would take his place when he ascended into heaven. The Holy Spirit will rule the Church and direct it in Christ’s bodily absence — Jesus did not appoint a human head and ruler of his Church, but told us that the Holy Spirit will fuffil that function.
*    *    *
As convincing as these exegetical arguments are, there is an additional reason for believing that this interpretation of Matthew 16 is the correct one. It is that this exegesis of Jesus’ words to Peter best fits the history of the New Testament Church as well as the history of the Church in the centuries following the apostolic age. The First Vatican Council (1869-70) convened by Pope Pius IX, affirmed that it could validate its claims and its interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 by the practice of the Church throughout the ages, as well as through the universal consent of the Fathers.
But if the Roman Catholic interpretation were correct, after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, we would expect to see Peter as the undisputed head and ruler of the Church, acknowledged as such by the apostles and the Church in general. We would expect to see Peter playing the dominant role in the building of the Church, and we would expect to see a clear and unanimous testimony of the early Church — in its teaching and its practice, and in the writings of the Fathers — to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.
We would also expect to find an acknowledgement of the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and supreme ruler of the entire Church with ultimate authority in all matters related to faith, morals and discipline, and a submission to him in that rule. After all, Vatican I explicitly says that it has at all times been necessary for all Christians to be in agreement with the Bishop of Rome and that this has, in fact, been the perpetual practice of the Church from the very beginning. Finally, we would expect to find the popes exercising their special prerogatives in leading and guiding the Church in positively proclaiming the truth and protecting it from heresy. These are what we would expect — but what do the historical facts tell us?
There is no doubt that Peter plays a dominant role in the New Testament history prior to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. When the apostles are named in Scripture, Peter is almost always mentioned first; Peter was the one who generally spoke for the other apostles and he is the most fully-drawn figure of them all in the Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus. But do we see Peter as the dominant figure, the supreme ruler and teacher in the Church after the resurrection of Christ? No. Peter is the first to preach the gospel to the crowds at Pentecost and is also the first to open the kingdom to the Gentiles by preaching to Cornelius-pioneering actions which are certainly a fulfilment of Christ’s promise to him. However, the biblical accounts present powerful evidence that Peter was not accorded greater authority than the other apostles and was certainly not seen as the head of the new Church.
The book of Acts records that the Jerusalem Council was presided over not by Peter, but by Jesus’ brother James. Peter was sent by the Church along with John on a mission to Syria, an unlikely event if Peter was the defacto leader; while in one of the most dramatic events of the apostolic era, Paul actually rebuked Peter at Antioch for behaviour which was compromising the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul was responsible for establishing churches and setting up their ruling organizations across Europe and Asia Minor, but he says absolutely nothing in any of his epistles about the need to be in submission to Peter as the supreme head of the Church. In fact, Paul regarded himself as personally responsible for overseeing, guiding and protecting these fledgling believers. He considered himself to be on an equal plane with all the other apostles (2 Cor 12:11) — he was the apostle to the Gentiles while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul operated independently and on his own authority, as opposed to being under the authority of Peter.
While there is some historical evidence that Peter may have been in Rome and was martyred there, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he was ever bishop of Rome.4 There are a number of writings from the first to the fifth centuries which speak of the fact that both Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome and that both were martyred there. But these records say nothing about Peter staying in Rome and exercising a ministry as a bishop. In fact, Irenaeus specifically says that Peter and Paul both left Rome after founding the church there.
The Catalogus Liberianus (354 A.D.) reports that Peter went to Rome and spent twenty-five years in the city as bishop until his martyrdom. But this statement is contradicted by the facts of history. Peter was an apostle and apostles did not function as bishops over local churches. They ordained presbyters who became overseers, and it was these men who were, in turn, responsible to the apostles. To speak of anyone being a bishop over the church as early as the first century is anachronistic, for the episcopate was a later development.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:21:17 PM
Further, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans and his various epistles from prison in Rome there is absolutely no mention of Peter. Paul also wrote to the Romans expressing the wish to come to them to impart some spiritual gift, in order that they might be established. He would scarcely have done so if Peter were already in Rome. And we know from other scriptures that it was Paul, not Peter, who was called to lead in the evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8).
It has also been claimed that Peter established his line of successors by ordaining Linus to take over the bishopric at his death. But in his major work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus tells us that when Peter and Paul had founded the church at Rome and built it up, they both committed its oversight to Linus then left the city. Anacletus followed Linus, and he was followed by Clement. It is obvious that Peter, according to Irenaeus, was not the bishop of Rome and Linus was not the second pope for he exercised his ministry in Rome while Peter was still alive. From a Roman Catholic perspective this presents the problem of having two popes reigning at the same time.
The fact is, we know very little about the activities and whereabouts of the Apostle Peter after the resurrection of Christ. We know that he was in Jerusalem and Antioch, but his life and ministry are very much eclipsed by the Apostle Paul. Given that Peter was certainly in Antioch, it would seem that the bishop of Antioch has more of an historical right to claim the supposed supremacy of Peter than the bishop of Rome, if the right rests on the actual place where Peter exercised his ministry.
There has been a strong tradition that Peter was martyred at Rome, but whereas we do know that Paul was in Rome and had a direct influence on the church there, we do not know that for certain about Peter. In the light of these facts, the Roman Catholic historian Richard McBrien concludes: ‘The question to be posed, therefore, on the basis of an investigation of the New Testament is not whether Peter was the first pope, but whether the subsequent, post-biblical development of the Petrine office is, in fact, consistent with the thrust of the New Testament.’5
Vatican I claims that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 has been held universally throughout the Church and that it can appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Yet the early Fathers are quite varied in their opinions and interpretations of Matthew 16:18-19. Some speak of the ‘rock’ to mean Christ, some to mean Peter and others to mean Peter’s confession of Christ. No Fathers of the first two centuries can be cited as supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18.6 They are silent on the interpretation of the ‘rock’, and the overwhelming majority of the Fathers through the entire patristic age (Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil the Great, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Epiphanius, Aphraates, Ephraim, John Cassian, Theodoret, Eusebius, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, John of Damascus, and many others) all disagree with the Roman Church’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18.6 The vast majority of the Fathers do not recognize the personal prerogatives of Peter as being transferred in a personal way to the bishop of Rome, thereby making him the head of the Church.7
Roman Catholic apologists are quick to protest against such a statement by referring to the many adulations given by the Fathers to the apostle Peter. What they say is partially true. Many of the Fathers speak in very exalted terms of Peter referring to him as ‘coryphaeus’, leader of the apostles, first of the disciples, foundation of the Church and teacher of the world. But such praise of Peter does not support the Roman Catholic claims. First of all, many of the terms such as ‘coryphaeus’, teacher of the world and foundation of the Church were applied by the Fathers not only to Peter but to the other apostles as well, especially Paul and John. Secondly, Roman Catholic apologists make the common error of assuming that because a particular Father speaks of Peter in a certain way, his comments likewise refer to the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor. But this is simply not the case. Their words about Peter are unique to Peter, or they apply to the other apostles as well. But they have no reference to the bishops of Rome at all, because the Fathers make no such application. This is a classic case of a much-later generation reading a preconceived theology into earlier writings. An examination of patristic literature on Matthew 16:18-19 will prove this point. We will find a unanimity of interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, but it is one of near unanimous opposition to the Roman Catholic interpretation as articulated by Vatican I.
Augustine is fairly representative of the opinion of the Fathers in these comments on Matthew 16:
But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God,” I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the Living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But! am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.8
These comments by Augustine are highly significant. Here we have the man claimed by Rome as their most renowned theologian of the patristic age, the pre-eminent member of the ‘infallible’ magisterium, and yet he gives an interpretation of the most important passage in all the Bible for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and its authority, which is diametrically opposed to the Roman interpretation. How does one explain this? If there were truly, as Vatican I states, a unanimous consensus of interpretation of the Roman meaning of this passage, why do we find Augustine deliberately going against such a consensus? The answer, quite simply, is that there never was such a consensus.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:21:46 PM
Tertullian, at the beginning of the third century, was the first to identify the ‘rock’ of Matthew 16:18 with Peter in his treatise On Modesty. But what he means by this identification is not that Peter is the rock in the sense, that the Church is built on him, but that it is built through him as he preaches the gospel. And the keys are the declarative authority to proclaim the forgiveness or loosing of sins in Jesus Christ.9
Cyprian, like Tertullian, states in his work On the Unity of the Church that the rock of Matthew 16 is the person of Peter. But he also did not mean this in the sense of the Roman Catholic interpretation. His view is similar to that of Augustine in maintaining that Peter is a symbol of the principle of unity. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation of the Church, though Christ himself is the true rock. All of the bishops constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co-equals:
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord.10
The Roman Catholic historian, Michael Winter, acknowledges that though Cyprian does describe the rock as referring to Peter, he does not mean this in a pro-Roman sense:
Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought. . . Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority. . . Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.11
Many have also misunderstood Cyprian’s use of the term the ‘chair of Peter’. Cyprian states: ‘There is One God, and One Christ, and One Church, and one chair founded by the word of the Lord on the Rock (Peter). Another altar cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood made, besides the one altar and one priesthood.’12 The confusion arises from assuming that Cyprian’s use of the term has reference in an exclusive sense to the See of Rome. But this was not the meaning Cyprian intended to communicate. The ‘chair of Peter’ was a term that applied to all bishops no matter what see they were in and all were the successors of Peter. As Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno states: ‘The Chair of Peter.. . belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome. . .You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church.’13
For Cyprian, the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honour but he does not possess universal jurisdiction over the Church. Cyprian did not view the bishop of Rome to be his superior.
Another Latin Father who is often cited in support of the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is Ambrose. It is not uncommon in polemical literature to read the following quotation from his writings: ‘It is to Peter himself that He says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Where Peter is, there is the Church.”14
The interpretation often given to these words is that the rock is Peter and that the bishops of Rome, as his successors, are the rocks of the Church. Therefore the Church is founded upon the universal rule of the bishops of Rome, for where Peter is, there is the Church. However, Ambrose has made other comments on Peter and Matthew 16 and has explained exactly what he means when he says that Peter is the rock.15 He means it in the sense that he was the first to openly confess faith in Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. The rock, then, is not Peter himself, but Peter’s confession of faith. It is this faith which is the foundation of the Church. Peter possesses a primacy but, as Ambrose explains, it is one of confession and faith, not of honour or rank in the sense of ruling over the other apostles. So when Ambrose states that ‘Where Peter is, there is the Church’, he means where Peter’s confession is, there is the Church. He does not mean the bishops of Rome at all.
What has been said of the Latin Fathers can be said equally of those from the East. For example, Chrysostom is typical when he refers to Peter as the ‘leader of the apostles’ (On the Inscription of the Acts, II) and ‘head of the choir’ (Homily 88 on John) and yet he does not interpret the rock of Matthew 16:18 in the Roman Catholic sense.16 Chrysostom argues that the rock is not the person of Peter, but Peter’s confession of faith in Christ to be the Son of God. And, like Ambrose, he says that where Peter is, there is the Church in the sense of Peter’s confession: ‘Though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter.’17
Chrysostom followed the teaching of Origen that the rock is to be interpreted as Peter’s confession of faith and this exegesis became standard for the Eastern Church as a whole throughout the centuries. On the one hand the Eastern Fathers and theologians held very high views of the status of the apostle Peter but they did not transfer that status to the bishops of Rome. In their thinking, Rome was not the only see founded by Peter and, as with Cyprian, all bishops are the successors of Peter. The great twelfth-century Orthodox theologian, Theophylact of Bulgaria, in his comments on Matthew 16:18, follows the patristic tradition and reveals how the East could speak of the Church being founded on Peter and yet interpret this in a completely non-Roman sense:
The Lord favours Peter, giving him a great reward, because he built the church upon him. For since Peter had confessed Jesus son of God, Jesus said that this confession which Peter uttered would be the foundation of future believers, just as every man should be about to raise up the house of faith and should be about to lay this foundation. For even if we put together innumerable virtues, we, however, may not have the foundation — a proper confession, and we build in vain. Moreover since Jesus said my church, he showed himself to be the lord of creation: for all realities serve God. . . .Therefore if we shall have been confirmed in the confession of Christ, the gates of hell, that is, sins, will not prevail against us.18
Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff sums up the Orthodox point of view throughout the Middle Ages in these comments:


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:22:14 PM
Orthodox ecclesiastical writers were never ashamed of praising the ‘coryphaeus’ and of recognizing his pre-eminent function in the very foundation of the Church. They simply did not consider this praise and recognition as relevant in any way to the papal claims, since any bishop, and not only the pope, derives his ministry from the ministry of Peter. . . It belongs to the essence of Orthodox ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfil sacramentally, through the apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter.19
What all this reveals is that there is no patristic theological consensus to support the papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 which equates the rock with the person of Peter and through him exclusively to the bishops of Rome thereby assigning them pre-eminence in the Church through the authority of the keys. The Roman Catholic Church cannot appeal to the ‘universal consent of the Fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 because such a consensus does not exist. Appendix 5 documents the comments of twenty Fathers from the third to the eighth centuries on the meaning of Matthew 16, demonstrating that the overwhelming view of the Church has not been that set forth by the Roman Catholic Church.
This is not to say there was no pro-papal interpretation given in the history of the Church. From the fifth century there is the beginning of a clear and consistent papal interpretation, with Leo I being the first to combine the three Petrine passages of Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-17 to promote papal claims. But this exegesis was never accepted by the Fathers of the patristic age or the leading theologians and doctors of the Eastern and Western Church for centuries afterwards. The medieval scholar and theologian, Karlfried Froehlich, affirms these facts when he says:
Three biblical texts have traditionally been cited as the religious foundation of papal primacy: Matt. 16:18-19; Luke 22:32; and John 21:15-17. . .The combination of the three passages in support of the primatial argument reaches far back in the history of the Roman papacy. Leo I and Gelasius I seem to have been the first to use it.. . However, it would be a mistake to assume that the papal interpretation was the standard exegesis everywhere . . . Quite on the contrary, the understanding of these Petrine texts by biblical exegetes in the mainstream of the tradition was universally non-primatial before Innocent III, and that it was the innovative exegetical argumentation of this imposing pope which began to change the picture.20
The facts reveal that, apart from the popes themselves, the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church, in both the East and West. John Bigane has demonstrated that the predominant historical exegesis of Matthew 16:18 by the major theologians and doctors of the Church throughout the Middle Ages and to the mid-sixteenth century did not equate the rock with Peter but followed the patristic tradition in equating it with Christ or faith.21 Roman apologists often claim that the Protestant exegesis of the Matthew 16 passage grew out of the Reformers’ need to legitimize their opposition to the papacy and consequently they invented a novel exegesis which contradicted the traditional view of the Church as a whole. But such is not the case. The Protestant exegesis is confirmed by the universal testimony of the Church Fathers, as Oscar Cullmann observes: ‘We thus see that the exegesis that the Reformers gave . . . was not first Invented for their struggle against the papacy; it rests upon an older patristic tradition.’22
*    *    *
We have looked in detail at the historical exegesis of Matthew 16 with reference to the subject of papal primacy and we have seen that, relative to the issue of the meaning of the rock and keys, the Fathers unanimously reject the Roman Catholic interpretation. The same is true regarding the interpretation of Matthew 16 with respect to papal infallibility. None of the Fathers have interpreted the phrase — the gates Of hell shall not prevail against the Church — as meaning that personal infallibility had been conveyed to Peter and through him to the bishops of Rome as his successors. Such an interpretation is non-existent in the patristic literature. There is not one Father in the entire history of the Church who has interpreted the passage in that way. And when we investigate the interpretation of Luke 22 and John 21 we find exactly the same thing. There is not the slightest hint of a belief in papal infallibility in the Fathers who interpreted these passages.
The patristic exegesis of Luke 22:32 sees Christ’s prayer for Peter as a guarantee that Peter’s faith will not ultimately fail — not that he would be infallible. And it also saw Peter as representative of the Church as a whole, assuring us that Christ will not allow the Church ultimately to fall away.
And the situation is similar when we turn to the interpretation of John 21 where Jesus questions Peter about his love and commands him to feed his sheep. As for Luke 22, this verse had two meanings for the Fathers. The verse could first of all apply to Peter personally, in which case it had to do with the meaning of personal discipleship, or it applied to the Church as a whole in Peter who was representative of all who would hold positions of pastors within the Church. For the Fathers of the patristic age, this verse had nothing to do with papal primacy or with an exclusive teaching authority over the entire Church which implied a gift of infallibility. These views are those expressed by Augustine and Jerome and they became normative for the Church of the Middle Ages.
In his book Origins of Papal Infallibility, Brian Tierney has documented that in this time frame Luke 22 and John 21 were never applied exclusively to Peter and through him to the bishops of Rome. The theologians and exegetes of the eighth through the fourteenth centuries followed Augustine’s interpretation and applied the verses to Peter personally and then to Peter as representative of the Church as a whole. All the theologians, doctors and canonists of the Church followed the patristic interpretation.
They did not view Luke 22 as granting a personal infallibility to Peter, much less to the bishops of Rome. According to them, Christ did not promise to Peter personal immunity from error in his leadership but the grace of final perseverance. Christ’s promise to Peter was taken to mean simply that the Church would always survive, that the true faith would always live on. This was the common doctrine of the Church. It was the view of the universally recognized and authoritative Glossa Ordinaria of Johannes Teutonicus. So the whole view of the Church in interpreting Luke 22, whether it was to Peter personally or to the Church as represented in Peter, was one of indefectibility as opposed to infallibility.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:22:41 PM
The medieval theologians and canonists never taught that the popes were infallible. In fact, just the opposite. It was universally believed that popes could err. It was not until the fourteenth century that one begins to see a reinterpretation of the primary texts of Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21 to reflect a theory of papal infallibility.
Brian Tierney makes the interesting observation that Vatican I mentions the formula of Hormisdas — that in the Roman Church or the Apostolic See, the faith has always been kept undefiled — as proof of papal infallibility. However, as he points out, the Church for centuries did not interpret this statement as meaning a personal infallibility in the bishop of Rome but that the Church of Rome as a whole had always maintained the true faith, even though individual popes had erred. This is clear from the fact that the same ecumenical council of 680 A.D. — the sixth ecumenical council — which approved this statement, also condemned a pope as a heretic for teaching heresy.
Thus, as with the interpretation of Matthew 16, we find the Roman Catholic Church interpreting Scripture completely contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the overall church throughout the centuries. Vatican I teaches that this was the view of the Church from the very beginning. If so we would find this view expressed in the patristic interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21. And yet we do not find such a view. Prior to the fourteenth century there is lot one word from a Father, doctor, theologian or canonist in the interpretation of these foundational passages of Scripture, which supports the teaching of papal infallibility.
________________________________________
Notes
1.   For the decrees of Vatican I and II on Papal Primacy and Infallibility see Appendix 4.
2.   In addition to the primary word luo, there are a number of derivatives which show that the word ‘loose’ when dealing with the kingdom of God refers primarily to release from bondage to sin and Satan.

Apoluo, which means to release; to set free; to send away; to loose from; to dismiss; to forgive.

Lutron means a ransom or the price for redeeming. So that it refers to a loosing that can take place, a setting at liberty that can be effected, where a ransom has been paid. The significance of this can be seen immediately in the fact that the Greek word for redemption in the New Testament is the word apolutrosis. This is a form of the word lutron which goes back to the word luo or loose as its primary root.

Apolutrosis means ‘a releasing effected by payment of a ransom; redemption, deliverance, liberation procured by the payment of a ransom’. Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Lafayette: APQA, 1979). This word is used in the New Testament to describe deliverance from Satan and forgiveness of sin based on the atoning work of Christ in shedding his blood and giving his life as a payment for sin. Note this relationship in Colossians 1:13-14; Ephesians 1:7; Romans 3:24-25.
3.   James White, Pros Apologian, Papal Pretensions (Phoenix: Alpha and Omega Ministries, 1991), pp. 2-3.
4.   There is, of course, no evidence that any church of the New Testament era was ruled by a single presbuteros (elder/bishop).
5.   Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, vol. II (Minneapolis: Winston, 1980), pp. 831-32.
6.   For comments by the Fathers on the interpretations of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 see Appendix 5.
7.   ‘Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. 16.18, John 21.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess — Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas — has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!’ Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), p. 74.
8.   Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, Saint Augustin, Sermons on New Testament Lessons, Sermon 26.1-2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 340.
9.   ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘I will build My Church’; and ‘I will give to thee the keys’, not to the Church; and ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’, not ‘what they shall have loosed or bound’. For so withal the result teaches. In [Peter] himself the Church was reared; that is through [Peter] himself; [Peter] himself essayed the key; you see what [key]: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. [Peter] himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound’ . . . Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, Tertullian, On Modesty, ch. 21 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), p. 99.
10.   A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Treatise V, On the Unity of the Church, ch. 3 (Oxford: Parker, 1842), p. 134.
11.   Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Westport: Greenwood, 1960), pp. 47-48.
12.   A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Epistle 43.4 (Oxford: Parker, 1844), p. 96.
13.   Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), p. 58.
14.   W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. II, St. Ambrose, On the Twelve Psalms, Number 1261 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), p. 150.
15.   ‘He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, “But who do you say I am?” immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is the primacy of his confession, not of honour; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation . . . . Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:23:29 PM
1.   like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies.’ The Fathers of the Church, Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32—V.34 (Washington D.C: Catholic University, 1963), pp. 230-31.
2.   He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it. . . And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; that is, on the faith of his confession.’ Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 82.3, 54.3. See Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. X (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 494, 333.
3.   On the Inscription of Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168.
4.   Cited by John Bigane, Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth-Century Roman Catholic Exegesis (Washington D.C.: University Press, 1981), pp. 31-32.
5.   John Meyendorff, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology. Found in The Primacy of Peter (London: Faith, 1963), p. 11.
6.   Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150—1300, pp. 3-4. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150—1300, Christopher Ryan, ed., Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).
7.   John Bigane, Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth Century Roman Catholic Exegesis (Washington D.C.: University Press, 1981) pp. 1-203.
8.   Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Westminster: Philadelphia, 1953), p. 162.



SELAMAT MEMBACA TANPA MUTILASI LAGI !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on August 25, 2014, 03:01:05 AM
Gerejaku tidak menyembah berhala seperti gerejamu !
Gerejamu mengikuti ajaran dari gereja yg kamu sebut penyembah berhala.
Jadi kau itu juga pengikut ajarannya.
Ngerti kamu ? (sepertinya tidak).
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 25, 2014, 07:30:37 AM
Gerejamu mengikuti ajaran dari gereja yg kamu sebut penyembah berhala.
Jadi kau itu juga pengikut ajarannya.
Ngerti kamu ? (sepertinya tidak).

Protestan berdiri teguh diatas prinsip "Sola Scriptura" wahyu Tuhan yang berotoritas tertinggi,berbeda dengan GRK yang bersandar kepada tradisi rekayasa manusia belaka.

Dan Tuhan sudah memperingatkan :

Yeremia 11:3   Katakanlah kepada mereka: Beginilah firman Tuhan, Allah Israel: Terkutuklah orang yang tidak mendengarkan perkataan-perkataan perjanjian ini,

Yeremia 17:5   Beginilah firman Tuhan: "Terkutuklah orang yang mengandalkan manusia, yang mengandalkan kekuatannya sendiri, dan yang hatinya menjauh dari pada Tuhan!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on August 25, 2014, 10:57:09 AM
Cuma bergaung seperti tong kosong ditabuh, tong tong tong.....

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on August 25, 2014, 04:46:20 PM
Protestan berdiri teguh diatas prinsip "Sola Scriptura" wahyu Tuhan yang berotoritas tertinggi,berbeda dengan GRK yang bersandar kepada tradisi rekayasa manusia belaka.

Dan Tuhan sudah memperingatkan :

Yeremia 11:3   Katakanlah kepada mereka: Beginilah firman Tuhan, Allah Israel: Terkutuklah orang yang tidak mendengarkan perkataan-perkataan perjanjian ini,

Yeremia 17:5   Beginilah firman Tuhan: "Terkutuklah orang yang mengandalkan manusia, yang mengandalkan kekuatannya sendiri, dan yang hatinya menjauh dari pada Tuhan!
solideogloria, kitab Yeremia ada di Perjanjian Lama, ya? Saya tertarik pada post solideogloria ini, khususnya hubungan kata yang merah itu kepada keseluruhan ayat, apalagi perikop.

Di Perjanjian Baru, saya pikir, Tuhan sendiri mengandalkan manusia untuk menyebarkan kabar keselamatan, lho. Tuhan Yesus Kristus memilih para murid-Nyayang adalah manusia untuk ditugasi mengajarkan segala yang telah diperintahkan, bukan? Tuhan Yesus Kristus mengandalkan manusia untuk membaptis segala bangsa, kan?

Nah, bagaimana maksud dan tujuan solideogloria mengutipkan ayat itu di post ini?

Damai, damai, damai.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 25, 2014, 10:59:31 PM

Didalam ayat tsb setahu saya dia memang hanya menyebutkan satu jabatan yaitu Penatua saja tidak ada yang lain !

Kalau saya menjelaskan ayat berbeda dengan saya mengutip ayat karena tidak pernah saya merubah ayat yang saya kutip !

Lha kalo ayatnya tidak berkata HANYA, lalu Anda jelaskan kalo ayatnya berkata HANYA, bukankah Anda sedang mengubah ayat tersebut???

Petrus memang sedang menyebut dirinya memiliki jabatan sebagai penatua jemaat, lalu apakah akan kita simpulkan bahwa Petrus bukan pemimpin Gereja Anthiokia atau pemimpin Gereja Roma, seperti Yakobus menjadi pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem??

Logika Anda ini lah yang menjadi sumber keblunderan diskusi ini. Apa  yg tidak tertulis, seenak sendiri Anda simpulkan menjadi kebenaran yg tertulis!
Petrus menyebut dirinya sebagai penatua jemaat, tetapi tidak pernah mengatakan HANYA sebagai penatua jemaat, yang artinya ada jabatan2 lain yg dipegang oleh Petrus selain dari yang dikatakannya itu!

Saya kutip pernyataan anda : “So... sudah jelas bahwa Petrus lah yg menjadi gembala di atas rasul2 lainnya. “

Semua Rasul lainnya juga mendapat tugas menggembala jemaat bukan menggembala para Rasul lainnya.

Gembala dari para Rasul dan semua gereja tubuh Kristus hanyalah Tuhan Yesus saja yaitu Gembala Agung itu !

So??? Di mana salahnya pernyataanku itu??
Petrus adalah pemimpin para rasul. Para rasul adalah gembala2 juga. Apakah aku pernah mengatakan bahwa para rasul lainnya bukan gembala???
Lagi2 Anda menyalah-gunakan ketiadaan statement dalam kalimat2ku, alias ber-argumentum ex silentio!!

Jelas2 kepada Petrus seorang, di hadapan rasul2 lain, Yesus berpesan utk menggembalakan domba2Nya (Yoh 21 : 15 – 17). So jelas lah bahwa Petrus adalah pemimpin dari gembala2 (para rasul) lainnya.


Saya kutip lagi secara lengkap sumber saya  (tanpa mutilasi) mengenai pendapat apa yang disebut para Bapa Gereja mengenai status Petrus dari seorang ex-Catholics sbb :

 The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
 
An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

(Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys)


By William Webster

(sengaja dipotong karena kepanjangan dan irrelevant!!!)

Weleh... Lagi2 copy paste, ga tanggung2 pulak!!
Ini aku sedang diskusi dengan solideogloria atau dengan William Webster sih??? :doh: :doh:

Bro soli, kalo memang Anda berani untuk mempertanggung-jawabkan apa yg Anda copy paste itu, mari kita diskusikan apa yg diklaim oleh William Webster ini:
 While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome.

Kalau yang dikatakan oleh William Webster itu benar, bahwa Augustine maupun bapa2 Gereja (teolog klasik) hanya mengakui kepemimpinan Petrus tapi tidak mengakui kepemimpinan Uskup Roma sebagai penerus Petrus, silakan Anda jelaskan tulisan bapa2 Gereja dari konsili2 Gereja ini!
Yang menghadiri konsili adalah uskup2 di seluruh dunia, yaitu penerus2 rasul baik dari garis Petrus maupun dari garis rasul2 lainnya. Dari dokumentasi konsili, kok mereka justru mengakui keutamaan dan kepemimpinan penerus rasul Petrus yang adalah uskup Roma? Bertolak belakang dengan tulisan William Webster bukan??
(Silakan Anda tanyakan ke William Webster kalo tidak bisa menjawab sendiri!)

"The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

"A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up..” Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680).
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on August 26, 2014, 04:13:18 AM
Protestan berdiri teguh diatas prinsip "Sola Scriptura" wahyu Tuhan yang berotoritas tertinggi,berbeda dengan GRK yang bersandar kepada tradisi rekayasa manusia belaka.


Yah.. prinsip sola scriptura itu tidak tertulis dalam Alkitab.

Bagaimana kamu ini mengikuti prinsip yg tidak tertulis ?
APakah kamu ini ikutan gereja Katolik yang keren itu...? (yg menggunakan prinsip tak tertulis Alkitab?)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 07:46:49 PM
Cuma bergaung seperti tong kosong ditabuh, tong tong tong.....

Kasien komentarnya cuma itu itu doang diulang ulang terus tidak ada mutunya !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 07:49:05 PM
solideogloria, kitab Yeremia ada di Perjanjian Lama, ya? Saya tertarik pada post solideogloria ini, khususnya hubungan kata yang merah itu kepada keseluruhan ayat, apalagi perikop.

Di Perjanjian Baru, saya pikir, Tuhan sendiri mengandalkan manusia untuk menyebarkan kabar keselamatan, lho. Tuhan Yesus Kristus memilih para murid-Nyayang adalah manusia untuk ditugasi mengajarkan segala yang telah diperintahkan, bukan? Tuhan Yesus Kristus mengandalkan manusia untuk membaptis segala bangsa, kan?

Nah, bagaimana maksud dan tujuan solideogloria mengutipkan ayat itu di post ini?

Damai, damai, damai.

Tentu saja manusia yang diandalkan Tuhan untuk memberitakan Injilnya itu harus memberitakan Injil yang benar bukan isapan jempol belaka !

2 Petrus 1:16
Sebab kami tidak mengikuti dongeng-dongeng isapan jempol manusia, ketika kami memberitahukan kepadamu kuasa dan kedatangan Tuhan kita, Yesus Kristus sebagai raja, tetapi kami adalah saksi mata dari kebesaran-Nya.

2 Petrus 2:3
Dan karena serakahnya guru-guru palsu itu akan berusaha mencari untung dari kamu dengan ceritera-ceritera isapan jempol mereka. Tetapi untuk perbuatan mereka itu hukuman telah lama tersedia dan kebinasaan tidak akan tertunda.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 07:53:49 PM
Lha kalo ayatnya tidak berkata HANYA, lalu Anda jelaskan kalo ayatnya berkata HANYA, bukankah Anda sedang mengubah ayat tersebut???

Petrus memang sedang menyebut dirinya memiliki jabatan sebagai penatua jemaat, lalu apakah akan kita simpulkan bahwa Petrus bukan pemimpin Gereja Anthiokia atau pemimpin Gereja Roma, seperti Yakobus menjadi pemimpin Gereja Yerusalem??

Logika Anda ini lah yang menjadi sumber keblunderan diskusi ini. Apa  yg tidak tertulis, seenak sendiri Anda simpulkan menjadi kebenaran yg tertulis!
Petrus menyebut dirinya sebagai penatua jemaat, tetapi tidak pernah mengatakan HANYA sebagai penatua jemaat, yang artinya ada jabatan2 lain yg dipegang oleh Petrus selain dari yang dikatakannya itu!


Kalau seorang Ayah mengaku bahwa dia adalah “hanya” Ayah dari seorang anak tidak berarti bahwa dia bukan suami atau manager dikantornya misalnya dll.

Kalau ada ayat yang mengatakan Yesuslah “satu satunya” pengantara didalam keselamatan tidak berarti bahwa Yesus bukan Tuhan,Anak Allah,Juruselamat,dll.

Tetapi ayat inipun sudah dimodifikasi gereja anda dengan memasukkan Maria juga ikut ikutan sebagai pengantara (mediatrix).

Jadi kita harus melihat relevansi dan kontekstual dari setiap ayat bukan mencari cari apa yang tidak dimaksudkan oleh ayat tsb !



Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:03:57 PM
Saya kutip pernyataan anda : “So... sudah jelas bahwa Petrus lah yg menjadi gembala di atas rasul2 lainnya. “

Semua Rasul lainnya juga mendapat tugas menggembala jemaat bukan menggembala para Rasul lainnya.

Gembala dari para Rasul dan semua gereja tubuh Kristus hanyalah Tuhan Yesus saja yaitu Gembala Agung itu !

So??? Di mana salahnya pernyataanku itu??
Petrus adalah pemimpin para rasul. Para rasul adalah gembala2 juga. Apakah aku pernah mengatakan bahwa para rasul lainnya bukan gembala???
Lagi2 Anda menyalah-gunakan ketiadaan statement dalam kalimat2ku, alias ber-argumentum ex silentio!!

Jelas2 kepada Petrus seorang, di hadapan rasul2 lain, Yesus berpesan utk menggembalakan domba2Nya (Yoh 21 : 15 – 17). So jelas lah bahwa Petrus adalah pemimpin dari gembala2 (para rasul) lainnya.


Argument ex silentio adalah menambahkan apa yang tidak ada didalam Kitab Suci dan mengatakan Petrus adalah pemimpin para Rasul sama sekali tidak ada ajaran demikian didalam Kitab Suci.

Rasul lain juga mendapat tugas menggembalakan,apakah mereka juga menggembalakan Petrus ?

Dimana ada ajaran Rasul menggembalakan para Rasul ???

Justru Petrus yang banyak belajar dari Paulus karena selalu keliru melulu teologinya !



Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on August 23, 2014, 06:03:57 PM
Saya kutip lagi secara lengkap sumber saya  (tanpa mutilasi) mengenai pendapat apa yang disebut para Bapa Gereja mengenai status Petrus dari seorang ex-Catholics sbb :

 The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
 
An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

(Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys)

By William Webster

(sengaja dipotong karena kepanjangan dan irrelevant!!!)

Weleh... Lagi2 copy paste, ga tanggung2 pulak!!
Ini aku sedang diskusi dengan solideogloria atau dengan William Webster sih??? 

Karena anda menuduh mutilasi melulu bukannya membicarakan apa yang dipersoalkan !
Tidak ada yang baru dibawah matahari ini.


Quote
Bro soli, kalo memang Anda berani untuk mempertanggung-jawabkan apa yg Anda copy paste itu, mari kita diskusikan apa yg diklaim oleh William Webster ini:
While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome.

Kalau yang dikatakan oleh William Webster itu benar, bahwa Augustine maupun bapa2 Gereja (teolog klasik) hanya mengakui kepemimpinan Petrus tapi tidak mengakui kepemimpinan Uskup Roma sebagai penerus Petrus, silakan Anda jelaskan tulisan bapa2 Gereja dari konsili2 Gereja ini!
Yang menghadiri konsili adalah uskup2 di seluruh dunia, yaitu penerus2 rasul baik dari garis Petrus maupun dari garis rasul2 lainnya. Dari dokumentasi konsili, kok mereka justru mengakui keutamaan dan kepemimpinan penerus rasul Petrus yang adalah uskup Roma? Bertolak belakang dengan tulisan William Webster bukan??
(Silakan Anda tanyakan ke William Webster kalo tidak bisa menjawab sendiri!)


Cukup saya yg menjawab tidak perlu ke William Webster yang jauh lebih ahli dari saya.

Kalau itu konsili gereja Roma Katolik memang demikianlah adanya sebab Paus adalah kepala gerejanya sedangkan Kitab Suci tidak pernah mengajarkan ada jabatan paus sebagai Kepala Gereja !

Tidak ada satupun gereja diluar GRK yang mengakui bahwa Paus adalah kepala gereja karena itu sudah menghujat Tuhan Yesus sebagai satu satunya Kepala Gereja dan Gembala Agung.

Petrus sendiri sama sekali tidak pernah menjadi Paus di Roma seperti klaim fiktif gereja anda !

Tidak pernah ada keutamaan manusia yang diajarkan oleh Yesus melainkan kerendahan hati :

Lukas 22:24 Terjadilah juga pertengkaran di antara murid-murid Yesus, siapakah yang dapat dianggap terbesar di antara mereka.
22:25 Yesus berkata kepada mereka: "Raja-raja bangsa-bangsa memerintah rakyat mereka dan orang-orang yang menjalankan kuasa atas mereka disebut pelindung-pelindung.
22:26 Tetapi kamu tidaklah demikian, melainkan yang terbesar di antara kamu hendaklah menjadi sebagai yang paling muda dan pemimpin sebagai pelayan

Fakta bahwa Paus sebagai Kepala Gereja dan Pemerintahan yang duduk disingasana,bermahkota emas berlian,diusung kemana mana dan harus mencium kakinya kalau menghadap serta infallible,mengaku sebagai Tuhan….dst dst……. Adalah sangat jauh berkontradiksi dengan ajaran Yesus yang penuh dengan kerendahan hati (diametrically opposed).

Seperti bumi dan langit bedanya bro !

Jadi jelas bagaimana William Webster yang eks Katolik yg sudah bertobat itu sudah menguak manipulasi penafsiran GRK mengenai Matius 16 itu berdasarkan penafsiran apa yang anda anggap para Bapa Gereja itu hanya untuk mendukung ambisi dan arogansi Paus mengklaim dirinya sebagai kepala gereja.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 07:59:20 PM
Yah.. prinsip sola scriptura itu tidak tertulis dalam Alkitab.

Bagaimana kamu ini mengikuti prinsip yg tidak tertulis ?
APakah kamu ini ikutan gereja Katolik yang keren itu...? (yg menggunakan prinsip tak tertulis Alkitab?)


Sola Scriptura tidak tertulis tetapi seperti Tritunggal juga tidak tertulis tapi berjibun ajarannya didalam Kitab Suci.

Mediatrix,Co-redemptrix,Immaculate,Mary Assumption,Pope Infallible …dst…dst begitu banyaknya istilah gereja anda tidak tertulis maupun ada ajarannya didalam Kitab Suci tetapi kamu telan juga bulat bulat persis beo !

Sungguh tragis !

Matius 15:9 Percuma mereka beribadah kepada-Ku, sedangkan ajaran yang mereka ajarkan ialah perintah manusia."

Markus 7:7 Percuma mereka beribadah kepada-Ku, sedangkan ajaran yang mereka ajarkan ialah perintah manusia.

Kolose 2:22 semuanya itu hanya mengenai barang yang binasa oleh pemakaian dan hanya menurut perintah-perintah dan ajaran-ajaran manusia.

Emangnya kalau tidak pakai Alkitab pakai apa kamu menguji semua tradisi gerejamu itu ?


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 29, 2014, 09:16:16 PM
Kalau seorang Ayah mengaku bahwa dia adalah “hanya” Ayah dari seorang anak tidak berarti bahwa dia bukan suami atau manager dikantornya misalnya dll.

Kalau ada ayat yang mengatakan Yesuslah “satu satunya” pengantara didalam keselamatan tidak berarti bahwa Yesus bukan Tuhan,Anak Allah,Juruselamat,dll.

Tetapi ayat inipun sudah dimodifikasi gereja anda dengan memasukkan Maria juga ikut ikutan sebagai pengantara (mediatrix).

Jadi kita harus melihat relevansi dan kontekstual dari setiap ayat bukan mencari cari apa yang tidak dimaksudkan oleh ayat tsb !

Jangan lari2 ke topik2 yg lain dulu.
Kita sedang bahas ayat
1 Pet 5 : 1 Aku menasihatkan para penatua di antara kamu, aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus, yang juga akan mendapat bagian dalam kemuliaan yang akan dinyatakan kelak.


Argument ex silentio adalah menambahkan apa yang tidak ada didalam Kitab Suci dan mengatakan Petrus adalah pemimpin para Rasul sama sekali tidak ada ajaran demikian didalam Kitab Suci.

Rasul lain juga mendapat tugas menggembalakan,apakah mereka juga menggembalakan Petrus ?

Dimana ada ajaran Rasul menggembalakan para Rasul ???

Justru Petrus yang banyak belajar dari Paulus karena selalu keliru melulu teologinya !

1 Pet 5 : 1 Aku menasihatkan para penatua di antara kamu, aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus, yang juga akan mendapat bagian dalam kemuliaan yang akan dinyatakan kelak.

Ex Silentio 1 (argumen Jenova):
Petrus memiliki jabatan lain selain sebagai penatua jemaat.

Bagi Jenova Kitab Suci BUKAN menjadi satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran, melainkan saling melengkapi dengan Tradisi Suci.
Tradisi Suci, dibuktikan dengan banyaknya catatan2 sejarah yang tidak terbantahkan, menyatakan bahwa Petrus memiliki jabatan2 lain seperti jabatan sebagai pemimpin Gereja Roma, di mana pemimpin Gereja Roma adalah pemimpin dari Gereja-Gereja lainnya, dan kepemimpinan ini diteruskan / diwariskan kepada penerus2 Petrus sebagai pemimpin Gereja Roma.
Kesimpulannya, pendapat Jenova BUKAN merupakan ex-silentio karena sumber iman kami mengatakan hal tersebut!

Ex Silentio 2 (argument Soli):
Petrus HANYA memiliki satu jabatan yaitu sebagai penatua jemaat.

Bagi Anda, bro Soli, satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran adalah Kitab Suci, dan Kitab Suci benar2 tidak bersuara mengenai kemungkinan Petrus memiliki jabatan lain atau tidak. Dengan mengatakan Petrus HANYA menjabat sebagai penatua jemaat, berarti Anda telah melakukan "Argumentum ex silentio" yang sesungguhnya!!

================

Yohanes 21
15 Sesudah sarapan Yesus berkata kepada Simon Petrus: "Simon, anak Yohanes, apakah engkau mengasihi Aku lebih dari pada mereka ini?" Jawab Petrus kepada-Nya: "Benar Tuhan, Engkau tahu, bahwa aku mengasihi Engkau." Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Gembalakanlah domba-domba-Ku."
16 Kata Yesus pula kepadanya untuk kedua kalinya: "Simon, anak Yohanes, apakah engkau mengasihi Aku?" Jawab Petrus kepada-Nya: "Benar Tuhan, Engkau tahu, bahwa aku mengasihi Engkau." Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Gembalakanlah domba-domba-Ku."
17 Kata Yesus kepadanya untuk ketiga kalinya: "Simon, anak Yohanes, apakah engkau mengasihi Aku?" Maka sedih hati Petrus karena Yesus berkata untuk ketiga kalinya: "Apakah engkau mengasihi Aku?" Dan ia berkata kepada-Nya: "Tuhan, Engkau tahu segala sesuatu, Engkau tahu, bahwa aku mengasihi Engkau." Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Gembalakanlah domba-domba-Ku.

Ex Silentio 1 (argumen Jenova):
Yesus memberikan amanat sebagai gembala kepada Petrus seorang, tapi Jenova melakukan “ex-silentio” dengan mengatakan bahwa para rasul lainnya pun memegang amanat sebagai gembala.

Dengan melihat ayat 20, di mana jelas terlihat bahwa sabda Yesus ini ditujukan kepada Petrus seorang di hadapan para rasul lainnya yg ikut makan (sarapan) bersama mereka, maka Jenova SAMA SEKALI tidak melakukan "ex-silentio" ketika menyimpulkan bahwa tugas penggembalaan Petrus lebih unggul / lebih memiliki otoritas dibanding rasul2 lainnya.
Oh ya... Jangan pernah lupa bahwa Jenova tidak pernah menjadikan Kitab Suci sebagai satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran, melainkan Kitab Suci saling melengkapi dengan Tradisi Suci sebagai otoritas dan sumber kebenaran.
Tradisi Suci, dibuktikan dengan banyaknya catatan2 sejarah yang tidak terbantahkan, menyatakan bahwa Petrus adalah pemipin dari gembala2 (para rasul lainnya), dan kepemimpinan ini diteruskan / diwariskan kepada penerus2 Petrus sebagai pemimpin Gereja Roma.
Kesimpulannya, pendapat Jenova BUKAN merupakan ex-silentio karena sumber iman kami mengatakan hal tersebut!

Ex Silentio 2 (argument Soli):
Anda mengatakan bahwa para rasul lainnya adalah gembala seperti Petrus padahal ayat2 ini tidak mengatakan demikian!!!

Anda mengatakan bahwa Petrus tidak lebih utama dari para rasul lainnya, padahal di hadapan rasul2 lainnya Yesus bersabda kepada Petrus saja utk menggembalakan domba2Nya!!
Kitab Suci adalah satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran bagi Anda, dan Kitab Suci benar2 tidak bersuara mengenai jabatan gembala rasul2 lain, dan tidak bersuara bahwa Petrus bukan pemimpin dari gembala2 lainnya.
Kesimpulannya, Anda lah yang telah melakukan "Argumentum ex silentio" yang sesungguhnya!!

Karena anda menuduh mutilasi melulu bukannya membicarakan apa yang dipersoalkan !
Tidak ada yang baru dibawah matahari ini.

Kalau itu konsili gereja Roma Katolik memang demikianlah adanya sebab Paus adalah kepala gerejanya sedangkan Kitab Suci tidak pernah mengajarkan ada jabatan paus sebagai Kepala Gereja !

LOL... Konsili Nisea, Konsili Efesus, Konsili Chalcedon, dan konsili2 ekumenis lainnya itu adalah konsilinya Gereja Katolik Roma??
Get your fact right, bro Soli!!!
Konsili2 ini dihadiri oleh seluruh Gereja yang tersebar di seluruh dunia!
Tiga Konsili Ekumenis pertama: Nisea, Konstantinopel I, dan Efesus, dihadiri oleh semua Gereja baik di Barat (Roma), Timur (Orthodox Timur), maupun Oriental (Orthodox Oriental).
Konsili2 Ekumenis selanjutnya: Chalcedon, Konstantinopel II, Konstantinopel III, Nisea II, dihadiri oleh semua Gereja baik di Barat (Roma) maupun di Timur (Orthodox Timur).
Fakta paling mendasar mengenai sejarah skisma saja Anda tidak tahu (atau menutup mata??), kok bisa2nya bilang konsili2 tersebut adalah konsili Gereja Roma??
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 29, 2014, 09:18:01 PM
Tidak ada satupun gereja diluar GRK yang mengakui bahwa Paus adalah kepala gereja karena itu sudah menghujat Tuhan Yesus sebagai satu satunya Kepala Gereja dan Gembala Agung.

Again, bro soli, get your facts right!!!
Petrus menjadi kepala Gereja BUKAN menggantikan Kristus, melainkan mewakili Kristus seperti yg diamanatkan langsung oleh Kristus untuk menggembalakan domba2Nya (Yoh 21 : 15 - 17)!!
Petrus adalah kepala dari para rasul lainnya, sebagai kepala dari gembala2 / pemimpin2 Gereja, sehingga tidak berlebihan jika Petrus disebut sebagai pemimpin Gereja mewakili Kristus yang telah mengamanatkan tugas ini kepada Petrus.
Kitab Suci pun tidak tanggung2 telah menyatakan kepempimpinan Petrus di antara rasul2 lainnya:

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.


(bersambung...)

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 29, 2014, 09:19:11 PM
(...sambungan)

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.
[/color]

(selengkapnya bisa dilihat di http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 29, 2014, 09:20:37 PM
Petrus sendiri sama sekali tidak pernah menjadi Paus di Roma seperti klaim fiktif gereja anda !

Bro Soli, mari, aku ajak Anda untuk meninggalkan dunia mimpi dan menerima kenyataan!
Bukti2 sejarah, catatan2 sejarah, kesaksian2 bapa2 Gereja, tidak ada satu pun yang meragukan keberadaan Petrus di Roma.
Petrus bersama Paulus mendirikan Gereja di Roma, dan Petrus menjadi pemimpin di sana sampai wafatnya sebagai martir di Roma. Penerus2 Petrus yg menjadi pemimpin Gereja Roma, dibuktikan dari cataran2 sejarah dan kesaksian pemimpin2 Gereja di luar Roma, diakui sebagai pemimpin Gereja Universal!

Get these facts right!!!

Tidak pernah ada keutamaan manusia yang diajarkan oleh Yesus melainkan kerendahan hati :

Lukas 22:24 Terjadilah juga pertengkaran di antara murid-murid Yesus, siapakah yang dapat dianggap terbesar di antara mereka.
22:25 Yesus berkata kepada mereka: "Raja-raja bangsa-bangsa memerintah rakyat mereka dan orang-orang yang menjalankan kuasa atas mereka disebut pelindung-pelindung.
22:26 Tetapi kamu tidaklah demikian, melainkan yang terbesar di antara kamu hendaklah menjadi sebagai yang paling muda dan pemimpin sebagai pelayan

Fakta bahwa Paus sebagai Kepala Gereja dan Pemerintahan yang duduk disingasana,bermahkota emas berlian,diusung kemana mana dan harus mencium kakinya kalau menghadap serta infallible,mengaku sebagai Tuhan….dst dst……. Adalah sangat jauh berkontradiksi dengan ajaran Yesus yang penuh dengan kerendahan hati (diametrically opposed).

Seperti bumi dan langit bedanya bro !

Irrelevant!!!
Jangan campur adukkan antara jabatan dengan pribadi orang yg memegang jabatan tersebut.

Benar bahwa banyak paus yg terjatuh dalam dosa keserakahan dan kesombongan, tetapi jabatan sebagai batu karang itu tidak pernah hilang hanya karena banyak paus yg berdosa.

Kalo jabatan paus diragukan karena banyak paus yang dibutakan oleh kemewahan dan kekuasaan duniawi, maka semua jabatan pemimpin dalam Gereja Kristus itu harus diragukan pula, termasuk para pelopor gerakan protestant itu.
Fakta sejarah mencatat bahwa pemimpin2 protestant itu pun tidak lebih suci dari paus2 yg mereka benci itu!

Martin Luther
1. He was anti-Jewish. He wrote the letter, "The Jews and Their Lies". In chapter 15 he writes:
- Safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
- Set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn.
- Their houses also be razed and destroyed.
- Eject them forever from the country.
2. He promoted violence against the peasants. He wrote in the pamphlet "Against the Murderous Peasants", "Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret."
3. He promoted violence against other Christians. He wrote that the "the emperor, kings, and princes" should "attack this plague [the Romanists] of all the earth no longer with words but with the sword" and "wash our hands in their blood."
4. He was vulgar and obscene (link)
5. His views contradicted scripture.
6. He said that it was OK to sin ("Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong").
7. He was not opposed to polygamy
8. Some of his views were very Catholic, for example:
- He had a devotion to Mary.
- He believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist
9. He claimed himself to be the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture — he thought of himself as a "pope" (link)
10. Luther and other Protestants denounced Copernicus' heliocentric theory.

John Calvin
1. He beheaded James Gruet because he dared to write against him.
2. He believed that heresy was a capital crime
3. Michael Servetus was burned at the stake.
4. He acted as if he was the new "pope"
5. He created a police state in Geneva
6. His teaching is a license for immorality.

Zwingli
1. He wrote that the massacre of the bishops was necessary for the establishment of the pure Gospel.
2. To compel the Catholic cantons to accept the new doctrines, Zwingli urged civil war and succeeded in persuading Zurich to declare war and march against the Catholic territories.
3. He was a dictator

King James I
1.In 1604 he expelled all Catholic priests. (Not a very charitable act).
2.In 1605 he executed Catholics. Others, including Fawkes, underwent prolonged and brutal torture and were then savagely executed in public. (Foxe would consider an execution such as this as evidence of "bad" religion).
3.He signed the Negative Confession of 1581. No other Protestant Confession is so fiercely anti-popish. (Guaranteed to create religious conflict, persecution, and abuse of Catholics).
4.Many Jesuits and other priests had to flee into exile, and some, including the leading English Jesuit Father Garnet, were brutally executed after state show trials.
5.During his reign, the north of Ireland was settled by English and Scottish Protestants, and many Irish Catholics lost their land. (He allowed Catholics to be victimized).
6.Some consider him to be homosexual or bisexual.
7.He enacted even harsher penal laws against Catholics.

William of Orange
1. He was the leader of a violent movement
2. He organized a political party. [Why are religious men involved in politics?]
3. He was the leader of an unrighteous mercenary mob of corsairs (pirates).
4. He invaded the low countries [Why are Protestants, who should be peace-loving, invading anybody?].

Huguenots
1. They were a militant group.
2. They pillaged Catholic houses.
3. They were involved in active (violent) resistance.
4. One of their leaders, Huguenot Jean de Mere, assassinated Duc de Guise, which led to the start of civil war.
5. They provoked a civil war.
6. They took up arms.
7. They formed a political party.
8. They had a military man, Gaspard II de Coligny, as their leader.
9. They had a political man, Henri de Navarre, as their leader.
10.Their leader, Henri de Navarre, became heir to the throne.
11.They threatened revolt.
12.They formed their own state.

Sumber: http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/BadProtestants.html
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on August 29, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
Jadi jelas bagaimana William Webster yang eks Katolik yg sudah bertobat itu sudah menguak manipulasi penafsiran GRK mengenai Matius 16 itu berdasarkan penafsiran apa yang anda anggap para Bapa Gereja itu hanya untuk mendukung ambisi dan arogansi Paus mengklaim dirinya sebagai kepala gereja.

Bertobat dengan cara menyebarkan kebohongan2??? Ini yang Anda bilang bertobat???  :idiot:

Kalo Anda benar2 percaya bahwa William Webster tidak menyebarkan kebohongan, silakan Anda jelaskan mengapa William Webster mengatakan bahwa Augustine tidak mengakui kepemimpinan uskup Roma selaku pemimpin Gereja Universal.
Ingat!!! Augustine of Hippo hidup di tahun 354-430 M, dan di masa hidupnya Augustine menerima keputusan2 konsili Nisea, Konstantinopel I, dan konsili Efesus, yang seperti telah aku tunjukkan di reply  #135 bahwa pemimpin2 Gereja lainnya yg menghadiri konsili2 tersebut mengakui keutamaan dan kepemimpinan uskup Roma sebagai penerus Petrus.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 09:51:58 PM
Jangan lari2 ke topik2 yg lain dulu.
Kita sedang bahas ayat
1 Pet 5 : 1 Aku menasihatkan para penatua di antara kamu, aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus, yang juga akan mendapat bagian dalam kemuliaan yang akan dinyatakan kelak.


Siapa yang lari karena saya hanya menjelaskan satu ayat tsb sebagai bukti bahwa Petrus juga menjabat Penatua !


Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on Today at 07:53:49 PM
Argument ex silentio adalah menambahkan apa yang tidak ada didalam Kitab Suci dan mengatakan Petrus adalah pemimpin para Rasul sama sekali tidak ada ajaran demikian didalam Kitab Suci.

Rasul lain juga mendapat tugas menggembalakan,apakah mereka juga menggembalakan Petrus ?

Dimana ada ajaran Rasul menggembalakan para Rasul ???

Justru Petrus yang banyak belajar dari Paulus karena selalu keliru melulu teologinya !

1 Pet 5 : 1 Aku menasihatkan para penatua di antara kamu, aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus, yang juga akan mendapat bagian dalam kemuliaan yang akan dinyatakan kelak.

Ex Silentio 1 (argumen Jenova):
Petrus memiliki jabatan lain selain sebagai penatua jemaat.

Bagi Jenova Kitab Suci BUKAN menjadi satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran, melainkan saling melengkapi dengan Tradisi Suci.
Tradisi Suci, dibuktikan dengan banyaknya catatan2 sejarah yang tidak terbantahkan, menyatakan bahwa Petrus memiliki jabatan2 lain seperti jabatan sebagai pemimpin Gereja Roma, di mana pemimpin Gereja Roma adalah pemimpin dari Gereja-Gereja lainnya, dan kepemimpinan ini diteruskan / diwariskan kepada penerus2 Petrus sebagai pemimpin Gereja Roma.
Kesimpulannya, pendapat Jenova BUKAN merupakan ex-silentio karena sumber iman kami mengatakan hal tersebut!

Ex Silentio 2 (argument Soli):
Petrus HANYA memiliki satu jabatan yaitu sebagai penatua jemaat.

Bagi Anda, bro Soli, satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran adalah Kitab Suci, dan Kitab Suci benar2 tidak bersuara mengenai kemungkinan Petrus memiliki jabatan lain atau tidak. Dengan mengatakan Petrus HANYA menjabat sebagai penatua jemaat, berarti Anda telah melakukan "Argumentum ex silentio" yang sesungguhnya!!

================

Yohanes 21
15 Sesudah sarapan Yesus berkata kepada Simon Petrus: "Simon, anak Yohanes, apakah engkau mengasihi Aku lebih dari pada mereka ini?" Jawab Petrus kepada-Nya: "Benar Tuhan, Engkau tahu, bahwa aku mengasihi Engkau." Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Gembalakanlah domba-domba-Ku."
16 Kata Yesus pula kepadanya untuk kedua kalinya: "Simon, anak Yohanes, apakah engkau mengasihi Aku?" Jawab Petrus kepada-Nya: "Benar Tuhan, Engkau tahu, bahwa aku mengasihi Engkau." Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Gembalakanlah domba-domba-Ku."
17 Kata Yesus kepadanya untuk ketiga kalinya: "Simon, anak Yohanes, apakah engkau mengasihi Aku?" Maka sedih hati Petrus karena Yesus berkata untuk ketiga kalinya: "Apakah engkau mengasihi Aku?" Dan ia berkata kepada-Nya: "Tuhan, Engkau tahu segala sesuatu, Engkau tahu, bahwa aku mengasihi Engkau." Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Gembalakanlah domba-domba-Ku.

Ex Silentio 1 (argumen Jenova):
Yesus memberikan amanat sebagai gembala kepada Petrus seorang, tapi Jenova melakukan “ex-silentio” dengan mengatakan bahwa para rasul lainnya pun memegang amanat sebagai gembala.

Dengan melihat ayat 20, di mana jelas terlihat bahwa sabda Yesus ini ditujukan kepada Petrus seorang di hadapan para rasul lainnya yg ikut makan (sarapan) bersama mereka, maka Jenova SAMA SEKALI tidak melakukan "ex-silentio" ketika menyimpulkan bahwa tugas penggembalaan Petrus lebih unggul / lebih memiliki otoritas dibanding rasul2 lainnya.
Oh ya... Jangan pernah lupa bahwa Jenova tidak pernah menjadikan Kitab Suci sebagai satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran, melainkan Kitab Suci saling melengkapi dengan Tradisi Suci sebagai otoritas dan sumber kebenaran.
Tradisi Suci, dibuktikan dengan banyaknya catatan2 sejarah yang tidak terbantahkan, menyatakan bahwa Petrus adalah pemipin dari gembala2 (para rasul lainnya), dan kepemimpinan ini diteruskan / diwariskan kepada penerus2 Petrus sebagai pemimpin Gereja Roma.
Kesimpulannya, pendapat Jenova BUKAN merupakan ex-silentio karena sumber iman kami mengatakan hal tersebut!

Ex Silentio 2 (argument Soli):
Anda mengatakan bahwa para rasul lainnya adalah gembala seperti Petrus padahal ayat2 ini tidak mengatakan demikian!!!


Kalau Petrus sebagai gembala mengapa pula Rasul lainnya bukan sebab jabatan gembala adalah plural :

Efesus 4:11 Dan Ialah yang memberikan baik rasul-rasul maupun nabi-nabi, baik pemberita-pemberita Injil maupungembala-gembala dan pengajar-pengajar,


Bagaimana pula orang yg bukan Rasul bisa menjabat gembala sedangkan Rasul sendiri tidak ???

Sama sekali tidak masuk akal sehat !

Tugas yang diberikan kepada Petrus juga berlaku bagi Rasul lainnya :

Matius 18:1 Pada waktu itu datanglah murid-murid itu kepada Yesus dan bertanya: "Siapakah yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga?"
18:18 Aku berkata kepadamu: Sesungguhnya apa yang kamu ikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kamu lepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga.


Bersambung

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 09:52:07 PM
Sambungan


Quote
Anda mengatakan bahwa Petrus tidak lebih utama dari para rasul lainnya, padahal di hadapan rasul2 lainnya Yesus bersabda kepada Petrus saja utk menggembalakan domba2Nya!!
Kitab Suci adalah satu2nya otoritas dan sumber kebenaran bagi Anda, dan Kitab Suci benar2 tidak bersuara mengenai jabatan gembala rasul2 lain, dan tidak bersuara bahwa Petrus bukan pemimpin dari gembala2 lainnya.
Kesimpulannya, Anda lah yang telah melakukan "Argumentum ex silentio" yang sesungguhnya!!

Bahwa Petrus menggembalakan para rasul lainnya silahkan buktikan ayatnya jangan memanipulasi belaka bisanya.

Bagaimana menjadi gembala kalau Paulus saja mengkritiknya sebagai munafik ???

Sekalipun Petrus menyebut dirinya sendiri sebagai rasul (1Pet 1:1), tetapi:
•   Dalam 1Pet 5:1 Petrus menyebut dirinya sebagai fellow elder (= teman / sesama penatua). Ini jelas merupakan sebutan yang menyejajarkan dirinya dengan para penatua yang lain.
•   Dalam 1Pet 5:2-3 Petrus melarang untuk memaksa / memerintah. Ini tentu berbeda dengan apa yang dilakukan oleh para Paus dalam gereja Roma Katolik!
•   Dalam Kis 10:25-26, Petrus menolak penyembahan. Ini lagi- lagi berbeda dengan sikap para Paus yang menerima saja pada waktu jemaat Katolik mencium kakinya (tradisi penciuman kaki Paus dimulai oleh Paus Constantine pada tahun 709 Masehi).

Quote from: solideogloria on Today at 07:53:49 PM
Karena anda menuduh mutilasi melulu bukannya membicarakan apa yang dipersoalkan !
Tidak ada yang baru dibawah matahari ini.

Kalau itu konsili gereja Roma Katolik memang demikianlah adanya sebab Paus adalah kepala gerejanya sedangkan Kitab Suci tidak pernah mengajarkan ada jabatan paus sebagai Kepala Gereja !

LOL... Konsili Nisea, Konsili Efesus, Konsili Chalcedon, dan konsili2 ekumenis lainnya itu adalah konsilinya Gereja Katolik Roma??
Get your fact right, bro Soli!!!
Konsili2 ini dihadiri oleh seluruh Gereja yang tersebar di seluruh dunia!
Tiga Konsili Ekumenis pertama: Nisea, Konstantinopel I, dan Efesus, dihadiri oleh semua Gereja baik di Barat (Roma), Timur (Orthodox Timur), maupun Oriental (Orthodox Oriental).
Konsili2 Ekumenis selanjutnya: Chalcedon, Konstantinopel II, Konstantinopel III, Nisea II, dihadiri oleh semua Gereja baik di Barat (Roma) maupun di Timur (Orthodox Timur).
Fakta paling mendasar mengenai sejarah skisma saja Anda tidak tahu (atau menutup mata??), kok bisa2nya bilang konsili2 tersebut adalah konsili Gereja Roma??


Coba perhatikan tahun berapa konsili tsb dan tahun berapa jabatan Paus itu baru ada di GRK ?

Konsili dihadiri oleh banyak Uskup dari berbagai Pusat Gereja didunia tetapi tidak pernah ada Uskup yang saling membawahi satu sama lain.

Tidak ada bukti satupun bahwa Uskup dari Pusat gereja lainnya mengakui Paus sebagai kepala gereja malah Orthodox Timurpun menolaknya.

Petrus sama sekali tidak pernah menjadi Paus di Roma,demikian juga apa yang anda anggap pengganti Petrus sebagai Paus hanyalah isapan jempol belaka karena tidak mungkin ada Paus yang menbawahi Rasul Yohanes yang masih hidup itu dikala itu !


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
Again, bro soli, get your facts right!!!
Petrus menjadi kepala Gereja BUKAN menggantikan Kristus, melainkan mewakili Kristus seperti yg diamanatkan langsung oleh Kristus untuk menggembalakan domba2Nya (Yoh 21 : 15 - 17)!!
Petrus adalah kepala dari para rasul lainnya, sebagai kepala dari gembala2 / pemimpin2 Gereja, sehingga tidak berlebihan jika Petrus disebut sebagai pemimpin Gereja mewakili Kristus yang telah mengamanatkan tugas ini kepada Petrus.
Kitab Suci pun tidak tanggung2 telah menyatakan kepempimpinan Petrus di antara rasul2 lainnya:

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.


(bersambung...)


Semua tafsiran ayat tsb hanya manipulasi untuk meninggikan Petrus belaka sebagai batu loncatan bagi paus untuk mengkalim dirinya sebagai kepala seluruh gereja didunia !


Alkitab sama sekali tidak pernah membicarakan :

1.   Petrus sebagai kepala gereja sebagaimana Paus

2.   Paus sebagai kepala gereja

3.   Paus adalah penerus Petrus

4.   Paus adalah wakil Kristus

5.   Petrus adalah Batukarang Gereja

6.   Petrus pernah ke Roma

7.   Yesus mengangkat Petrus sebagai Paus

8.   Petrus menganggap dirinya sebagai Paus

9.   Petrus menyerahkan jabatan Paus kepada penerusnya

Sama sekali tidak ada keistimewaan Petrus dibandingkan Rasul lainnya,malah ia sering  ditegur oleh Yesus dan Paulus.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 10:06:13 PM
(...sambungan)

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.
[/color]

(selengkapnya bisa dilihat di http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I)


Petrus BUKAN BATU YANG KOKOH

Petrus sebagai manusia biasa juga tidak terlepas dari kesalahan dan ketidaksempurnaan. Ia adalah bukan batu yang kokoh. Inilah beberapa catatan ketidaksempurnaan Petrus :

1.   Tuhan Yesus pernah menegor Petrus dan menyebut Petrus dengan sebutan "Iblis". Matius 16:23. Mengapa Tuhan Yesus menegor Petrus? Karena Petrus hanya memikirkan apa yang dipikirkan oleh manusia. Ia tidak memikirkan apa yang dipikirkan Tuhan.

2.   Petrus pernah menyangkal Yesus 3 kali. Matius 26:74. Karakter Petrus sangat labil saat itu.

3.   Galatia 2:11-14. Paulus pernah menegor Petrus karena Petrus bersikap munafik.

4.   Petrus terkenal dengan emosinya yang tidak terkendali.

5.   Petrus memotong telinga Malhkus.

Secara umum, Petrus tidak lepas dari kesalahan, karena ia juga adalah manusia yang berdosa. Petrus sama seperti kita, ia tidak diberikan wewenang atau kelebihan khusus dari Tuhan.



Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 10:09:50 PM
Bro Soli, mari, aku ajak Anda untuk meninggalkan dunia mimpi dan menerima kenyataan!
Bukti2 sejarah, catatan2 sejarah, kesaksian2 bapa2 Gereja, tidak ada satu pun yang meragukan keberadaan Petrus di Roma.
Petrus bersama Paulus mendirikan Gereja di Roma, dan Petrus menjadi pemimpin di sana sampai wafatnya sebagai martir di Roma. Penerus2 Petrus yg menjadi pemimpin Gereja Roma, dibuktikan dari cataran2 sejarah dan kesaksian pemimpin2 Gereja di luar Roma, diakui sebagai pemimpin Gereja Universal!

Get these facts right!!!

Irrelevant!!!
Jangan campur adukkan antara jabatan dengan pribadi orang yg memegang jabatan tersebut.

Benar bahwa banyak paus yg terjatuh dalam dosa keserakahan dan kesombongan, tetapi jabatan sebagai batu karang itu tidak pernah hilang hanya karena banyak paus yg berdosa.

Kalo jabatan paus diragukan karena banyak paus yang dibutakan oleh kemewahan dan kekuasaan duniawi, maka semua jabatan pemimpin dalam Gereja Kristus itu harus diragukan pula, termasuk para pelopor gerakan protestant itu.
Fakta sejarah mencatat bahwa pemimpin2 protestant itu pun tidak lebih suci dari paus2 yg mereka benci itu!

Martin Luther
1. He was anti-Jewish. He wrote the letter, "The Jews and Their Lies". In chapter 15 he writes:
- Safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
- Set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn.
- Their houses also be razed and destroyed.
- Eject them forever from the country.
2. He promoted violence against the peasants. He wrote in the pamphlet "Against the Murderous Peasants", "Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret."
3. He promoted violence against other Christians. He wrote that the "the emperor, kings, and princes" should "attack this plague [the Romanists] of all the earth no longer with words but with the sword" and "wash our hands in their blood."
4. He was vulgar and obscene (link)
5. His views contradicted scripture.
6. He said that it was OK to sin ("Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong").
7. He was not opposed to polygamy
8. Some of his views were very Catholic, for example:
- He had a devotion to Mary.
- He believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist
9. He claimed himself to be the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture — he thought of himself as a "pope" (link)
10. Luther and other Protestants denounced Copernicus' heliocentric theory.

John Calvin
1. He beheaded James Gruet because he dared to write against him.
2. He believed that heresy was a capital crime
3. Michael Servetus was burned at the stake.
4. He acted as if he was the new "pope"
5. He created a police state in Geneva
6. His teaching is a license for immorality.

Zwingli
1. He wrote that the massacre of the bishops was necessary for the establishment of the pure Gospel.
2. To compel the Catholic cantons to accept the new doctrines, Zwingli urged civil war and succeeded in persuading Zurich to declare war and march against the Catholic territories.
3. He was a dictator

King James I
1.In 1604 he expelled all Catholic priests. (Not a very charitable act).
2.In 1605 he executed Catholics. Others, including Fawkes, underwent prolonged and brutal torture and were then savagely executed in public. (Foxe would consider an execution such as this as evidence of "bad" religion).
3.He signed the Negative Confession of 1581. No other Protestant Confession is so fiercely anti-popish. (Guaranteed to create religious conflict, persecution, and abuse of Catholics).
4.Many Jesuits and other priests had to flee into exile, and some, including the leading English Jesuit Father Garnet, were brutally executed after state show trials.
5.During his reign, the north of Ireland was settled by English and Scottish Protestants, and many Irish Catholics lost their land. (He allowed Catholics to be victimized).
6.Some consider him to be homosexual or bisexual.
7.He enacted even harsher penal laws against Catholics.

William of Orange
1. He was the leader of a violent movement
2. He organized a political party. [Why are religious men involved in politics?]
3. He was the leader of an unrighteous mercenary mob of corsairs (pirates).
4. He invaded the low countries [Why are Protestants, who should be peace-loving, invading anybody?].

Huguenots
1. They were a militant group.
2. They pillaged Catholic houses.
3. They were involved in active (violent) resistance.
4. One of their leaders, Huguenot Jean de Mere, assassinated Duc de Guise, which led to the start of civil war.
5. They provoked a civil war.
6. They took up arms.
7. They formed a political party.
8. They had a military man, Gaspard II de Coligny, as their leader.
9. They had a political man, Henri de Navarre, as their leader.
10.Their leader, Henri de Navarre, became heir to the throne.
11.They threatened revolt.
12.They formed their own state.

Sumber: http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/BadProtestants.html

Silahkan sanggah saja semua ajaran para apa yang dianggap Bapa Gereja itu yang sudah saya kutip lengkap dari sumber William Webster yang secara gamblang sudah membongkar segala macam manipulasi GRK terhadap ayat Matius 16 tsb.

Sama sekali tidak ada Keutamaan Petrus dibandingkan Rasul lainnya didalam ajaran para Bapa Gereja tsb !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 10:26:23 PM
Bertobat dengan cara menyebarkan kebohongan2??? Ini yang Anda bilang bertobat???  :idiot:

Kalo Anda benar2 percaya bahwa William Webster tidak menyebarkan kebohongan, silakan Anda jelaskan mengapa William Webster mengatakan bahwa Augustine tidak mengakui kepemimpinan uskup Roma selaku pemimpin Gereja Universal.
Ingat!!! Augustine of Hippo hidup di tahun 354-430 M, dan di masa hidupnya Augustine menerima keputusan2 konsili Nisea, Konstantinopel I, dan konsili Efesus, yang seperti telah aku tunjukkan di reply  #135 bahwa pemimpin2 Gereja lainnya yg menghadiri konsili2 tersebut mengakui keutamaan dan kepemimpinan uskup Roma sebagai penerus Petrus.

Memang siapa yang bilang Uskup Roma sebagai kepala semua Uskup didunia ????

Itu hanya klaim kosong penuh arogansi belaka !

Ingat jabatan paus itu melalui proses yanjg panjang tidak langSung ada,dan tidak ada bukti diakui oleh gereja diluar GRK !



Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on August 29, 2014, 10:29:46 PM
Ingat jabatan paus itu melalui proses yanjg panjang tidak lansgung ada,dan tidak ada bukti diakui oleh gereja diluar GRK !

bro...
ciyus bro????

ehehe...

kalau gereja lain mengakui adanya Paus --> ya udah merger aja atuh..

jelas-jelas engga bakal... kan masih pengen cari omzet sendiri...
kalo mengakui Paus.. lah.. customer ente pada pindah ke leading brand..
rugi bandar atuh....
udah cape-cape maki-maki gereja lain... eh.. perpuluhannya engga masuk ke elo..
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 10:30:27 PM
Again, bro soli, get your facts right!!!
Petrus menjadi kepala Gereja BUKAN menggantikan Kristus, melainkan mewakili Kristus seperti yg diamanatkan langsung oleh Kristus untuk menggembalakan domba2Nya (Yoh 21 : 15 - 17)!!
Petrus adalah kepala dari para rasul lainnya, sebagai kepala dari gembala2 / pemimpin2 Gereja, sehingga tidak berlebihan jika Petrus disebut sebagai pemimpin Gereja mewakili Kristus yang telah mengamanatkan tugas ini kepada Petrus.
Kitab Suci pun tidak tanggung2 telah menyatakan kepempimpinan Petrus di antara rasul2 lainnya:



20 ALASAN Petrus TIDAK COCOK SEBAGAI PEMIMPIN PARA RASUL DAN PAUS ROMA KATHOLIK

1.   Paulus bukan Petrus yang diutus untuk menginjili bangsa lain yg bukan Yahudi

2.   Paulus ahli agama Yahudi dan ahli filsafat,pengetahuannya sangat luas karena ia murid Gamaliel guru yg paling top dijaman itu,sedangkan Petrus hanya nelayan biasa.

3.   Paulus tidak memiliki istri sedangkan Petrus punya istri

4.   Petrus pernah menyangkal Yesus tiga kali

5.   Petrus pernah disindir Yesus tiga kali

6.   Petrus tidak bisa mengendalikan emosi memotong kuping orang sampai putus

7.   Petrus pernah ditegur Paulus karena munafik

8.   Petrus ditegur Yesus karena ketiduran

9.   Petrus pernah dihardik Tuhan Yesus “enyahlah Iblis”,karena menjadi batu sandungan bagi Yesus

10.   Paulus tidak tercatat mempunyai sifat yg tercela setelah pertobatannya,sedangkan Petrus sering melakukan kesalahan walaupun selalu mendampingi Yesus.

11.   Paulus menulis Injil jauh lebih banyak dari Petrus

12.   Tidak pernah tercatat bahwa Petrus pernah pergi ke Roma

13.   Tidak ada superioritas didalam Kerasulan (2 Kor.11:5 ; 12:11)

14.   Petrus bukan kepala gereja melainkan hanya Yesus saja (Ef.1:22,23)

15.   Tidak pernah sekalipun Alkitab mencatat bahwa Petrus adalah Vicar Yesus KRISTUS

16.   Petrus tidak pernah menyatakan bahwa dia akan menjadi Paus gereja RK

17.   Batu karang gereja adalah Yesus bukan Petrus (1 Kor.10:4)

18.   Yang menjadi fondasi gereja adalah para Nabi dan Rasul,bukan hanya Petrus seorang (Ef.2:20)

19.   Didalam Matius 16 :18 yang dimaksud dengan batu karang adalah kata “Petra (a mass of rock),sedangkan nama Petrus berasal dari bahasa Gerika “Petros” (a detached stone, Yoh 1:42). Jadi Petrus adalah hanya sebuah batu bukan batukarang.Stone di Yoh.1:42 berbeda dengan rock di Matius 16:18.

20.   Yesus mendoakan Petrus agar imannya tidak jatuh (Luk.22:31,32)



Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on August 29, 2014, 10:37:04 PM

20 ALASAN Petrus TIDAK COCOK SEBAGAI PEMIMPIN PARA RASUL DAN PAUS ROMA KATHOLIK

1.   Paulus bukan Petrus yang diutus untuk menginjili bangsa lain yg bukan Yahudi

2.   Paulus ahli agama Yahudi dan ahli filsafat,pengetahuannya sangat luas karena ia murid Gamaliel guru yg paling top dijaman itu,sedangkan Petrus hanya nelayan biasa.

3.   Paulus tidak memiliki istri sedangkan Petrus punya istri

4.   Petrus pernah menyangkal Yesus tiga kali

5.   Petrus pernah disindir Yesus tiga kali

6.   Petrus tidak bisa mengendalikan emosi memotong kuping orang sampai putus

7.   Petrus pernah ditegur Paulus karena munafik

8.   Petrus ditegur Yesus karena ketiduran

9.   Petrus pernah dihardik Tuhan Yesus “enyahlah Iblis”,karena menjadi batu sandungan bagi Yesus

10.   Paulus tidak tercatat mempunyai sifat yg tercela setelah pertobatannya,sedangkan Petrus sering melakukan kesalahan walaupun selalu mendampingi Yesus.

11.   Paulus menulis Injil jauh lebih banyak dari Petrus

12.   Tidak pernah tercatat bahwa Petrus pernah pergi ke Roma

13.   Tidak ada superioritas didalam Kerasulan (2 Kor.11:5 ; 12:11)

14.   Petrus bukan kepala gereja melainkan hanya Yesus saja (Ef.1:22,23)

15.   Tidak pernah sekalipun Alkitab mencatat bahwa Petrus adalah Vicar Yesus KRISTUS

16.   Petrus tidak pernah menyatakan bahwa dia akan menjadi Paus gereja RK

17.   Batu karang gereja adalah Yesus bukan Petrus (1 Kor.10:4)

18.   Yang menjadi fondasi gereja adalah para Nabi dan Rasul,bukan hanya Petrus seorang (Ef.2:20)

19.   Didalam Matius 16 :18 yang dimaksud dengan batu karang adalah kata “Petra (a mass of rock),sedangkan nama Petrus berasal dari bahasa Gerika “Petros” (a detached stone, Yoh 1:42). Jadi Petrus adalah hanya sebuah batu bukan batukarang.Stone di Yoh.1:42 berbeda dengan rock di Matius 16:18.

20.   Yesus mendoakan Petrus agar imannya tidak jatuh (Luk.22:31,32)

lhoo mas..

situ engga nge-fans ke Petrus ya silakan..
situ menganggap Petrus engga qualified sebagai guru ya silakan..

kenapa ngerecokin orang lain yang tidak merasa demikian??

elo merasa seolah-olah diperintah Tuhan untuk ngerecokin orang, dengan dalih menyadarkan orang lain?

lah.. situ aja belum tentu sadar... pake nyadar-nyadarin orang lain..



judul postingnya diganti aja:
20 ALASAN Petrus TIDAK COCOK SEBAGAI PEMIMPIN PARA RASUL DAN PAUS GEREJA SOLI

nah... kalo gitu jadi beres urusan...
iya kan?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 10:57:59 PM
lhoo mas..

situ engga nge-fans ke Petrus ya silakan..
situ menganggap Petrus engga qualified sebagai guru ya silakan..

kenapa ngerecokin orang lain yang tidak merasa demikian??

elo merasa seolah-olah diperintah Tuhan untuk ngerecokin orang, dengan dalih menyadarkan orang lain?

lah.. situ aja belum tentu sadar... pake nyadar-nyadarin orang lain..



judul postingnya diganti aja:
20 ALASAN Petrus TIDAK COCOK SEBAGAI PEMIMPIN PARA RASUL DAN PAUS GEREJA SOLI

nah... kalo gitu jadi beres urusan...
iya kan?


Peraturan Umum ForumImanKristen

Board Diskusi dikategorikan menjadi 3 kategori berdasar kategori partisipan diskusi:.

•   Diskusi Trinitarian: HANYA untuk mendiskusikan ajaran2 Kristen Trinitarian, HANYA dikhususkan bagi member Kristen Trinitarian



Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on August 30, 2014, 08:14:36 AM

Peraturan Umum ForumImanKristen

Board Diskusi dikategorikan menjadi 3 kategori berdasar kategori partisipan diskusi:.

•   Diskusi Trinitarian: HANYA untuk mendiskusikan ajaran2 Kristen Trinitarian, HANYA dikhususkan bagi member Kristen Trinitarian

Junk Post bahaya disemprit admin lho...

btw..
yakin elo udah punya konci sorga??
nanti kalo pas udah mati, ternyata konci-nya keliru konci ke Alexis, bilang-bilang yah....
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on August 30, 2014, 08:18:55 AM
Junk Post bahaya disemprit admin lho...

btw..
yakin elo udah punya konci sorga??
nanti kalo pas udah mati, ternyata konci-nya keliru konci ke Alexis, bilang-bilang yah....


Peraturan Umum Forum ImanKristen

Board Diskusi dikategorikan menjadi 3 kategori berdasar kategori partisipan diskusi:.

•   Diskusi Trinitarian: HANYA untuk mendiskusikan ajaran2 Kristen Trinitarian, HANYA dikhususkan bagi member Kristen Trinitarian

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on August 30, 2014, 10:28:50 AM

Peraturan Umum Forum ImanKristen

Board Diskusi dikategorikan menjadi 3 kategori berdasar kategori partisipan diskusi:.

•   Diskusi Trinitarian: HANYA untuk mendiskusikan ajaran2 Kristen Trinitarian, HANYA dikhususkan bagi member Kristen Trinitarian

eh btw bro...

Menurut elo: Petrus TIDAK MEMEGANG KUNCI SORGA kan ya??

buktinya mana bahwa Petrus Tidak Memegang Kunci Sorga??
jangan cuma pokrol bambu doang...
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on August 30, 2014, 11:50:02 AM
Kita jangan percaya kata2 si soli, sebab Alkitab bilang begitu : "kita tidak perlu diajari"
Artinya, cukup belajar sendiri-sendiri itu sudah cukup.
Bukankah begitu soli?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on August 30, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
Coba perhatikan berapa kali murid kesayangan cak LonTong ini mengulang ulang posting :



Peraturan Umum Forum ImanKristen

Board Diskusi dikategorikan menjadi 3 kategori berdasar kategori partisipan diskusi:.

•   Diskusi Trinitarian: HANYA untuk mendiskusikan ajaran2 Kristen Trinitarian, HANYA dikhususkan bagi member Kristen Trinitarian




Benar benar seperti anak autis.....
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: OSAS on September 01, 2014, 06:44:13 AM

Peraturan Umum Forum ImanKristen

Board Diskusi dikategorikan menjadi 3 kategori berdasar kategori partisipan diskusi:.

•   Diskusi Trinitarian: HANYA untuk mendiskusikan ajaran2 Kristen Trinitarian, HANYA dikhususkan bagi member Kristen Trinitarian


Bro Soli,

Jangan digubris pengadu domba antar agama yang cari makan disini bro,mereka hanya pemecah belah kerjanya.

Moderator sedang tidur semua.

Shalom

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 01, 2014, 08:47:51 AM

Bro Soli,

Jangan digubris pengadu domba antar agama yang cari makan disini bro,mereka hanya pemecah belah kerjanya.

Moderator sedang tidur semua.

Shalom

Sesama pengidap saling dukung...

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 04, 2014, 02:13:33 AM
Sesama pengidap saling dukung...

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Pengidap apa nih? bisa diperjelas..  xixixx
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 04, 2014, 07:50:33 AM
Mulai dari autis sampai brain-damaged, bro
He he he he

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on September 04, 2014, 09:35:07 AM
Damai bagimu, Sol.

Karena ada yang menarik hati, postmu ini:
Protestan berdiri teguh diatas prinsip "Sola Scriptura" wahyu Tuhan yang berotoritas tertinggi,berbeda dengan GRK yang bersandar kepada tradisi rekayasa manusia belaka.

Dan Tuhan sudah memperingatkan :

Yeremia 11:3   Katakanlah kepada mereka: Beginilah firman Tuhan, Allah Israel: Terkutuklah orang yang tidak mendengarkan perkataan-perkataan perjanjian ini,

Yeremia 17:5   Beginilah firman Tuhan: "Terkutuklah orang yang mengandalkan manusia, yang mengandalkan kekuatannya sendiri, dan yang hatinya menjauh dari pada Tuhan!
saya komentari dengan post:
solideogloria, kitab Yeremia ada di Perjanjian Lama, ya? Saya tertarik pada post solideogloria ini, khususnya hubungan kata yang merah itu kepada keseluruhan ayat, apalagi perikop.

Di Perjanjian Baru, saya pikir, Tuhan sendiri mengandalkan manusia untuk menyebarkan kabar keselamatan, lho. Tuhan Yesus Kristus memilih para murid-Nyayang adalah manusia untuk ditugasi mengajarkan segala yang telah diperintahkan, bukan? Tuhan Yesus Kristus mengandalkan manusia untuk membaptis segala bangsa, kan?

Nah, bagaimana maksud dan tujuan solideogloria mengutipkan ayat itu di post ini?
Maksud saya, jika benar seperti pikiran solideogloria bahwa di PL Tuhan mengatakan bahwa manusia yang mengandalkan manusia akan menjadi terkutuk, mengapa ternyata di PB berkebalikan dengan itu? Di PB, Tuhan mengandalkan manusia dalam penyebaran kabar keselamatan, kabar gembira, Injil Kristus, juga mengandalkan manusia dalam mengajarkan segala sesuatu yang telah diperintahkan oleh Yesus Kristus. Apakah solideogloria ingin memperlihatkan adanya perbedaan sikap Tuhan ketika di PL dibanding ketika di PB?

Selanjutnya solideogloria menanggapi post saya itu dengan dengan:
Tentu saja manusia yang diandalkan Tuhan untuk memberitakan Injilnya itu harus memberitakan Injil yang benar bukan isapan jempol belaka !

2 Petrus 1:16
Sebab kami tidak mengikuti dongeng-dongeng isapan jempol manusia, ketika kami memberitahukan kepadamu kuasa dan kedatangan Tuhan kita, Yesus Kristus sebagai raja, tetapi kami adalah saksi mata dari kebesaran-Nya.

2 Petrus 2:3
Dan karena serakahnya guru-guru palsu itu akan berusaha mencari untung dari kamu dengan ceritera-ceritera isapan jempol mereka. Tetapi untuk perbuatan mereka itu hukuman telah lama tersedia dan kebinasaan tidak akan tertunda.
Post tanggapan solideogloria ini membingungkan saya.

Menurut yang saya tangkap, post Anda ini menggeser sub bahasan dari mengandalkan manusia kepada sub bahasan isapan jempol manusia. Sungguh tidak dapat saya tangkap apa yang akan solideogloria sampaikan. Terkesan, solideogloria itu tidak fokus. Apakah ada penjelasan lain yang belum solideogloria kemukakan sehingga bagi saya, informasinya terasa terputus alias tidak nyambung?

solideogloria masih bisa berpikir linier, kan? Berpikir linier maksud saya adalah berpikir sinambung, tidak 'meloncat-loncat' tanpa pemberitahuan. Jika sub bahasan sedang berada pada mengandalkan manusia, jangan pula tanpa ba-bi-bu langsung pindah ke sub bahasan isapan jempol manusia.

Bisa solideogloria perjelas?

Damai bagimu.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on September 04, 2014, 07:31:21 PM
Siapa yang lari karena saya hanya menjelaskan satu ayat tsb sebagai bukti bahwa Petrus juga menjabat Penatua !

Kalo Anda gunakan ayat ini untuk menyatakan bahwa Petrus JUGA menjabat sebagai penatua, maka aku tidak memiliki keberatan sama sekali.
Permasalahannya adalah karena Anda menggunakan ayat ini untuk menyatakan bahwa Petrus HANYA menjabat sebagai penatua! Ini yg Anda tuliskan secara gamblang di reply Anda #71!!

Kalau Petrus sebagai gembala mengapa pula Rasul lainnya bukan sebab jabatan gembala adalah plural :

 Efesus 4:11 Dan Ialah yang memberikan baik rasul-rasul maupun nabi-nabi, baik pemberita-pemberita Injil maupungembala-gembala dan pengajar-pengajar,


Bagaimana pula orang yg bukan Rasul bisa menjabat gembala sedangkan Rasul sendiri tidak ???

Sama sekali tidak masuk akal sehat !

Tugas yang diberikan kepada Petrus juga berlaku bagi Rasul lainnya :

Matius 18:1 Pada waktu itu datanglah murid-murid itu kepada Yesus dan bertanya: "Siapakah yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga?"
18:18 Aku berkata kepadamu: Sesungguhnya apa yang kamu ikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kamu lepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga.


Bersambung

Lho... justru aku yg seharusnya menanyakan hal ini ke Anda!
Anda kan hanya menggunakan sola scriptura sebagai satu2nya sumber kebenaran.

Anda gunakan Ef 4 : 11 untuk menyimpulkan bahwa rasul2 lain adalah gembala seperti Petrus???
Salah besar!!! Ayat ini hanya mengatakan bahwa Tuhan memberikan rasul2, nabi2, pemberita Injil, gembala2, dan pengajar2.
Ayat ini sama sekali TIDAK menyatakan bahwa rasul = gembala!!
Kalo scriptura tidak mengatakan rasul2 adalah gembala seperti Petrus, lalu Anda gunakan interpretasi untuk menyimpulkan rasul2 lain sebagai gembala, maka Anda sendiri yg sedang ber-argumentum ex silentio!!

Mat 18 : 1 membahas topik yang terpisah dari Mat 18 : 18.
Dan siapa yg menolak bahwa kuasa yg dimiliki Petrus untuk mengikat ajaran (Mat 16 : 18) juga dimiliki oleh rasul2 lain dalam sidang para rasul (Mat 18 : 18)??
Kami justru berkali2 mengingatkan Anda bahwa para rasul dan penerus2 rasul secara bersama2 (dalam sidang para rasul) memiliki kuasa yg sama seperti yg dimiliki oleh Petrus secara pribadi.
Tapi ayat2 ini sama sekali tidak mengatakan bahwa dengan memiliki kuasa yg sama maka para rasul menjadi gembala juga. Interpretasi lah yg menyimpulkan demikian, jadi jika Anda hanya menggunakan sola-scriptura tapi menggunakan interpretasi untuk menarik kesimpulan, maka Anda lah yg sebenarnya sedang ber-argumentum ex silentio!!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on September 04, 2014, 07:32:29 PM

Semua tafsiran ayat tsb hanya manipulasi untuk meninggikan Petrus belaka sebagai batu loncatan bagi paus untuk mengkalim dirinya sebagai kepala seluruh gereja didunia !


Alkitab sama sekali tidak pernah membicarakan :

1.   Petrus sebagai kepala gereja sebagaimana Paus

2.   Paus sebagai kepala gereja

3.   Paus adalah penerus Petrus

4.   Paus adalah wakil Kristus

5.   Petrus adalah Batukarang Gereja

6.   Petrus pernah ke Roma

7.   Yesus mengangkat Petrus sebagai Paus

8.   Petrus menganggap dirinya sebagai Paus

9.   Petrus menyerahkan jabatan Paus kepada penerusnya

Sama sekali tidak ada keistimewaan Petrus dibandingkan Rasul lainnya,malah ia sering  ditegur oleh Yesus dan Paulus.

Anda gunakan interpretasi untuk menyimpulkan rasul2 lain adalah gembala yg sama seperti Petrus.
Lalu.. apa salahnya jika kami menggunakan interpretasi juga untuk menyimpulkan keutamaan Petrus di atas rasul lain?
Apa salahnya kami memegang teguh interpretasi dan ajaran penerus2 rasul, bahkan yg hidup sejaman dengan para rasul pertama seperti Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, dsb, bahwa Petrus dan penerus2 Petrus sebagai uskup Roma adalah pemimpin dari para rasul?

Anda katakan tafsiran kami adalah manipulasi belaka?
Likewise, tafsiran2 seperti tafsiran Anda yg tidak sesuai dengan ajaran yg diikat oleh sidang para rasul  sejatinya adalah manipulasi belaka, seperti bidaat Arianism dan Nestorianism yg sudah dikutuk oleh Gereja sejak awal mula dalam konsili2 Gereja!

Ingat, kami tidak pernah ber-sola scriptura, jadi kami juga menyandarkan iman kami pada tafsiran2 Kitab Suci, yang kebenarannya ditemukan dalam Tradisi Suci!
Ingat, Anda hanya ber-sola scriptura, jika menyandarkan pada tafsiran Anda untuk menyatakan tafsiran2 bapa2 Gereja / teolog klasik sebagai manipulasi belaka, Anda sebenarnya sedang menuding hidung Anda sendiri!
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on September 04, 2014, 07:32:57 PM

Petrus BUKAN BATU YANG KOKOH

Petrus sebagai manusia biasa juga tidak terlepas dari kesalahan dan ketidaksempurnaan. Ia adalah bukan batu yang kokoh. Inilah beberapa catatan ketidaksempurnaan Petrus :

1.   Tuhan Yesus pernah menegor Petrus dan menyebut Petrus dengan sebutan "Iblis". Matius 16:23. Mengapa Tuhan Yesus menegor Petrus? Karena Petrus hanya memikirkan apa yang dipikirkan oleh manusia. Ia tidak memikirkan apa yang dipikirkan Tuhan.

2.   Petrus pernah menyangkal Yesus 3 kali. Matius 26:74. Karakter Petrus sangat labil saat itu.

3.   Galatia 2:11-14. Paulus pernah menegor Petrus karena Petrus bersikap munafik.

4.   Petrus terkenal dengan emosinya yang tidak terkendali.

5.   Petrus memotong telinga Malhkus.

Secara umum, Petrus tidak lepas dari kesalahan, karena ia juga adalah manusia yang berdosa. Petrus sama seperti kita, ia tidak diberikan wewenang atau kelebihan khusus dari Tuhan.

See.. membedakan infallibility Petrus dengan impeccability Petrus saja Anda kebingungan, kok bisa2nya mengatakan bahwa infallibility Petrus itu tidak Alkitabiah??

Dari Matius 16:23 Anda simpulkan bahwa Petrus memikirkan pikiran manusia, lalu apakah Anda mau simpulkan bahwa pengakuan iman Petrus ttg keilahian Yesus (Mat 16 : 16) juga berasal dari manusia???

Anda katakan (Mat 26 : 74) bahwa Petrus itu labil, lalu apakah Anda mau menyimpulkan bahwa Yesus mempercayakan domba2Nya kepada orang yg labil (Yoh 21 : 15-18)???

Anda katakan Petrus adalah munafik karena ditegor Paulus dalam Gal 2 : 11 - 14? Lalu mengapa Anda pakai surat2 Petrus sebagai bagian dari Kitab Suci Anda??

Lho... Petrus itu tidak impeccable di mata Anda, tapi kok Anda terima ajaran2nya, dan Anda terima bahwa Petrus adalah rasul yg sejati?
Kalo Anda mau terima bahwa Petrus adalah rasul yg sejati, bukan kah berarti Petrus yg tidak impeccable itu sejatinya adalah infallible?

Eh... By the way, Anda tau bedanya tidak sih antara impeccable dengan infallible?  :grining: :grining:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on September 04, 2014, 07:33:37 PM
Silahkan sanggah saja semua ajaran para apa yang dianggap Bapa Gereja itu yang sudah saya kutip lengkap dari sumber William Webster yang secara gamblang sudah membongkar segala macam manipulasi GRK terhadap ayat Matius 16 tsb.

Sama sekali tidak ada Keutamaan Petrus dibandingkan Rasul lainnya didalam ajaran para Bapa Gereja tsb !

Lho... udah aku jawab tuh di reply #135, aku buktikan bahwa Agustine tidak pernah menolak supremacy Roma!
Sudah aku berikan juga bukti2nya juga di reply itu.

Lha... Satu bantahanku aja belom Anda / William Webster tanggapi, apa gunanya aku berikan bantahan2 lainnya yg bakal berjubel2 banyaknya itu?

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on September 04, 2014, 07:33:55 PM
Memang siapa yang bilang Uskup Roma sebagai kepala semua Uskup didunia ????

Itu hanya klaim kosong penuh arogansi belaka !

Ingat jabatan paus itu melalui proses yanjg panjang tidak langSung ada,dan tidak ada bukti diakui oleh gereja diluar GRK !

Penerus2 para rasul, bahkan yang hidup sejaman dengan rasul2 pertama, semuanya mengatakan demikian tuh!
Bahwa penerus2 Petrus sebagai Uskup Roma adalah pemimpin dari Gereja Universal!
Itu sudah aku berikan berjubel2 buktinya di reply #135, juga sudah aku berikan lebih banyak lagi di sini:
http://forumimankristen.com/index.php/topic,1719.0.html
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Jenova on September 04, 2014, 07:34:36 PM

20 ALASAN Petrus TIDAK COCOK SEBAGAI PEMIMPIN PARA RASUL DAN PAUS ROMA KATHOLIK

1.   Paulus bukan Petrus yang diutus untuk menginjili bangsa lain yg bukan Yahudi

2.   Paulus ahli agama Yahudi dan ahli filsafat,pengetahuannya sangat luas karena ia murid Gamaliel guru yg paling top dijaman itu,sedangkan Petrus hanya nelayan biasa.

3.   Paulus tidak memiliki istri sedangkan Petrus punya istri

4.   Petrus pernah menyangkal Yesus tiga kali

5.   Petrus pernah disindir Yesus tiga kali

6.   Petrus tidak bisa mengendalikan emosi memotong kuping orang sampai putus

7.   Petrus pernah ditegur Paulus karena munafik

8.   Petrus ditegur Yesus karena ketiduran

9.   Petrus pernah dihardik Tuhan Yesus “enyahlah Iblis”,karena menjadi batu sandungan bagi Yesus

10.   Paulus tidak tercatat mempunyai sifat yg tercela setelah pertobatannya,sedangkan Petrus sering melakukan kesalahan walaupun selalu mendampingi Yesus.

11.   Paulus menulis Injil jauh lebih banyak dari Petrus

12.   Tidak pernah tercatat bahwa Petrus pernah pergi ke Roma

13.   Tidak ada superioritas didalam Kerasulan (2 Kor.11:5 ; 12:11)

14.   Petrus bukan kepala gereja melainkan hanya Yesus saja (Ef.1:22,23)

15.   Tidak pernah sekalipun Alkitab mencatat bahwa Petrus adalah Vicar Yesus KRISTUS

16.   Petrus tidak pernah menyatakan bahwa dia akan menjadi Paus gereja RK

17.   Batu karang gereja adalah Yesus bukan Petrus (1 Kor.10:4)

18.   Yang menjadi fondasi gereja adalah para Nabi dan Rasul,bukan hanya Petrus seorang (Ef.2:20)

19.   Didalam Matius 16 :18 yang dimaksud dengan batu karang adalah kata “Petra (a mass of rock),sedangkan nama Petrus berasal dari bahasa Gerika “Petros” (a detached stone, Yoh 1:42). Jadi Petrus adalah hanya sebuah batu bukan batukarang.Stone di Yoh.1:42 berbeda dengan rock di Matius 16:18.

20.   Yesus mendoakan Petrus agar imannya tidak jatuh (Luk.22:31,32)

Ini alasan siapa yg membuat sih??
Lha wong jelas2 penerus2 rasul, bahkan banyak yg hidup sejaman dengan rasul2 generasi pertama justru mengakui dan menyatakan supremasi Petrus dan uskup Roma sebagai penerus2 Petrus memegang supremacy kok. SIlakan dilihat lagi bukti2 yg aku berikan di reply #135.

Alasan2 yg dibuat oleh seorang sola-scripturist modern, dibanding pengakuan dan pernyataan penerus2 rasul dalam sidang para rasul, aku rasa tidak memerlukan otak yg jenius utk menyimpulkan alasan mana yg lebih benar... :grining:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 05, 2014, 04:56:35 PM
Damai bagimu, Sol.

Karena ada yang menarik hati, postmu ini:saya komentari dengan post:Maksud saya, jika benar seperti pikiran solideogloria bahwa di PL Tuhan mengatakan bahwa manusia yang mengandalkan manusia akan menjadi terkutuk, mengapa ternyata di PB berkebalikan dengan itu? Di PB, Tuhan mengandalkan manusia dalam penyebaran kabar keselamatan, kabar gembira, Injil Kristus, juga mengandalkan manusia dalam mengajarkan segala sesuatu yang telah diperintahkan oleh Yesus Kristus. Apakah solideogloria ingin memperlihatkan adanya perbedaan sikap Tuhan ketika di PL dibanding ketika di PB?

Selanjutnya solideogloria menanggapi post saya itu dengan dengan:Post tanggapan solideogloria ini membingungkan saya.

Menurut yang saya tangkap, post Anda ini menggeser sub bahasan dari mengandalkan manusia kepada sub bahasan isapan jempol manusia. Sungguh tidak dapat saya tangkap apa yang akan solideogloria sampaikan. Terkesan, solideogloria itu tidak fokus. Apakah ada penjelasan lain yang belum solideogloria kemukakan sehingga bagi saya, informasinya terasa terputus alias tidak nyambung?

solideogloria masih bisa berpikir linier, kan? Berpikir linier maksud saya adalah berpikir sinambung, tidak 'meloncat-loncat' tanpa pemberitahuan. Jika sub bahasan sedang berada pada mengandalkan manusia, jangan pula tanpa ba-bi-bu langsung pindah ke sub bahasan isapan jempol manusia.

Bisa solideogloria perjelas?

Damai bagimu.


Tuhan menggunakan manusia untuk memberitakan Injil yang sejati bukan Injil yang sudah dimanipulasi karena Kitab Suci sendiri mengatakan sbb :

Galatia 1:8 Tetapi sekalipun kami atau seorang malaikat dari sorga yang memberitakan kepada kamu suatu injil yang berbeda dengan Injil yang telah kami beritakan kepadamu, terkutuklah dia.

Galatia 1:9 Seperti yang telah kami katakan dahulu, sekarang kukatakan sekali lagi: jikalau ada orang yang memberitakan kepadamu suatu injil, yang berbeda dengan apa yang telah kamu terima, terkutuklahdia.

Mengajarkan segala macam tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol sama sekali manusia tsb bukan alat ditangan Tuhan malah sudah menghujat Tuhan namanya.

Jadi perlu anda bedakan manusia dipakai Tuhan untuk apa dpl jangan menyalahgunakan apa yang Tuhan tidak perintahkan atau larang.



Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 05, 2014, 04:56:48 PM
Kalo Anda gunakan ayat ini untuk menyatakan bahwa Petrus JUGA menjabat sebagai penatua, maka aku tidak memiliki keberatan sama sekali.
Permasalahannya adalah karena Anda menggunakan ayat ini untuk menyatakan bahwa Petrus HANYA menjabat sebagai penatua! Ini yg Anda tuliskan secara gamblang di reply Anda #71!!


Memang diayat tsb yg saya kutip  Petrus hanya dikatakan sebagai seorang Penatua,tidak ada jabatan yang lainnya yang disebut  !!!

Mosok anda mau modifikasi lagi ayat tsb dengan segudang atribut lainnya milik gereja anda apalagi yang sama sekali tidak ada dasar Alkitabnya ???

Sekalipun Petrus menyebut dirinya sendiri sebagai rasul (1Pet 1:1), tetapi:

•   Dalam 1Pet 5:1 Petrus menyebut dirinya sebagai fellow elder (= teman / sesama penatua). Ini jelas merupakan sebutan yang menyejajarkan dirinya dengan para penatua yang lain.

•   Dalam 1Pet 5:2-3 Petrus melarang untuk memaksa / memerintah. Ini tentu berbeda dengan apa yang dilakukan oleh para Paus dalam gereja Roma Katolik!

•   Dalam Kis 10:25-26, Petrus menolak penyembahan. Ini lagi- lagi berbeda dengan sikap para Paus yang menerima saja pada waktu jemaat Katolik mencium kakinya (tradisi penciuman kaki Paus dimulai oleh Paus Constantine pada tahun 709 Masehi).


Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on August 29, 2014, 09:51:58 PM
Kalau Petrus sebagai gembala mengapa pula Rasul lainnya bukan sebab jabatan gembala adalah plural :
 Efesus 4:11 Dan Ialah yang memberikan baik rasul-rasul maupun nabi-nabi, baik pemberita-pemberita Injil maupungembala-gembala dan pengajar-pengajar,
Bagaimana pula orang yg bukan Rasul bisa menjabat gembala sedangkan Rasul sendiri tidak ???
Sama sekali tidak masuk akal sehat !
Tugas yang diberikan kepada Petrus juga berlaku bagi Rasul lainnya :
Matius 18:1 Pada waktu itu datanglah murid-murid itu kepada Yesus dan bertanya: "Siapakah yang terbesar dalam Kerajaan Sorga?"
18:18 Aku berkata kepadamu: Sesungguhnya apa yang kamu ikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kamu lepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga.

Bersambung

Lho... justru aku yg seharusnya menanyakan hal ini ke Anda!
Anda kan hanya menggunakan sola scriptura sebagai satu2nya sumber kebenaran.

Anda gunakan Ef 4 : 11 untuk menyimpulkan bahwa rasul2 lain adalah gembala seperti Petrus???
Salah besar!!! Ayat ini hanya mengatakan bahwa Tuhan memberikan rasul2, nabi2, pemberita Injil, gembala2, dan pengajar2.
Ayat ini sama sekali TIDAK menyatakan bahwa rasul = gembala!!
Kalo scriptura tidak mengatakan rasul2 adalah gembala seperti Petrus, lalu Anda gunakan interpretasi untuk menyimpulkan rasul2 lain sebagai gembala, maka Anda sendiri yg sedang ber-argumentum ex silentio!!

Yohanes 21:15
Sesudah sarapan Yesus berkata kepada Simon Petrus: "Simon, anak Yohanes, apakah engkau mengasihi Aku lebih dari pada mereka ini?" Jawab Petrus kepada-Nya: "Benar Tuhan, Engkau tahu, bahwa aku mengasihi Engkau." Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Gembalakanlah domba-domba-Ku."

Kalau anda menafsirkan hanya Petrus sebagai satu satunya pemegang jabatan “gembala” maka silahkan tunjukkan mana ayatnya menyatakan dia sebagai gembala tunggal bagi semua gereja ???

Anda yang sudah ber-argumentum ex silentio disini karena tidak ada pernyataan bahwa hanya Petrus satu satunya pemegang jabatan sebagai gembala semua gereja seperti klaim dalam jabatan  Paus anda itu, sebab itu hanya milik Kristus saja.

Kalau jabatan gerejawi sebagai gembala (pastors)  maka itu bersifat plural selain “Gembala Agung” yang hanya milik Kristus sendiri.

Kalau pekerjaan menggembalakan (kata kerja “feed” ) maka itu adalah tugas siapa saja termasuk para Rasul sekalipun.

Kalau anda ingin meninggikan Petrus diatas Rasul lain camkan apa kata Yesus ini :

Lukas 22:24 -26 Terjadilah juga pertengkaran di antara murid-murid Yesus, siapakah yang dapat dianggap terbesar di antara mereka. Yesus berkata kepada mereka: "Raja-raja bangsa-bangsa memerintah rakyat mereka dan orang-orang yang menjalankan kuasa atas mereka disebut pelindung-pelindung.Tetapi kamu tidaklah demikian, melainkan yang terbesar di antara kamu hendaklah menjadi sebagai yang paling muda dan pemimpin sebagai pelayan.

Yesus tidak pernah mengajarkan ada Rasul yang lebih tinggi dari Rasul lainnya selain tradisi rekayasa gereja anda yang menggunakan “Petrine Primacy Texts” hanya untuk meninggikan Petrus sebagai jembatan bagi jabatan Paus gereja anda untuk menjadi kepala gereja secara universal,yang sama sekali tidak ada dassr kebenarannya.

Justru Paulus menuduh Petrus sebagai munafik,mana mungkin ini dilakukan kalau Petrus sebagai gembala Rasul lainnya ???

Baca lagi replay 153 mengenai ketidakmungkinan Petrus sebagai pemimpin dan gembala bagi Rasul lainnya dan gereja secara universal.


Quote
Mat 18 : 1 membahas topik yang terpisah dari Mat 18 : 18.
Dan siapa yg menolak bahwa kuasa yg dimiliki Petrus untuk mengikat ajaran (Mat 16 : 18) juga dimiliki oleh rasul2 lain dalam sidang para rasul (Mat 18 : 18)??
Kami justru berkali2 mengingatkan Anda bahwa para rasul dan penerus2 rasul secara bersama2 (dalam sidang para rasul) memiliki kuasa yg sama seperti yg dimiliki oleh Petrus secara pribadi.
Tapi ayat2 ini sama sekali tidak mengatakan bahwa dengan memiliki kuasa yg sama maka para rasul menjadi gembala juga. Interpretasi lah yg menyimpulkan demikian, jadi jika Anda hanya menggunakan sola-scriptura tapi menggunakan interpretasi untuk menarik kesimpulan, maka Anda lah yg sebenarnya sedang ber-argumentum ex silentio!!

Terpisah tetapi mengandung prinsip yang sama bahwa Yesus tidak pernah membedakan siapa yang lebih tinggi diantara para Rasul selain tradisi bikinan gereja anda sendiri (Lukas 22:24 -26).

Memutarbalikkan “Petrine Primacy Texts” GRK hanyalah kebohongan belaka tanpa dasar kebenaran Kitab Suci sama sekali.

Soal jabatan gembala (pastors) dan pekerjaan menggembalakan (feed) sudah saya jelaskan perbedaannya diatas.

Yakobus dan Yohanes pernah datang kepada Yesus meminta jika seorang dari mereka dapat duduk di sebelah kanan dan lainnya di sebelah kiri dalam kerajaan-Nya (Dalam Kerajaan-kerajaan Timur, dua menteri utama kerajaan, menduduki otoritas setelah sang raja, yang memiliki posisi ini). Jika pernyataan Roma Katholik benar, nampaknya Yesus pasti sudah menerangkan bahwa Dia telah memberikan tempat di sebelah kanan itu bagi Petrus, dan tidak berniat membuat posisi lain di sebelah kiri!! Tetapi sebaliknya, ini adalah jawaban Yesus: “Kamu tahu, bahwa para pangeran dari bangsa-bangsa lain memerintah rakyatnya dengan keras, dan para-pembesarnya menjalankan kuasa besarnya atas mereka, tetapi tidaklah demikian di antara kamu. (Markus 10:35-43 KJV).


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 05, 2014, 04:56:58 PM
Anda gunakan interpretasi untuk menyimpulkan rasul2 lain adalah gembala yg sama seperti Petrus.
Lalu.. apa salahnya jika kami menggunakan interpretasi juga untuk menyimpulkan keutamaan Petrus di atas rasul lain?
Apa salahnya kami memegang teguh interpretasi dan ajaran penerus2 rasul, bahkan yg hidup sejaman dengan para rasul pertama seperti Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, dsb, bahwa Petrus dan penerus2 Petrus sebagai uskup Roma adalah pemimpin dari para rasul?


GRK sudah membuat tradisi ajaran mengenai Petrus yang tidak benar hanya sebagai alat pijakan untuk meninggikan jabatan Paus gereja anda sebagai kepala gereja secara universal secara tidak bertanggungjawab,karena itu hanya dipegang secara eklusif oleh Tuhan Yesus saja.

Kitab Suci tidak pernah mengajarkan ke-9 point diatas mengenai jabatan Petrus sedangkan gereja anda mengajarkan hal hal yang sudah menipu umatnya seolah olah itu sudah sesuai dengan Kitab Suci padahal sebenarnya banyak kontradisksinya (diametrically opposed).

Kalau anda menolak kebenaran Kitab Suci diatas tradisi bikinan gereja anda yang anda anggap infallible dan yang berlangsung terus-menerus selama ribuan tahun itu maka saya tidak perlu mengkritik komentar anda.

Kalau anda mempersamakan derajat dan otoritas antara Kitab Suci firman Tuhan dengan semua tradisi bikinan gereja anda itu maka jelas anda sudah menghina wahyu Tuhan itu sendiri,apalah kalau membuat ytadisi yang anti dengan kebenaran Kitab Suci (anti-biblically).

Lepaskan saja Kitab Suci sebagai pilar gereja anda dan silahkan pakai tradisi bikinan gereja anda sendiri maka saya tidak akan berkomentar lagi.

Saya tidak mungkin akan tinggal diam kalau Kitab Suci firman Tuhan dipermainkan dan diputarbalikkan hanya untuk meninggikan/mengilahikan/mempertuhankan manusia berdosa yang berambisi mau menjadi seperti Tuhan itu.

Bukti bukti sudah banyak sayam kutip disini !


Quote
Anda katakan tafsiran kami adalah manipulasi belaka?
Likewise, tafsiran2 seperti tafsiran Anda yg tidak sesuai dengan ajaran yg diikat oleh sidang para rasul  sejatinya adalah manipulasi belaka, seperti bidaat Arianism dan Nestorianism yg sudah dikutuk oleh Gereja sejak awal mula dalam konsili2 Gereja!

Silahkan buktikan secara nyata mana penafsiran saya yang bertentangan dengan kebenaran Kitab Suci ketimbang hanya melempar tuduhan kosong belaka !

Penafsiran saya memang sangat bertentangan dengan tradisi bikinan GRK karena tradisi gereja tsb  sudah jelas sekali melawan kebenaran ajaran Kitab Suci wahyu Tuhan,dan saya sedang mempersoalkannya disini.
Bukti buktinya sudah banyak saya berikan !

Justru prinsip “Alkitab Plus” GRK persis gereja Mormon dan YW sedangkan prinsip “Bible + tradisi” persis ajaran Yudaisme yang sudah dikecam habis habisan oleh Tuhan Yesus didalam Kitab Suci.


Quote
Ingat, kami tidak pernah ber-sola scriptura, jadi kami juga menyandarkan iman kami pada tafsiran2 Kitab Suci, yang kebenarannya ditemukan dalam Tradisi Suci!
Ingat, Anda hanya ber-sola scriptura, jika menyandarkan pada tafsiran Anda untuk menyatakan tafsiran2 bapa2 Gereja / teolog klasik sebagai manipulasi belaka, Anda sebenarnya sedang menuding hidung Anda sendiri!

Ingat bahwa semua penafsiran monopoly gereja anda itu sudah jauh menyimpang dari kebenaran Kitab Suci secara “obyektif” dan buktinya sudah saya kutip disini.

Ingat juga bahwa prinsip Sola Scriptura adalah menjadikan Kitab Suci sebagai satu satunya ajaran yang berotoritas tertinggi dan final bagi ajaran gereja kristen manapun kalau masih mengaku sebagai gereja tubuh Kristus.

Ingat lagi bagaimana tradisi gereja anda sudah memanipulasi kebenaran Kitab Suci hanya untuk mengilahikan manusia secara berhala dengan menghujat Allah Tritunggal dan Fiman-Nya padahal itu sangat dibenci oleh Tuhan sendiri.

Dan juga ingatlah bahwa semua wahyu Tuhan “sekarang ini” sudah lengkap tertulis didalam Kitab Suci dan tidak boleh dimodifikasi oleh siapapun walaupun Paus anda mengklaim berotoritas memodifikasinya karena dia tidak berhak melakukan hal yang demikian.

Gereja harus berdiri diatas kebenaran Kitab Suci hasil penulisan para Nabi dan Rasul bukan menginjak-injak kebenaran Kitab Suci hanya untuk meninggikan manusia secara idolatry !

Buktinya sudah banyak saya kutip !


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 05, 2014, 05:02:00 PM
See.. membedakan infallibility Petrus dengan impeccability Petrus saja Anda kebingungan, kok bisa2nya mengatakan bahwa infallibility Petrus itu tidak Alkitabiah??


Petrus jauh lebih tinggi dari para Paus anda karena dia adalah Rasul yang dipilih sendiri oleh Tuhan Yesus dan dia sering salah menafsirkan ajaran Tuhan Yesus.

Mengapa pula Paus anda dianggap infallible kalau dia hanya manusia biasa yg rentan heresy dan bukan seorang Rasul.

Sudah pernah tahu peristiwa Paus Honorius anda yang dituduh mengeluarkan ajaran sesat oleh Paus lainnya ???
Maaf kalau saya terpaksa harus mengatakan bahwa  ajaran manusia bisa infallible didalam membuat doktrin gereja hanyalah omong kosong doang !

Tidak pernah ada kursi yang begitu saktinya ( ex-cathedra) sampai siapapun yang duduk diatasnya tidak bisa keliru didalam mengeluarkankan ajaran baru.

Contohnya saja dimana dasar kebenaran ajaran ex-cathedra mengenai Mary Assumption ???

Bagaimana pula perebutan kekuasaan antar Paus (Anti Pope) yang penuh ambisius sampai menciptakan lebih dari satu Paus didalam waktu yang sama ?

Apakah kwalitas manusia seperti ini pantas disebut penyandang infallible ?

Saya kira jauh panggang dari api bro.

Buah jatuh tidak jauh dari pohonnya !


Quote
Dari Matius 16:23 Anda simpulkan bahwa Petrus memikirkan pikiran manusia, lalu apakah Anda mau simpulkan bahwa pengakuan iman Petrus ttg keilahian Yesus (Mat 16 : 16) juga berasal dari manusia???

Sudah tentu pikiran Allah lebih tinggi dari pikiran manusia dan semua pikiran manusia yang bukan bersumber dari kebenaran firman Allah wajib ditolak sedangkan pikirannya yang mengandung kebenaran boleh diterima.

Siapa yang mengajarkan Petrus mengatakan bahwa Yesus adalah Anak Allah ?

Apakah itu datang dari Petrus sendiri ?

Atau anda pura pura tidak baca ayat sbb :

Matius 16:16 Maka jawab Simon Petrus: "Engkau adalah Mesias, Anak Allah yang hidup!"
16:17 Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Berbahagialah engkau Simon bin Yunus sebab bukan manusia yang menyatakan itu kepadamu, melainkan Bapa-Ku yang di sorga.

Jangan biasakan memutilasi ayat bro !


Quote
Anda katakan (Mat 26 : 74) bahwa Petrus itu labil, lalu apakah Anda mau menyimpulkan bahwa Yesus mempercayakan domba2Nya kepada orang yg labil (Yoh 21 : 15-18)???

Setiap manusia memerlukan waktu untuk bertumbuh didalam imannya !

Efesus 4:11 Dan Ialah yang memberikan baik rasul-rasul maupun nabi-nabi, baik pemberita-pemberita Injil maupun gembala-gembala dan pengajar-pengajar,
4:12 untuk memperlengkapi orang-orang kudus bagi pekerjaan pelayanan, bagi pembangunan tubuh Kristus,
4:13 sampai kita semua telah mencapai kesatuan iman dan pengetahuan yang benar tentang Anak Allah, kedewasaan penuh, dan tingkat pertumbuhan yang sesuai dengan kepenuhan Kristus

Tidak ada manusia yang bebas dari kesalahan karena hanya Tuhan saja yang sempurma bebas dari kesalahan.

Roma 3:10 - 12seperti ada tertulis: "Tidak ada yang benar, seorang pun tidak.Tidak ada seorang pun yang berakal budi, tidak ada seorang pun yang mencari Allah.Semua orang telah menyeleweng, mereka semua tidak berguna, tidak ada yang berbuat baik, seorang pun tidak.


Quote
Anda katakan Petrus adalah munafik karena ditegor Paulus dalam Gal 2 : 11 - 14? Lalu mengapa Anda pakai surat2 Petrus sebagai bagian dari Kitab Suci Anda??

Lho... Petrus itu tidak impeccable di mata Anda, tapi kok Anda terima ajaran2nya, dan Anda terima bahwa Petrus adalah rasul yg sejati?
Kalo Anda mau terima bahwa Petrus adalah rasul yg sejati, bukan kah berarti Petrus yg tidak impeccable itu sejatinya adalah infallible?

Eh... By the way, Anda tau bedanya tidak sih antara impeccable dengan infallible? 

Saya berikan anda ilustrasi :

1.   Petrus pernah mengatakan sesuatu yang keliru

2.   Petrus juga pernah mengatakan sesuatu yang benar

Hanya ada 3 sikap kita didalam menghadapinya yaitu :

1.   Menolak semua apa yang pernah dikatakan Petrus

2.   Menyetujui atau menerima semua apa yang pernah dikatakan Petrus

3.   Menolak yang keliru dan menerima yang benar dari perkataan Petrus.

Rejection:

Ketika Petrus mengatakan “: "Tuhan, kiranya Allah menjauhkan hal itu! Hal itu sekali-kali takkan menimpa Engkau."(Mat.16:22),lalu Yesus mengatakan “"Enyahlah Iblis. Engkau suatu batu sandungan bagi-Ku, sebab engkau bukan memikirkan apa yang dipikirkan Allah, melainkan apa yang dipikirkan manusia.” (Mat.16:23)

Affirmative:

Ketika Petrus mengatakan “"Engkau adalah Mesias, Anak Allah yang hidup!" maka Yesus mengatakan “: "Berbahagialah engkau Simon bin Yunus sebab bukan manusia yang menyatakan itu kepadamu, melainkan Bapa-Ku yang di sorga (Mat.16:16,17)

Saya tidak tahu anda berada diposisi mana ,silahkan dijelaskan !

Hal ini juga berlaku bagi pernyataan Gregory of Nyssa yang selalu anda persoalkan itu !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 05, 2014, 05:05:54 PM
Lho... udah aku jawab tuh di reply #135, aku buktikan bahwa Agustine tidak pernah menolak supremacy Roma!
Sudah aku berikan juga bukti2nya juga di reply itu.

Lha... Satu bantahanku aja belom Anda / William Webster tanggapi, apa gunanya aku berikan bantahan2 lainnya yg bakal berjubel2 banyaknya itu?


Saya kutip lagi

While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome.

Setelah saya baca sepertinya tidak ada penyangkalan atas komentar Agustinus tsb diatas.

Sudah saya kutip begitu banyaknya apa yang anda anggap para Bapa Gereja menolak supremasi GRK karena mereka memiliki penafsiran yang berbeda total dengan penafsiran  “Petrine Texts” yang dimiiliki oleh GRK tsb,justrumisu itulah yg mengakibatkan perpecahan gereja Roma Katolik dengan Orthodox Timur.

Jadi supremasi GRK itu hanya berlaku lokal didalam lingkungan gereja itu sendiri.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. While not denying that some form of primacy could exist for Rome's bishop, Orthodox Christians argue that the tradition of Rome's primacy in the early Church was not equivalent to the current doctrine of supremacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

Juga ditolak total oleh gereja Protestan :

Papal Supremacy - A Refuge Of Lies

Claims to supremacy are not only wide but wicked. They gender deception by turning souls away from Christ to trust in a man, all the while with the belief that this will bring salvation.

Boniface VIII decreed: "It is necessary for everyone who is to be saved to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"; but Christ said: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." The claims to supremacy are wicked because they are an attempt to rob God of His glory. The blasphemous character of this boasted pre-eminence is seen in the divine name the Pope takes to himself. He is called 'Holy Father'. The Council of Pisa described him thus: "The most holy and blessed one, the Lord of the Universe." The only true and living God will not smile on such arrogance. Isaiah 42:8: "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another."

Papal aspirations to supremacy are wrong. They are based upon a wresting of the Scriptures. For example, concerning Christ's words to Peter (who, it is said by Rome, was the first in the line of the Popes) in John 21:15-17: "Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs", a most unnatural explanation is given. Rome construes the command as a commission to Peter to take charge of the whole church, pastors and people, whereas the injunction given to him is also given to all pastors: " feed the church of God." (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2.)

Ideas of Papal absolutism have also been advanced by forgeries - for example, the Donation of Constantine, purported to have been written by him and conferring vast privileges on the Church of Rome. It was published for the first time in the middle of the eighth Century. Attached was the fable that it was granted by Constantine on the occasion of his being baptized by Pope Sylvester as a grateful return for his having been cured of leprosy by the baptismal water. The evidence of history proves that Constantine was never afflicted with leprosy and was not baptized until he was on his deathbed.
The idea of supremacy is without foundation in Scripture, and since it needs lies to bolster it up it must be refused. How tragic it is that so many should remain faithful to the Papal system and instead of looking for Christ alone for salvation look to Rome. The future for those who remain in such a state is awful: "Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies." (Isaiah 28:17.)

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=supremacy

Kalau manipulasi penafsiran “Petrine Texts” gereja anda sudah ditolak oleh para Teolog Klasik tsb maka dengan sendirinya semua klaim supremasi GRK runtuh dengan sendirinya.

Bukti buktinya sudah saya kutip panjang lebar.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 05, 2014, 05:08:04 PM
Penerus2 para rasul, bahkan yang hidup sejaman dengan rasul2 pertama, semuanya mengatakan demikian tuh!
Bahwa penerus2 Petrus sebagai Uskup Roma adalah pemimpin dari Gereja Universal!
Itu sudah aku berikan berjubel2 buktinya di reply #135, juga sudah aku berikan lebih banyak lagi di sini:
http://forumimankristen.com/index.php/topic,1719.0.html


Klaim anda ini hanyalah kebohongan doang !

Tidak ada lagi jabatan Nabi dan Rasul setelah abad pertama berlalu !

Nabi dan Rasul hanya dipilih dan diangkat oleh Tuhan saja.

Anda tidak bisa membuktikan mana pernyataan bahwa Petrus adalah Paus dan ada suksesi jabatan Paus oleh Petrus dari para Teolog Klasik sebelum GRK berdiri diabad ke-4 tsb ?

Kalau itu sumber dari Roma Katolik sendiri sesudah ia berdiri sejak abad ke-4 ya maklum saja dong !


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 05, 2014, 05:12:18 PM
Ini alasan siapa yg membuat sih??
Lha wong jelas2 penerus2 rasul, bahkan banyak yg hidup sejaman dengan rasul2 generasi pertama justru mengakui dan menyatakan supremasi Petrus dan uskup Roma sebagai penerus2 Petrus memegang supremacy kok. SIlakan dilihat lagi bukti2 yg aku berikan di reply #135.

Alasan2 yg dibuat oleh seorang sola-scripturist modern, dibanding pengakuan dan pernyataan penerus2 rasul dalam sidang para rasul, aku rasa tidak memerlukan otak yg jenius utk menyimpulkan alasan mana yg lebih benar... :grining:


Klaim anda ini hanyalah omong kosong doang !

Tidak ada lagi jabatan Nabi dan Rasul setelah abad pertama berlalu !

Anda tidak bisa membuktikan mana pernyataan bahwa Petrus adalah Paus dan ada suksesi jabatan Paus oleh Petrus dari para Teolog Klasik sebelum GRK berdiri diabad ke-4 tsb ?

Kalau itu sumber dari Roma Katolik sendiri sesudah ia berdiri sejak abad ke-4 ya maklum saja dong !

Apa kata GRK:

CCC 936 “The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is ‘head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth’”

Apa kata Scriptura :

1 Kor. 3:11 Karena tidak ada seorang pun yang dapat meletakkan dasar lain dari pada dasar yang telah diletakkan, yaitu Yesus Kristus.

Efesus 1:22,23 Dan segala sesuatu telah diletakkan-Nya di bawah kaki Kristus dan Dia telah diberikan-Nya kepada jemaat sebagai Kepala dari segala yang ada.Jemaat yang adalah tubuh-Nya, yaitu kepenuhan Dia, yang memenuhi semua dan segala sesuatu.

Kolose 1:18 Ialah kepala tubuh, yaitu jemaat. Ialah yang sulung, yang pertama bangkit dari antara orang mati, sehingga Ia yang lebih utama dalam segala sesuatu

Jelas sekali GRK sudah menghujat Kristus dengan merampok eklusivilitas jabatan-Nya sebagai satu satunya Kepala Gereja yang Universal.

Inilah yang saya maksud dengan manipulasi atau modifikasi penafsiran ajaran Kitab Suci secara tidak bertanggungjawab itu.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 05, 2014, 07:39:00 PM
Betul, betul, betul, baru tahun 1940 lahir di Cina seorang nabi baru bernama Táng Chóngróng hadir di dunia lagi, dan mengatakan tidak ada ajaran yang benar selai ajaran sang 'nabi'.

Ada yang percaya? Tanya kenapa.....

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 06, 2014, 03:17:19 AM

Memang diayat tsb yg saya kutip  Petrus hanya dikatakan sebagai seorang Penatua,tidak ada jabatan yang lainnya yang disebut  !!!

Mosok anda mau modifikasi lagi ayat tsb dengan segudang atribut lainnya milik gereja anda apalagi yang sama sekali tidak ada dasar Alkitabnya ???

Sekalipun Petrus menyebut dirinya sendiri sebagai rasul (1Pet 1:1), tetapi:

•   Dalam 1Pet 5:1 Petrus menyebut dirinya sebagai fellow elder (= teman / sesama penatua). Ini jelas merupakan sebutan yang menyejajarkan dirinya dengan para penatua yang lain.


Soal jabatan gembala (pastors) dan pekerjaan menggembalakan (feed) sudah saya jelaskan perbedaannya diatas.

Yakobus dan Yohanes pernah datang kepada Yesus meminta jika seorang dari mereka dapat duduk di sebelah kanan dan lainnya di sebelah kiri dalam kerajaan-Nya (Dalam Kerajaan-kerajaan Timur, dua menteri utama kerajaan, menduduki otoritas setelah sang raja, yang memiliki posisi ini). Jika pernyataan Roma Katholik benar, nampaknya Yesus pasti sudah menerangkan bahwa Dia telah memberikan tempat di sebelah kanan itu bagi Petrus, dan tidak berniat membuat posisi lain di sebelah kiri!! Tetapi sebaliknya, ini adalah jawaban Yesus: “Kamu tahu, bahwa para pangeran dari bangsa-bangsa lain memerintah rakyatnya dengan keras, dan para-pembesarnya menjalankan kuasa besarnya atas mereka, tetapi tidaklah demikian di antara kamu. (Markus 10:35-43 KJV).


Kamu jangan mengajari kami, sol.
Tulisan mu ini bagi kami cuma icapan jempol!

Sebab kami adalah pengikut Alkitab.

Di Alkitab tertulis: "Kita tidak perlu diajari".

1 Yohanes 2:27   Sebab di dalam diri kamu tetap ada pengurapan yang telah kamu terima dari pada-Nya. Karena itu tidak perlu kamu diajar oleh orang lain. Tetapi sebagaimana pengurapan-Nya mengajar kamu tentang segala sesuatu--dan pengajaran-Nya itu benar, tidak dusta--dan sebagaimana Ia dahulu telah mengajar kamu, demikianlah hendaknya kamu tetap tinggal di dalam Dia.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 08, 2014, 11:21:51 AM

Kamu jangan mengajari kami, sol.
Tulisan mu ini bagi kami cuma icapan jempol!

Sebab kami adalah pengikut Alkitab.

Di Alkitab tertulis: "Kita tidak perlu diajari".

1 Yohanes 2:27   Sebab di dalam diri kamu tetap ada pengurapan yang telah kamu terima dari pada-Nya. Karena itu tidak perlu kamu diajar oleh orang lain. Tetapi sebagaimana pengurapan-Nya mengajar kamu tentang segala sesuatu--dan pengajaran-Nya itu benar, tidak dusta--dan sebagaimana Ia dahulu telah mengajar kamu, demikianlah hendaknya kamu tetap tinggal di dalam Dia.


Siapa sih yang mengajarimu ???

Cukup kamu pegang saja semua tradisi gerejamu itu secara membabi buta tidak perlu diuji oleh Kitab Suci dan tunggu saja kelak penghakimanmu,karena Tuhan Yesus susah mengatakan :

Yohanes 12:48
Barangsiapa menolak Aku, dan tidak menerima perkataan-Ku, ia sudah ada hakimnya, yaitu firman yang telah Kukatakan, itulah yang akan menjadi hakimnya pada akhir zaman.

Iluminasi oleh Roh Kudus sudah tidak ada digerejamu selain sekelompok manusia yang menamakan diri Magisterium sudah merampok pekerjaan Roh Kudus dan memanipulasi kebenaran Kitab Suci dengan segala macam ajaran palsu penuh isapan jempol.

Buktinya sudah berjibun saya kutip dan sampai sekarang kamu tidak pernah becus membantahnya selaian koar koar tidak nyambung melulu.

Saya hanya mengkritik segala macam tradisi palsu gerejamu yang sudah menipu umatnya selama ribuan tahun tapi masih mengaku gereja kristen ?

Jangan ngaku pengikut Kristus kalau karya Kristus saja kamu rampok dengan menciptakan segala macam saingan bagi-Nya dengan ajaran mariology dan papalisme mu itu.

Baca lagi postingan saya mengenai paralelisme tradisi palsu yang sudah mempersamakan Maria Katolik sesembahanmu itu dengan Kristus.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 08, 2014, 11:56:26 AM

Klaim anda ini hanyalah kebohongan doang !

Tidak ada lagi jabatan Nabi dan Rasul setelah abad pertama berlalu !

Nabi dan Rasul hanya dipilih dan diangkat oleh Tuhan saja.

Anda tidak bisa membuktikan mana pernyataan bahwa Petrus adalah Paus dan ada suksesi jabatan Paus oleh Petrus dari para Teolog Klasik sebelum GRK berdiri diabad ke-4 tsb ?

Kalau itu sumber dari Roma Katolik sendiri sesudah ia berdiri sejak abad ke-4 ya maklum saja dong !

Kalau saya melihatnya seperti ini

Bangsa Indonesia mempunyai proklamator dan sekaligus presiden
Soekarno adalah presiden dan sekaligus proklamator kemerdekaan Indonesia
SBY adalah presiden ke 6 negara Indonesia

Jadi para rasul di analogikan adalah sebagai proklamator
para uskup adalah penerus para rasul, dan penerus rasul Petrus adalah para paus.

Gereja akan tetap ada walaupun para proklamator (rasul) telah wafat sama sperti negara Indonesia tetap ada walaupun Sokearno telah wafat.

Oleh karena itu magisterium perlu tetap ada sesuai dengan fungsinya.

Tentu tidak ada lagi pengganti pancasila / kanon Kitab Suci tetapi tetap perlu ada penjelasan undang2 dll...demi keberlangsungan Gereja.

Para paus dan uskup tidak lagi membuat Kitab Suci tapi tetap sebagai pengajar, gembala Gereja sama seperti fungsi presiden dan para menteri atau gubernur.

Dasar ayat bahwa tugas para rasul diteruskan ada dalam Kitab Suci
Kis 1:20
Sebab ada tertulis dalam kitab Mazmur: Biarlah perkemahannya menjadi sunyi, dan biarlah tidak ada penghuni di dalamnya dan Biarlah jabatannya  diambil orang lain

salam
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 08, 2014, 12:28:04 PM
Kalau saya melihatnya seperti ini

Bangsa Indonesia mempunyai proklamator dan sekaligus presiden
Soekarno adalah presiden dan sekaligus proklamator kemerdekaan Indonesia
SBY adalah presiden ke 6 negara Indonesia

Jadi para rasul di analogikan adalah sebagai proklamator
para uskup adalah penerus para rasul, dan penerus rasul Petrus adalah para paus.


Benar… tetapi para pengganti  presiden harus tetap memegang teguh dasar negara berbeda dengan para Paus yang selalu menambahkan atau memodifikasi dasar negara yang bertentangan dengan ajaran para Rasul.

Jabatan paus sebagai Kepala Gereja Universal yang diklaim Gereja anda itu sama sekali tidak ada dasar Kitab Sucinya.

Yang diteruskan dari para Rasul bukan jabatannya sebagai penerima wahyu melainkan semua ajaran atau kitab yang sudah mereka tuliskan.

1 Korintus 4:6   Saudara-saudara, kata-kata ini aku kenakan pada diriku sendiri dan pada Apolos, karena kamu, supaya dari teladan kami kamu belajar apakah artinya ungkapan: "Jangan melampaui yang ada tertulis", supaya jangan ada di antara kamu yang menyombongkan diri dengan jalan mengutamakan yang satu dari pada yang lain.


Quote
Gereja akan tetap ada walaupun para proklamator (rasul) telah wafat sama sperti negara Indonesia tetap ada walaupun Sokearno telah wafat.

Oleh karena itu magisterium perlu tetap ada sesuai dengan fungsinya.

Tidak ada konsep Magisterium didalam Kitab Suci ,karena Petrus sendiri mengatakan bahwa semua orang percaya adalah penyandang Imamat yang Rajani sehingga untuk sampai kepada Kristus dan Tahta Allah tidak perlu segala macam perantara seperti roh orang mati,figur Maria,Paus dan institusi gereja itu sendiri.

1 Petrus 2:9 Tetapi kamulah bangsa yang terpilih, imamat yang rajani, bangsa yang kudus, umat kepunyaan Allah sendiri, supaya kamu memberitakan perbuatan-perbuatan yang besar dari Dia, yang telah memanggil kamu keluar dari kegelapan kepada terang-Nya yang ajaib:

Ibrani 4:16 Sebab itu marilah kita dengan penuh keberanian menghampiri takhta kasih karunia, supaya kita menerima rahmat dan menemukan kasih karunia untuk mendapat pertolongan kita pada waktunya.



Quote
Tentu tidak ada lagi pengganti pancasila / kanon Kitab Suci tetapi tetap perlu ada penjelasan undang2 dll...demi keberlangsungan Gereja.

Para paus dan uskup tidak lagi membuat Kitab Suci tapi tetap sebagai pengajar, gembala Gereja sama seperti fungsi presiden dan para menteri atau gubernur.

Dasar ayat bahwa tugas para rasul diteruskan ada dalam Kitab Suci
Kis 1:20
Sebab ada tertulis dalam kitab Mazmur: Biarlah perkemahannya menjadi sunyi, dan biarlah tidak ada penghuni di dalamnya dan Biarlah jabatannya  diambil orang lain

Bagaimana mungkin kalau penjelasan Kitab Suci dianggap sejajar dengan Kitab Suci itu sendiri ?

Satu wahyu Allah sedangkan yg lain buatan manusia ?

Bagaimana dianggap penjelasan kalau isinya malah bertentangan dengan isi Kitab Suci itu sendiri ?


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 08, 2014, 02:40:55 PM

Benar… tetapi para pengganti  presiden harus tetap memegang teguh dasar negara berbeda dengan para Paus yang selalu menambahkan atau memodifikasi dasar negara yang bertentangan dengan ajaran para Rasul.

Jabatan paus sebagai Kepala Gereja Universal yang diklaim Gereja anda itu sama sekali tidak ada dasar Kitab Sucinya.

Yang diteruskan dari para Rasul bukan jabatannya sebagai penerima wahyu melainkan semua ajaran atau kitab yang sudah mereka tuliskan.

1 Korintus 4:6   Saudara-saudara, kata-kata ini aku kenakan pada diriku sendiri dan pada Apolos, karena kamu, supaya dari teladan kami kamu belajar apakah artinya ungkapan: "Jangan melampaui yang ada tertulis", supaya jangan ada di antara kamu yang menyombongkan diri dengan jalan mengutamakan yang satu dari pada yang lain.

Yang diteruskan jelas penggembalaan, menyatakan ajaran benar dan tidak terbukti kanon Kitab Suci ditentukan oleh para pengganti para rasul ie para uskup (bapa gereja) di konsili hippo dan chartago

paus adalah uskup yang dituakan dianggap primat sudah ada dasarnya dalam Kitab Suci
Mat 16:16-18
Luk 22:32

Quote

Tidak ada konsep Magisterium didalam Kitab Suci ,karena Petrus sendiri mengatakan bahwa semua orang percaya adalah penyandang Imamat yang Rajani sehingga untuk sampai kepada Kristus dan Tahta Allah tidak perlu segala macam perantara seperti roh orang mati,figur Maria,Paus dan institusi gereja itu sendiri.

1 Petrus 2:9 Tetapi kamulah bangsa yang terpilih, imamat yang rajani, bangsa yang kudus, umat kepunyaan Allah sendiri, supaya kamu memberitakan perbuatan-perbuatan yang besar dari Dia, yang telah memanggil kamu keluar dari kegelapan kepada terang-Nya yang ajaib:

Ibrani 4:16 Sebab itu marilah kita dengan penuh keberanian menghampiri takhta kasih karunia, supaya kita menerima rahmat dan menemukan kasih karunia untuk mendapat pertolongan kita pada waktunya.


Lah dalam Gereja Protestan sendiri ada magisterium kok...kenapa di GK tidak boleh ada  :)
GP ada Pendeta, ada Pendeta wilayah ada ketua sinode ada penatua dll...

ketua sinode, Pendeta wilayah tidak ada juga istilahnya dalam Kitab Suci.

Dalam Kitab Suci sekalipun umat kristen penyandang imamat rajawi bukan berarti magisterium dihilangkan

contoh di sini
Kis 15 : sidang di Yerusalem
ada rasul, ada penatua, ada perwakilan jemaat dll...
siapa yang didengarkan keputusannya...peturus, yakobus, Paulus
siapa yang taat semua umat

contoh dalam sejarah
konsili nicea siapa yang berkumpul seluruh uskup : para penerus para rasul
siapa yang taat seluruh jemaat baik para uskup yang berkumpul maupun jemaat yang tidak berkumpul di situ.


Quote
Bagaimana mungkin kalau penjelasan Kitab Suci dianggap sejajar dengan Kitab Suci itu sendiri ?

Satu wahyu Allah sedangkan yg lain buatan manusia ?

Bagaimana dianggap penjelasan kalau isinya malah bertentangan dengan isi Kitab Suci itu sendiri ?

Tentu saja tidak ada yang bertentangan tapi ini bagian dari penapsiran kan...
bagi kami sola scriptura juga tidak alkitabiah ...melanggar 2 tes 2:15

Jadi sama saja bedanya menurut siapa...
anehnya pada jaman gereja mula2 paham primat Paus tidak dipermasalahkan
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on September 08, 2014, 05:11:11 PM
Tuhan menggunakan manusia untuk memberitakan Injil yang sejati bukan Injil yang sudah dimanipulasi karena Kitab Suci sendiri mengatakan sbb :

Galatia 1:8 Tetapi sekalipun kami atau seorang malaikat dari sorga yang memberitakan kepada kamu suatu injil yang berbeda dengan Injil yang telah kami beritakan kepadamu, terkutuklah dia.

Galatia 1:9 Seperti yang telah kami katakan dahulu, sekarang kukatakan sekali lagi: jikalau ada orang yang memberitakan kepadamu suatu injil, yang berbeda dengan apa yang telah kamu terima, terkutuklahdia.

Mengajarkan segala macam tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol sama sekali manusia tsb bukan alat ditangan Tuhan malah sudah menghujat Tuhan namanya.

Jadi perlu anda bedakan manusia dipakai Tuhan untuk apa dpl jangan menyalahgunakan apa yang Tuhan tidak perintahkan atau larang.
Damai bagimu, Sol.

Tuduhan seperti yang hijau itu berbeda sedikit dengan yang biasa diungkapkan oleh kaum Moslem. Konon Moslem percaya adanya Taurat, Zabur, dan Injil. Dikatakannya, Injil yang ada sekarang bukan Injil Asli. Solideogloria mengganti Asli dengan menyatakan "Injil yang sejati". Hebat. Bolehkah solideogloria menunjukkan Injil yang sejati yang solideogloria post di posting-mu itu? Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, baik melalui pemberitaan maupun melalui bacaan-bacaan, Katolik tidak pernah merubah Injil, baik berupa penambahan, atau pengurangan, atau edit. solideogloria dapat mengajukan sebentuk bukti pendukung pernyataan solideogloria, bahwa Injil mengalami manipulasi? Ou, ya. solideogloria itu Kristen atau bukan?

Maksud solideogloria tentang mengajarkan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol, apa kaitannya dengan Kunci Kerajaan Surga yang jadi judul trit? Dan, apakah solideogloria pernah menemukan ajaran Kekristenan yang merupakan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol?

Tentang manusia yang menyalahgunakan apa yang Tuhan tidak perintahkan atau larang, menurut hemat saya ialah: manusia yang demi kepuasan ego dan nafsu, walaupun tidak diperintah mendirikan kumpulan bernamakan kumpulan kekristenan, mengeraskan hati membentuk kumpulan untuk menandingi jemaat yang didirikan oleh Yesus Kristus.

Parah kamu, Sol.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on September 09, 2014, 02:13:56 PM

Tuhan menggunakan manusia untuk memberitakan Injil yang sejati bukan Injil yang sudah dimanipulasi karena Kitab Suci sendiri mengatakan sbb :

Galatia 1:8 Tetapi sekalipun kami atau seorang malaikat dari sorga yang memberitakan kepada kamu suatu injil yang berbeda dengan Injil yang telah kami beritakan kepadamu, terkutuklah dia.

Galatia 1:9 Seperti yang telah kami katakan dahulu, sekarang kukatakan sekali lagi: jikalau ada orang yang memberitakan kepadamu suatu injil, yang berbeda dengan apa yang telah kamu terima, terkutuklahdia.

Mengajarkan segala macam tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol sama sekali manusia tsb bukan alat ditangan Tuhan malah sudah menghujat Tuhan namanya.

Jadi perlu anda bedakan manusia dipakai Tuhan untuk apa dpl jangan menyalahgunakan apa yang Tuhan tidak perintahkan atau larang.

setuju banget soll..

Masa Injil kok dimanipulasi di-diskon-diskon segala...
emangnya sayur-mayur.. bisa dikurang-kurangi seenak udel...

jelas-jelas di Alkitab tidak ada ayat yang menyatakan bahwa: "Alkitab itu adalah 66 buku"
kok nekat... mengkorting Alkitab cuma tinggal 66..

tinggal tunggu neraka aja kali yah...
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 10, 2014, 04:34:25 AM

Siapa sih yang mengajarimu ???

Cukup kamu pegang saja semua tradisi gerejamu itu secara membabi buta tidak perlu diuji oleh Kitab Suci dan tunggu saja kelak penghakimanmu,karena Tuhan Yesus susah mengatakan :

Yohanes 12:48
Barangsiapa menolak Aku, dan tidak menerima perkataan-Ku, ia sudah ada hakimnya, yaitu firman yang telah Kukatakan, itulah yang akan menjadi hakimnya pada akhir zaman.

Iluminasi oleh Roh Kudus sudah tidak ada digerejamu selain sekelompok manusia yang menamakan diri Magisterium sudah merampok pekerjaan Roh Kudus dan memanipulasi kebenaran Kitab Suci dengan segala macam ajaran palsu penuh isapan jempol.

Buktinya sudah berjibun saya kutip dan sampai sekarang kamu tidak pernah becus membantahnya selaian koar koar tidak nyambung melulu.

Saya hanya mengkritik segala macam tradisi palsu gerejamu yang sudah menipu umatnya selama ribuan tahun tapi masih mengaku gereja kristen ?


Kamu tidak perlu mengajari kami tentang arti dari ayat2 Alkitab .

Apalagi arti ayat Yohanes 12:48 diatas itu.

Sebab kami adalah pengikut Alkitab.

Di Alkitab tertulis: "Kita tidak perlu diajari".

1 Yohanes 2:27   Sebab di dalam diri kamu tetap ada pengurapan yang telah kamu terima dari pada-Nya. Karena itu tidak perlu kamu diajar oleh orang lain. Tetapi sebagaimana pengurapan-Nya mengajar kamu tentang segala sesuatu--dan pengajaran-Nya itu benar, tidak dusta--dan sebagaimana Ia dahulu telah mengajar kamu, demikianlah hendaknya kamu tetap tinggal di dalam Dia.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 10, 2014, 09:17:12 AM
Yang diteruskan jelas penggembalaan, menyatakan ajaran benar dan tidak terbukti kanon Kitab Suci ditentukan oleh para pengganti para rasul ie para uskup (bapa gereja) di konsili hippo dan chartago

paus adalah uskup yang dituakan dianggap primat sudah ada dasarnya dalam Kitab Suci
Mat 16:16-18
Luk 22:32


Uskup yang benar tidak membuat dan mengajarkan segala macam ajaran palsu berbau berhala melampaui apa yang ada tertulis didalam Alkitab.

Semua tradisi berhala harus dibuang dari gereja kalau masih mengaku tubuh Kristus !


Quote
Quote

Tidak ada konsep Magisterium didalam Kitab Suci ,karena Petrus sendiri mengatakan bahwa semua orang percaya adalah penyandang Imamat yang Rajani sehingga untuk sampai kepada Kristus dan Tahta Allah tidak perlu segala macam perantara seperti roh orang mati,figur Maria,Paus dan institusi gereja itu sendiri.

1 Petrus 2:9 Tetapi kamulah bangsa yang terpilih, imamat yang rajani, bangsa yang kudus, umat kepunyaan Allah sendiri, supaya kamu memberitakan perbuatan-perbuatan yang besar dari Dia, yang telah memanggil kamu keluar dari kegelapan kepada terang-Nya yang ajaib:

Ibrani 4:16 Sebab itu marilah kita dengan penuh keberanian menghampiri takhta kasih karunia, supaya kita menerima rahmat dan menemukan kasih karunia untuk mendapat pertolongan kita pada waktunya.

Lah dalam Gereja Protestan sendiri ada magisterium kok...kenapa di GK tidak boleh ada 
GP ada Pendeta, ada Pendeta wilayah ada ketua sinode ada penatua dll...

ketua sinode, Pendeta wilayah tidak ada juga istilahnya dalam Kitab Suci.


Di Protestan tidak ada itu model magisterium gereja yang memonopoli semua penafsiran Kitab Suci dan melarang umat menafsirkan Kitab Suci !

Semua jemaat di Protestan bebas membaca dan memahami Kitab Suci karena mereka percaya orang yg beriman mendapat pinpinan dari Roh Kudus.

Magisterium sudah merampok pekerjaan Roh Kudus didalam mencerahkan orang percaya utk memahami Kitab Suci dengan benar,



Quote
Dalam Kitab Suci sekalipun umat kristen penyandang imamat rajawi bukan berarti magisterium dihilangkan

contoh di sini
Kis 15 : sidang di Yerusalem
ada rasul, ada penatua, ada perwakilan jemaat dll...
siapa yang didengarkan keputusannya...peturus, yakobus, Paulus
siapa yang taat semua umat

contoh dalam sejarah
konsili nicea siapa yang berkumpul seluruh uskup : para penerus para rasul
siapa yang taat seluruh jemaat baik para uskup yang berkumpul maupun jemaat yang tidak berkumpul di situ.


Sidang para Rasul di Yerusalem tidak sama dengan model magisterium gerejamu karena itu bukan bersifat organisasi permanent melainkan bertemu secara insidental belaka kalau perlu.

Berbeda dengan organisasi magisterium GRK yang bersifat tetap dipimpin Paus yg mengaku infallible yang sama sekali hanya kebohongan belaka.


Quote
Quote
Bagaimana mungkin kalau penjelasan Kitab Suci dianggap sejajar dengan Kitab Suci itu sendiri ?
Satu wahyu Allah sedangkan yg lain buatan manusia ?
Bagaimana dianggap penjelasan kalau isinya malah bertentangan dengan isi Kitab Suci itu sendiri ?

Tentu saja tidak ada yang bertentangan tapi ini bagian dari penapsiran kan...
bagi kami sola scriptura juga tidak alkitabiah ...melanggar 2 tes 2:15

Jadi sama saja bedanya menurut siapa...
anehnya pada jaman gereja mula2 paham primat Paus tidak dipermasalahkan

Buktikan Sola Scriptura tidak alkitabiah ?

Tidak pernah ada jabatan paus didajarkan didalam Kitab Suci karena hanya satu Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus saja.

Jabatan Paus hanya penuh arogansi dan menghujat Tuhan belaka.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 10, 2014, 09:25:49 AM
Damai bagimu, Sol.

Tuduhan seperti yang hijau itu berbeda sedikit dengan yang biasa diungkapkan oleh kaum Moslem. Konon Moslem percaya adanya Taurat, Zabur, dan Injil. Dikatakannya, Injil yang ada sekarang bukan Injil Asli. Solideogloria mengganti Asli dengan menyatakan "Injil yang sejati". Hebat. Bolehkah solideogloria menunjukkan Injil yang sejati yang solideogloria post di posting-mu itu? Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, baik melalui pemberitaan maupun melalui bacaan-bacaan, Katolik tidak pernah merubah Injil, baik berupa penambahan, atau pengurangan, atau edit. solideogloria dapat mengajukan sebentuk bukti pendukung pernyataan solideogloria, bahwa Injil mengalami manipulasi? Ou, ya. solideogloria itu Kristen atau bukan?

Maksud solideogloria tentang mengajarkan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol, apa kaitannya dengan Kunci Kerajaan Surga yang jadi judul trit? Dan, apakah solideogloria pernah menemukan ajaran Kekristenan yang merupakan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol?

Tentang manusia yang menyalahgunakan apa yang Tuhan tidak perintahkan atau larang, menurut hemat saya ialah: manusia yang demi kepuasan ego dan nafsu, walaupun tidak diperintah mendirikan kumpulan bernamakan kumpulan kekristenan, mengeraskan hati membentuk kumpulan untuk menandingi jemaat yang didirikan oleh Yesus Kristus.

Parah kamu, Sol.

Yang parah adalah umat yang tidak sadar sudah ditipu selama ribuan tahun dengan segala macam ajaran palsu penuh isapan jempol hanya untuk mempertuhankan atau memperdewakan manusia belaka.

Contoh tradisi ajaran gereja yang anti Injili dapat kamu baca di :

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/romanerr1.html
http://katholiksesat.blogspot.com/2010/10/daftar-tradisi-yang-menyimpang-dari.html
http://mendapat-laia.blogspot.com/2012/06/pengajaran-yang-salah-dan-Tuhan-benci.html
http://hbcdelivers.org/list-of-roman-catholic-heresies/
http://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/the_truth_about_roman_catholics_final.htm
http://www.masters-table.org/reformation/catholictimeline.htm

Kalau kamu tidak bohong buktikan bahwa ajaran gerejamu itu memang ada dasar kebenaran Alkitabnya !

Kalau tidak mampu jangan cari cari alasan macam macam utk menutupi ketidakmampuanmu husada !

Didalam website itu jelas diperbandingankan mana Injil sejati dan mana injil palsu hasil tradisi gerejamu yang sudah menipu umatnya ribuan tahun itu.

Pausmu mengakui berkuasa memodifikasi Perintah Tuhan makanya tidak heran begitu banyaknya Firman Tuhan dimanipulasi oleh gerejamu husada.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 10, 2014, 09:28:03 AM
Kamu tidak perlu mengajari kami tentang arti dari ayat2 Alkitab .

Apalagi arti ayat Yohanes 12:48 diatas itu.

Sebab kami adalah pengikut Alkitab.

Di Alkitab tertulis: "Kita tidak perlu diajari".

1 Yohanes 2:27   Sebab di dalam diri kamu tetap ada pengurapan yang telah kamu terima dari pada-Nya. Karena itu tidak perlu kamu diajar oleh orang lain. Tetapi sebagaimana pengurapan-Nya mengajar kamu tentang segala sesuatu--dan pengajaran-Nya itu benar, tidak dusta--dan sebagaimana Ia dahulu telah mengajar kamu, demikianlah hendaknya kamu tetap tinggal di dalam Dia.

Kamu hanya pengikut tradisi gerejamu bukan Alkitab karena begitu banyaknya ajaran Alkitab yang sudah dimanipulasi untuk mendukung tradisi bikinan gerejamu yang penuh keberhalaan itu !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on September 10, 2014, 10:47:40 AM
Buktikan Sola Scriptura tidak alkitabiah ?

Tidak pernah ada jabatan paus didajarkan didalam Kitab Suci karena hanya satu Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus saja.

Jabatan Paus hanya penuh arogansi dan menghujat Tuhan belaka.

Lho?
memangnya sejak kapan Sola Scriptura itu Alkitabiah??

memang sesuai prinsip Sola Scriptura, "ajaran Sola Scriptura" itu ada di Scriptura nomer berapa ya?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 10, 2014, 10:49:06 AM
Kamu hanya pengikut tradisi gerejamu bukan Alkitab karena begitu banyaknya ajaran Alkitab yang sudah dimanipulasi untuk mendukung tradisi bikinan gerejamu yang penuh keberhalaan itu !

Menurut kau itu manupulasi.
Menurut kami itu kebenaran.

Menurut kau ajaran kau sendiri itulah kebenaran.
Menurut kami ajaran kau itulah manipulasi.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 10, 2014, 10:50:02 AM
Menurut kau itu manupulasi.
Menurut kami itu kebenaran.

Menurut kau ajaran kau sendiri itulah kebenaran.
Menurut kami ajaran kau itulah manipulasi.

Buktikan disini ajaran yang saya kutip itu bukan manipulasi !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 10, 2014, 10:51:09 AM
Buktikan disini ajaran yang saya kutip itu bukan manipulasi !

Ajaran mana yg kau anggap manipulasi ?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on September 10, 2014, 10:54:11 AM
Ajaran mana yg kau anggap manipulasi ?

Mary Mediatrix,redemptrix,assumption,sinless,pope infallible,pope Kepala Gereja !

itu dulu

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 10, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
Mary Mediatrix,redemptrix,assumption,sinless,pope infallible,pope Kepala Gereja !

itu dulu

Pilih salah satu dong..

Buka trit baru.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 10, 2014, 03:45:23 PM

Uskup yang benar tidak membuat dan mengajarkan segala macam ajaran palsu berbau berhala melampaui apa yang ada tertulis didalam Alkitab.

Semua tradisi berhala harus dibuang dari gereja kalau masih mengaku tubuh Kristus !

Ada disiplin, ada dogma, ada ensilik, ada surat gembala ...
anda harus spesifik di sini

Quote

Di Protestan tidak ada itu model magisterium gereja yang memonopoli semua penafsiran Kitab Suci dan melarang umat menafsirkan Kitab Suci !

Semua jemaat di Protestan bebas membaca dan memahami Kitab Suci karena mereka percaya orang yg beriman mendapat pinpinan dari Roh Kudus.

Magisterium sudah merampok pekerjaan Roh Kudus didalam mencerahkan orang percaya utk memahami Kitab Suci dengan benar,


orang katolik juga bebas membaca Kitab Suci, mengenai tapsiran tidak semua ayat ada tapsiran magisterium bisa ditapsir sepanjang tidak keluar jalur dari doktrin, dogma GK.

Dan memang itu tugas magisterium sebagai Tiang penopang dan dasar kebenaran 1 Tim 3:15.

Dalam protestan dalam 1 denom apakah ada doktrin yang saling berbeda?
bukankah jika berbeda pasti denom itu akan memisahkan diri ...
jangankan beda doktrin lah sama doktrin tapi karena perselisihan pemilihan ephorus / Pendeta wilayah bisa saling memisahkan diri...

Jadi ada perbedaan yang besar dari memisahkan diri dengan mekanisme konsili seperti di GK.

Quote
Sidang para Rasul di Yerusalem tidak sama dengan model magisterium gerejamu karena itu bukan bersifat organisasi permanent melainkan bertemu secara insidental belaka kalau perlu.

Berbeda dengan organisasi magisterium GRK yang bersifat tetap dipimpin Paus yg mengaku infallible yang sama sekali hanya kebohongan belaka.


Buktikan Sola Scriptura tidak alkitabiah ?

Tidak pernah ada jabatan paus didajarkan didalam Kitab Suci karena hanya satu Kepala Gereja yaitu Yesus Kristus saja.

Jabatan Paus hanya penuh arogansi dan menghujat Tuhan belaka.
jabatan paus adalah penerus Petrus , Petrus dipilih Yesus sendiri sebagai soko guru jemaat dan kefas.

Tidak ada rasul lain dari ke 12 rasul + Paulus yang dipanggil dengan sebutan kefas kecuali simon Petrus.

Ini tertulis dalam Kitab Suci.
Kitab Suci yang mengajarkan suksesi itu berkelanjutan , Kitab Suci yang mengajarkan ada satu rasul yang dituakan/ utamakan dari yang lain.

Konsili Yerusalem tidak luput dari campur tangan Petrus ketika mereka berdebat , Petrus berbicara dan semua diam barulah Yakobus mengamini.

Begitu juga mulai dari konsili hippo dan Chartago yang merumuskan kanon Kitab Suci, konsili nicea, konstatinopel , Efesus semua ada utusan dari uskup Roma.

Inilah Tradisi yang dijalankan dari generasi ke generasi dan tetap utuh sampai sekarang.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: OSAS on September 10, 2014, 04:13:00 PM
Ada disiplin, ada dogma, ada ensilik, ada surat gembala ...
anda harus spesifik di sini

orang katolik juga bebas membaca Kitab Suci, mengenai tapsiran tidak semua ayat ada tapsiran magisterium bisa ditapsir sepanjang tidak keluar jalur dari doktrin, dogma GK.

Dan memang itu tugas magisterium sebagai Tiang penopang dan dasar kebenaran 1 Tim 3:15.

Dalam protestan dalam 1 denom apakah ada doktrin yang saling berbeda?
bukankah jika berbeda pasti denom itu akan memisahkan diri ...
jangankan beda doktrin lah sama doktrin tapi karena perselisihan pemilihan ephorus / Pendeta wilayah bisa saling memisahkan diri...

Jadi ada perbedaan yang besar dari memisahkan diri dengan mekanisme konsili seperti di GK.
jabatan paus adalah penerus Petrus , Petrus dipilih Yesus sendiri sebagai soko guru jemaat dan kefas.

Tidak ada rasul lain dari ke 12 rasul + Paulus yang dipanggil dengan sebutan kefas kecuali simon Petrus.

Ini tertulis dalam Kitab Suci.
Kitab Suci yang mengajarkan suksesi itu berkelanjutan , Kitab Suci yang mengajarkan ada satu rasul yang dituakan/ utamakan dari yang lain.

Konsili Yerusalem tidak luput dari campur tangan Petrus ketika mereka berdebat , Petrus berbicara dan semua diam barulah Yakobus mengamini.

Begitu juga mulai dari konsili hippo dan Chartago yang merumuskan kanon Kitab Suci, konsili nicea, konstatinopel , Efesus semua ada utusan dari uskup Roma.

Inilah Tradisi yang dijalankan dari generasi ke generasi dan tetap utuh sampai sekarang.


PERCUMA ANDA PURA PURA MENANYAKAN KALAU SBG MODERATOR ANDA MENGUNCI LAWAN DISKUSI ANDA TIDAK BISA MERESPON ????

INI SIKAP  MUNAFIK NAMANYA !!!!!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 10, 2014, 04:39:47 PM

PERCUMA ANDA PURA PURA MENANYAKAN KALAU SBG MODERATOR ANDA MENGUNCI LAWAN DISKUSI ANDA TIDAK BISA MERESPON ????

INI SIKAP  MUNAFIK NAMANYA !!!!!

BUKAN SAYA TAPI ADMIN
NGERTI!!!!

JUSTRU SAYA SIBUK APPROVE DOWNLOAD ORANG2 YANG SUKA OOT DI SINI
NGERTI!!!!
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: OSAS on September 10, 2014, 04:59:27 PM
BUKAN SAYA TAPI ADMIN
NGERTI!!!!

JUSTRU SAYA SIBUK APPROVE DOWNLOAD ORANG2 YANG SUKA OOT DI SINI
NGERTI!!!!

KALAU SUDAH TAHU LAWAN DISKUSI ANDA DIKUNCI NGGAK BISA JAWAB KOK ANDA PURA PURA MENANYAKAN ???

BUKANKAH INI MUNAFIK NAMANYA ???


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 10, 2014, 05:01:53 PM
KALAU SUDAH TAHU LAWAN DISKUSI ANDA DIKUNCI NGGAK BISA JAWAB KOK ANDA PURA PURA MENANYAKAN ???

BUKANKAH INI MUNAFIK NAMANYA ???
SAYA BISA APPROVE DAN SAYA AKAN APPROVE SEPANJANG JAWABANNYA TIDAK OOT
NGERTI!!!
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: OSAS on September 10, 2014, 05:03:57 PM
SAYA BISA APPROVE DAN SAYA AKAN APPROVE SEPANJANG JAWABANNYA TIDAK OOT
NGERTI!!!

YAH KALAU ORANG TIDAK BISA JAWAB JANGAN PURA PURA NANYA DONG !

DISKUSI SAMA DIRI SENDIRI NAMANYA !



Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 10, 2014, 05:08:08 PM
YAH KALAU ORANG TIDAK BISA JAWAB JANGAN PURA PURA NANYA DONG !

DISKUSI SAMA DIRI SENDIRI NAMANYA !
MASIH BISA JAWAB HANYA PERLU APPROVE DARI MODERATOR ATAU ADMIN DAN SAYA AKAN APPROVE SEPANJANG JAWABAN TIDAK OOT!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: OSAS on September 10, 2014, 05:09:59 PM
MASIH BISA JAWAB HANYA PERLU APPROVE DARI MODERATOR ATAU ADMIN DAN SAYA AKAN APPROVE SEPANJANG JAWABAN TIDAK OOT!

SAMA SEKALI TIDAKM FAIR MEMBATASI JAWABAN ORANG KARENA ITU BERARTI INI HANYA FORUM MAGISTERIUM HANYA BOLEH MENJAWAB SESUAI AJARAN MAGISTERIUM ANDA SAJA !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: OSAS on September 10, 2014, 05:11:54 PM
MASIH BISA JAWAB HANYA PERLU APPROVE DARI MODERATOR ATAU ADMIN DAN SAYA AKAN APPROVE SEPANJANG JAWABAN TIDAK OOT!


TINDAKAN KOK HANYA GOLONGAN PROTESTAN SAJA SEDANGKAN MEMBER KATOLIKNYA BERBEBAS RIA MEMAKI MAKI TANPA SANKSI ????

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 11, 2014, 11:01:23 AM

TINDAKAN KOK HANYA GOLONGAN PROTESTAN SAJA SEDANGKAN MEMBER KATOLIKNYA BERBEBAS RIA MEMAKI MAKI TANPA SANKSI ????

JANGAN DIKIRA ADMIN SINI TIDAK TAU BAHWA ANDA MENGGUNAKAN IDENTITAS KLONENGAN DENGAN SOLIDEO

BAGI SAYA INI SUDAH SEBUAH DISPENSASI!

JANGAN MENGHARAP LEBIH SEPERTI BISA OOT SEENAK DENGKULMU DI SINI
DISKUSI SESUAI TOPIK JANGAN OOT BISA NGGAK????
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 11, 2014, 12:23:01 PM
Kalau di forum sebelah, member jenis begini malah sudah kena banned, mod.
Kalau tidak percaya silahkan copy post member OOT di atas, dan tampilkan di forum sebelah, anda pasti kena banned. Justru member sampah seperti ini berani di FIK yang dinilainya lemah.

Tolong sampaikan ini kepada mimin, agar petimbangkan mau dibawa kemana FIK ini dengan membiarkan member kelas sampah berkeliaran di sini.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 12, 2014, 08:39:30 AM
@min & mod

Apa member sampah seperti diperlihatkan di dua post di atas itu masih layak dipertahankan?
Gak usah takut melakukan banned demi kebersihan forum, min/mod.
Selama ini FIK sudah terlalu toleran terhadap berbagai sampah busuk.
Saatnya bersih bersih...

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 12, 2014, 10:19:37 AM
@min & mod

Apa member sampah seperti diperlihatkan di dua post di atas itu masih layak dipertahankan?
Gak usah takut melakukan banned demi kebersihan forum, min/mod.
Selama ini FIK sudah terlalu toleran terhadap berbagai sampah busuk.
Saatnya bersih bersih...

Thanks bro salt atas saran dan dukungannya.
Kita semua menginginkan forum ini bukan sekedar rame tapi juga berkualitas.

salam :)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 12, 2014, 10:46:36 AM
Thanks bro salt atas saran dan dukungannya.
Kita semua menginginkan forum ini bukan sekedar rame tapi juga berkualitas.

salam :)

Sependapat, jangan korbankan diri dengan membiarkan Gereja Katolik dihina dan dicaci-maki, demi forum menjadi ramai.

Bahkan di forum protestan sekalipun posting posting member sampah itu akan mengakibatkan banned permanent. Anehnya justru mereka bisa melakukan dengan bebas di FIK ini.

Bersihkan sampah, dan mulai dengan diskusi yang berkualitas dan mencerdaskan.

Syalom

 :afro: :afro:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Husada on September 12, 2014, 04:41:42 PM
Damai bagimu, Sol.

Tuduhan seperti yang hijau itu berbeda sedikit dengan yang biasa diungkapkan oleh kaum Moslem. Konon Moslem percaya adanya Taurat, Zabur, dan Injil. Dikatakannya, Injil yang ada sekarang bukan Injil Asli. Solideogloria mengganti Asli dengan menyatakan "Injil yang sejati". Hebat. Bolehkah solideogloria menunjukkan Injil yang sejati yang solideogloria post di posting-mu itu? Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, baik melalui pemberitaan maupun melalui bacaan-bacaan, Katolik tidak pernah merubah Injil, baik berupa penambahan, atau pengurangan, atau edit. solideogloria dapat mengajukan sebentuk bukti pendukung pernyataan solideogloria, bahwa Injil mengalami manipulasi? Ou, ya. solideogloria itu Kristen atau bukan?

Maksud solideogloria tentang mengajarkan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol, apa kaitannya dengan Kunci Kerajaan Surga yang jadi judul trit? Dan, apakah solideogloria pernah menemukan ajaran Kekristenan yang merupakan tradisi palsu penuh isapan jempol?

Tentang manusia yang menyalahgunakan apa yang Tuhan tidak perintahkan atau larang, menurut hemat saya ialah: manusia yang demi kepuasan ego dan nafsu, walaupun tidak diperintah mendirikan kumpulan bernamakan kumpulan kekristenan, mengeraskan hati membentuk kumpulan untuk menandingi jemaat yang didirikan oleh Yesus Kristus.

Parah kamu, Sol.
Yang parah adalah umat yang tidak sadar sudah ditipu selama ribuan tahun dengan segala macam ajaran palsu penuh isapan jempol hanya untuk mempertuhankan atau memperdewakan manusia belaka.

Contoh tradisi ajaran gereja yang anti Injili dapat kamu baca di :

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/romanerr1.html
http://katholiksesat.blogspot.com/2010/10/daftar-tradisi-yang-menyimpang-dari.html
http://mendapat-laia.blogspot.com/2012/06/pengajaran-yang-salah-dan-Tuhan-benci.html
http://hbcdelivers.org/list-of-roman-catholic-heresies/
http://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/the_truth_about_roman_catholics_final.htm
http://www.masters-table.org/reformation/catholictimeline.htm

Kalau kamu tidak bohong buktikan bahwa ajaran gerejamu itu memang ada dasar kebenaran Alkitabnya !

Kalau tidak mampu jangan cari cari alasan macam macam utk menutupi ketidakmampuanmu husada !

Didalam website itu jelas diperbandingankan mana Injil sejati dan mana injil palsu hasil tradisi gerejamu yang sudah menipu umatnya ribuan tahun itu.

Pausmu mengakui berkuasa memodifikasi Perintah Tuhan makanya tidak heran begitu banyaknya Firman Tuhan dimanipulasi oleh gerejamu husada.
Wah, solideogloria memang tidak tahu malu berkelit, malah menuding saya cari alasan macam-macam. Gila. Sungguh memalukan, tetapi memang solideogloria itu tidak tahu malu. solideogloria bilang adanya "Injil yang sejati", kemudian saya tanyakan mana "Injil tidak sejati" dan mana "Injil yang sejati", solideogloria meloncat ke ajaran Gereja.

Soli, walaupun Injil itu adalah ajaran Gereja sebagai hasil dari Tradisi Gereja, tetapi ajaran Gereja bukan hanya Injil. Bisa solideogloria mengerti? Jangan mengangguk, atau menggeleng, itu tidak ketahuan di forum ini. Postinglah kemengertianmu, atau ketidakmengertianmu. Tetapi ada syarat, bila sub bahasan adalah kesejatian Injil, kemengertian atau ketidakmengertian terhadap kesejatian Injil pula yang menjadi isi postingmu. Bukan meloncat-loncat tidak karuan. Pengikut Kristus tidak mengalihkan pembahasan tanpa alasan.

O ya, tahukan solideogloria bahwa para rasul (apostel) diberi kewenangan mengajar, dan disertai oleh Yesus Kristus sampai kepada akhir zaman? Bila solideogloria mencermati Mat 28:20 Ajarlah mereka melakukan segala sesuatu yang telah Kuperintahkan kepadamu. Dan ketahuilah, Aku menyertai kamu senantiasa sampai kepada akhir zaman, maka seidiot-idiotnya solideogloria, seharusnya mengerti bahwa Yesus Kristus memberi kewenangan mengajar kepada para rasul, dan Yesus Kristus menyertai rasul sampai kepada akhir zaman.

Mungkin muncul pertanyaan, "Apa yang diajarkan oleh para rasul?" Pertanyaan konyol. Yesus Kristus bilang, segala sesuatu yang telah diperintahkan oleh Yesus Kristus. Lalu solideogloria berdasarkan berbagai ajaran yang diterima dari pengajar palsu menyatakan: "Tidak ada di Alkitab ajaran seperti ini, itu, anu, sono, dll, dll". Konyol. Injil sendiri berisikan bahwa memang masih banyak tanda lain yang dibuat Yesus di depan mata murid-murid-Nya, yang tidak tercatat dalam kitab ini. Dan, bila solideogloria mencermati Yoh 14:16-17 Aku akan minta kepada Bapa, dan Ia akan memberikan kepadamu seorang Penolong yang lain, supaya Ia menyertai kamu selama-lamanya, yaitu Roh Kebenaran. Dunia tidak dapat menerima Dia, sebab dunia tidak melihat Dia dan tidak mengenal Dia. Tetapi kamu mengenal Dia, sebab Ia menyertai kamu dan akan diam di dalam kamu, maka seharusnya solideogloria mengerti bahwa segala sesuatu yang belum tercantum dalam Alkitab, akan diajarkan oleh Roh Kebenaran. Itu pula yang disampaikan kepada manusia, tetapi para pembelot tidak menerima Roh Kebenaran dan ajaran-Nya. Para rasul (apostel) mengajarkan segala sesuatu yang diperintahkan oleh Yesus Kristus, dan juga yang disampaikan oleh Roh Kebenaran. Bila solideogloria tidak menerima ajaran para rasul (apostel), hal itu telah dikatakan oleh Yesus Kristus, bahwa dunia tidak dapat menerima Dia.

Renungkan.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 13, 2014, 08:12:29 AM

TINDAKAN KOK HANYA GOLONGAN PROTESTAN SAJA SEDANGKAN MEMBER KATOLIKNYA BERBEBAS RIA MEMAKI MAKI TANPA SANKSI ????


Pertama,
Si soli kadang suka enggak nyambung

Kedua,
DIajakin serius tapi tetep aja enggak nyambung

Ketiga,
Dia gak suka nyambung

Keempat,
Kalau kira-kira udah agak nyambung,.. tapi ntar belakangan balik lagi enggak nyambung.

Jadi kita pada kesel.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on September 13, 2014, 11:06:24 AM


Semisal.

Katolik ataupun Protestan memegang kunci kerajaan surga.

Apakah merupakan jaminan bagi penganutnya untuk masuk surga

 :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 13, 2014, 11:33:05 AM

Semisal.

Katolik ataupun Protestan memegang kunci kerajaan surga.

Apakah merupakan jaminan bagi penganutnya untuk masuk surga

 :D

Maksudnya ada dua kuncinya? bikin kunci serep atau kunci cadangan, begitu, oom?

 :whistle:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on September 13, 2014, 11:57:05 AM
Maksudnya ada dua kuncinya? bikin kunci serep atau kunci cadangan, begitu, oom?

 :whistle:

Ya dehh saya ralat.
Semisal ada seseorang yang merupakan penganut agama pemegang kunci kerajaan sorga (yang asli).
Apakah menjamin masuk sorga.

Sebaliknya
Semisal ada seseorang yang sanggaaatttt baiikkk tetapi bukan penganut agama pemegang kunci kerajaan sorga (yang asli).
Apakah sudah pasti masuk neraka

 :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 13, 2014, 02:18:00 PM
Tergantung yang punya surga, om

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: cadangdata on September 13, 2014, 05:01:39 PM
suka-suka yg punya surga om..

siapa tahu tiba-tiba lagi mood pengen ganti model kunci...

kalau kata oom Bergoglio...
"Who are we to judge..."
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Leonardo on September 15, 2014, 08:39:23 AM
Ya dehh saya ralat.
Semisal ada seseorang yang merupakan penganut agama pemegang kunci kerajaan sorga (yang asli).
Apakah menjamin masuk sorga.

Sebaliknya
Semisal ada seseorang yang sanggaaatttt baiikkk tetapi bukan penganut agama pemegang kunci kerajaan sorga (yang asli).
Apakah sudah pasti masuk neraka

 :D
Kung Phoo
selama orang itu dapat undangan dan memakai pakaian pesta menurut Kitab Suci pintu akan dibukakan.

salam  :)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on September 15, 2014, 09:08:27 AM
Quote
18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya.
 19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."
 (Mat 16:18-19 ITB)

Lebih lanjut, berarti kunci kerajaan sorga yang diberikan kepada Rasul Petrus secara spesifik untuk apa teman2

 :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 15, 2014, 10:55:54 AM
Lebih lanjut, berarti kunci kerajaan sorga yang diberikan kepada Rasul Petrus secara spesifik untuk apa teman2

 :D

Masuk pintunya bisa dari pintu depan, om, gak perlu lewat dapur..
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on September 15, 2014, 11:17:14 AM
Masuk pintunya bisa dari pintu depan, om, gak perlu lewat dapur..

Tergantung yang punya surga, om



Kalo dari quote sebelumnya berarti belum tentu bisa masuk, baik lewat pintu depan ataupun pintu lainnya
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 15, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
Kalo saya yang punya rumah, dan anda saya beri kunci rumah saya untuk masuk lewat pintu depan. Toh anda bisa juga saya larang masuk kan? Yang punya rumah tentu berhak menentukan siapa saja yang boleh masuk dan yang tidak, suka suka ..
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on September 15, 2014, 02:22:32 PM
Kalo saya yang punya rumah, dan anda saya beri kunci rumah saya untuk masuk lewat pintu depan. Toh anda bisa juga saya larang masuk kan? Yang punya rumah tentu berhak menentukan siapa saja yang boleh masuk dan yang tidak, suka suka ..

Dalam konteks ayat Matius 16:18-19, berarti pemegang kunci hanya sebagai simbolisme dong
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 15, 2014, 05:43:22 PM
Dalam konteks ayat Matius 16:18-19, berarti pemegang kunci hanya sebagai simbolisme dong

Kalau anda menginap di Westin, saat check-in anda diberi kunci, om. Tetapi kalau anda bayar cuma semalam, tetapi mau menginap dua malam, pasti disuruh keluar oleh security.

 :P
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on September 16, 2014, 07:51:04 AM
Quote
Ya benar, “kunci” yang diberikan di sini maksudnya adalah kuasa untuk memimpin dan mengatur Kerajaan Sorga. Dan karena Kerajaan Sorga yang ada di dunia ini adalah Gereja, maka Rasul Petrus (dan para penggantinya) diberi kuasa untuk memimpin Gereja. Karena Gereja direncanakan oleh Yesus untuk terus eksis sampai akhir jaman (Mat 16:18; 28:19-20), maka kuasa memimpin ini diberikan juga kepada para penerus Rasul Petrus.

Di Perjanjian Lama, memang tugas “pemegang kunci” ini telah digambarkan oleh Eliakim (Yes 22) yang diberi tanggungjawab untuk memegang kunci Rumah Raja Daud, sebagai pengatur rumah tangga, yang menjadi simbol kekuasaan Kerajaan Yehuda. Dengan diberikannya kuasa ini kepada Eliakim, tentu bukan berarti Eliakim menjadi “lebih tinggi daripada” Raja Daud. Pemberian kunci ini hanya dimaksudkan agar Eliakim menjadi pengurus, pengajar bagi kerajaan raja Daud. Di Perjanjian Baru, oleh Yesus, Sang Raja keturunan Daud, kerajaan Yehuda disempurnakan menjadi Gereja-Nya yang dibangun di atas Rasul Petrus (Mat 16:18-19). Maka dengan analogi yang sama, kuasa yang diberikan oleh Yesus kepada Rasul Petrus juga tidak membuat Petrus lebih tinggi daripada Yesus. Sebab biar bagaimanapun, Yesus tetaplah Sang Pemilik kunci yang menguasai kunci itu. Jadi kunci yang disebutkan itu baik yang di kitab Yesaya 22:22 maupun Why 3:7, adalah kunci Kerajaan yang sama, sebab memang sudah sejak dahulu, Allah mempersiapkan Kerajaan Allah, dari bangsa Israel di kerajaan Yehuda pada jaman Raja Daud, sampai sekarang saat Kerajaan-Nya nyata di dalam Gereja Katolik yang didirikan-Nya. Pada PL tugas mengatur rumah/ kerajaan Daud diberikan kepada Eliakim, sedangkan pada PB, tugas mengaturKerajaan Surga diberikan kepada Rasul Petrus dan para panerusnya.

Maka istilah ‘kunci’ ini adalah untuk menggambarkan pemberian kuasa yang penuh dan otoritas/ kuasa yang penuh, absolut dan tertinggi yang diberikan kepada Petrus, tentu setelah Kristus sendiri. Jadi “kunci” ini bukanlah hanya berarti kunci pintu masuk saja (pembuka pintu bagi orang-orang yang belum mengenal Kristus untuk mengimani-Nya), tetapi seluruh kunci bagi semua pintu rumah/ Kerajaan Allah tersebut, yang menyangkut seluruh kepemimpinan umat beriman. Tugas ini kemudian dijalankan oleh Magisterium (Paus dan para uskup dalam persekutuan dengan Paus), yaitu tugas/ wewenang untuk mengikat atau melepaskan dalam hal pengajaran iman dan moral (Mat 16:19; 18:18). Jadi “kunci” ini selain untuk membuka dan menutup Kerajaan Allah di Surga, adalah untuk juga kunci untuk mengatur Kerajaan Allah yang ada di dunia ini, yaitu di dalam Gereja. Menurut para Bapa Gereja, termasuk di sini, selain kuasa mengajar, adalah kuasa untuk mengampuni dosa (Mat 16:19). Maka menurut Suarez, seorang Teolog Scholastik yang menggabungkan ajaran St. Gregorius dan St. Maximus, kuasa memegang kunci ini meliputi tiga hal, yaitu kuasa memberikan sakramen- sakramen, kuasa memimpin/ mengatur dan kuasa untuk mendefinisikan ajaran iman dan moral (lihat Suarez, De Poenit., disp xvi). Jadi di sini “kunci” bukan sesuatu yang dibagi-bagikan sama rata kepada semua pengikut Kristus. Interpretasi yang “kunci” pada PB harus melihat juga konteks penggenapan yang dimaksud pada PL, sebab pemberian kunci kerajaan Yehuda pada PL hanya diberikan kepada Eliakim, maka pada PB, juga hanya kepada Rasul Petrus. Sedangkan karena Yesus menginginkan agar Kerajaan-Nya/ Gereja-Nya terus bertahan sampai akhir jaman, maka pemberian “kunci”/ wewenang ini berlangsung terus kepada para penerus Rasul Petrus. Dan karena secara prinsip: yang diberi wewenang selalu tidak pernah mengatasi Yang Memberi wewenang, maka Petrus (dan penerusnya) yang diberi wewenang tidak akan pernah menjadi lebih tinggi daripada Kristus Sang Pemberi wewenang. Sebab apapun yang ditetapkan oleh Petrus adalah yang menjadi ketetapan Kristus dan Petrus hanya menjalankan tugas ini, sesuai dengan wewenang yang diberikan kepadanya.

Jadi Kerajaan Allah menurut pengajaran para Bapa Gereja memang dapat diartikan menjadi tiga hal, dan hal ini diajarkan oleh Paus Benediktus XVI dalam bukunya Jesus of Nazareth, yaitu: 1) Yesus sendiri, karena seperti diajarkan oleh Origen, Yesus adalah Kerajaan Allah yang menjelma menjadi manusia; 2) Kerajaan Allah ada di dalam hati manusia yang berdoa memohon kedatangan Kerajaan Allah itu; 3) Gereja yang merupakan perwujudan Kerajaan Allah di dalam sejarah manusia. (Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, (Double Day, New York, USA, 2007), p.49-50).

Jadi pengertian yang diajarkan oleh guru agama anda adalah hal yang ketiga, yaitu Gereja. Sedangkan untuk melihat apakah Kerajaan Surga sama persis dengan Kerajaan Allah, maka kita melihatnya demikian:

Kerajaan Surga adalah kepenuhan Kerajaan Allah di Surga kelak, yang sebenarnya adalah pemenuhan ketiga hal di atas sekaligus, sebab di Kerajaan Surga maka kita semua sebagai umat beriman yang tergabung dalam Gereja, akan bersatu dengan Kristus yang adalah Kepalanya, sehingga Kristus meraja di hati semua manusia. Silakan membaca ulasan mengenai hal ini di sini, silakan klik dan di sini, silakan klik.

Atau jika kita melihat bahwa Kerajaan Surga adalah Kerajaan Allah di Surga kelak, maka di sini pengertian “Kerajaan Allah” terlihat lebih luas artinya, karena mencakup Kerajaan-Nya yang masih mengembara di dunia ini, yaitu Gereja-Nya. Gereja sebagai Kerajaan Allah ini akan mencapai kesempurnaannya di dalam Kerajaan Surga. Maka Surga dan Kerajaan Surga itu sama, hanya penekanannya agak berbeda. Kata “Surga” biasanya dipakai untuk menyatakan tempat/ keadaan terberkati yang ilahi, biasanya untuk dikontraskan dengan neraka. Sedangkan Kerajaan Surga biasanya untuk menekankan kesempurnaan Kerajaan Allah, yang telah dibentuk Allah sejak awal mula, sejak dari masa Penciptaan, pembentukan bangsa Israel (Kerajaan Allah di PL), dan Gereja (Kerajaan Allah di PB) yang akan terus bertahan sampai akhir jaman, dan yang disempurnakan sebagai Kerajaan Surga. Silakan anda membaca lebih lanjut dalam artikel ini: Kesempurnaan Rancangan Keselamatan Allah, silakan klik

Demikian yang dapat saya tuliskan tentang “kunci” dan Kerajaan Allah yang anda tanyakan. Semoga berguna.

Salam kasih dalam Kristus Tuhan,
Ingrid Listiati- www.katolisitas.org

dikutip dari http://katolisitas.org/3347/arti-kunci-rasul-Petrus-dan-kerajaan-surga

Daripada dikerjai Om Salt, ambil tanya jawab dari Katolisitas saja.   :blush: :blush: :blush:
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: salt on September 16, 2014, 09:16:25 AM
Jadi sudah tidak diharapkan reply lagi ya oom....

Hiks hiks..
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on September 16, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
Jadi sudah tidak diharapkan reply lagi ya oom....

Hiks hiks..

Enggak juga.
Artikel diatas kan berdasarkan Gereja Katolik.
Gereja Kristen tentunya mempunyai penafsiran yang berbeda

 :D
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on September 24, 2014, 08:47:35 AM
suka-suka yg punya surga om..

siapa tahu tiba-tiba lagi mood pengen ganti model kunci...

kalau kata oom Bergoglio...
"Who are we to judge..."

wah siapa tuh oom bergoglio?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on October 24, 2015, 06:44:48 AM
Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga."
 Nggak. Ayat bilang di dunia, jadi itu mengikat secara duniawi ... BUKAN rohani.


Dosa terjadi didunia dan sebagai akibatnya akan terikat utk dihakimi kelak didalam Neraka kalau tidak bertobat.

Quote
Quote
T : Bisa dijelaskan fungsi mengikat dan melepaskan ?
Kunci yang diberikan itu bukan kunci, melainkan otoritas. Apa yang Petrus ajarkan di dunia maka itu terikat di sorga. Apa yang Petrus tidak ajarkan ataupun Petrus "buang" ajaran dunia yg ada - maka itu juga "dibuang" di sorga.

Otoritas tentunya berdasarkan otoritas Allah dan itu semua tentunya sudah tertulis didalam Kitab Suci yang berotoritas tertinggi selain dirinya Allah sendiri.

Kalau ada otoritas manusia melawan kebenaran Kitab Suci itu hanya otoritas yg berasal dari si Iblis saja.


Quote
Quote
T : Apakah tujuan pemberian kunci ?

J : Ingat yang diberikan adalah kunci untuk “Kerajaan Sorga / Allah” jadi kunci disini hanya merupakan alat untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah.
Kunci itu bukan kunci. Dan kalo mao maksa bilang bhw kunci itu alat untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga, maka saya rasa adalah tidak pantas menggunakan kata "hanya". Tujuan pemberian kunci adalah adanya keseragaman.

Kunci dimanapun dipahami adalah alat untuk memasuki suatu lokasi dgn membuka pintunya dan secara rohani adalah alat untuk manusia bisa memasuki Kerajaan Sorga sebagai tujuan manusia kelak melalui pintu rohani yaitu iman yang lahir dari firman Tuhan.


Quote
Quote
T : Bagaimana syaratnya untuk bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah itu ?

J : Tuhan Yesus mengatakan : "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan kembali, ia tidak dapat melihat Kerajaan Allah.” (Yoh.3:3)
Silahkan di search di AO. Hasil searchnya bukan hanya ayat Yohanes 3:3 tsb.

Tuhan sudah berkata tanpa iman tidak ada yg berkenan bagi-Nya makanya satu satunya kunci pembuka pintu masuk kedalam Kerajaan Sorga adalah iman melalui firman Tuhan.

Ibrani 11:6 Tetapi tanpa iman tidak mungkin orang berkenan kepada Allah. Sebab barangsiapa berpaling kepada Allah, ia harus percaya bahwa Allah ada, dan bahwa Allah memberi upah kepada orang yang sungguh-sungguh mencari Dia.


Quote
Quote
T : Jadi apa kaitannya kunci dengan firman Kristus ?

J : Firman Tuhan berkata : “ Tetapi bagaimana mereka dapat berseru kepada-Nya, jika mereka tidak percaya kepada Dia? Bagaimana mereka dapat percaya kepada Dia, jika mereka tidak mendengar tentang Dia. Bagaimana mereka mendengar tentang Dia, jika tidak ada yang memberitakan-Nya? Dan bagaimana mereka dapat memberitakan-Nya, jika mereka tidak diutus? Seperti ada tertulis: "Betapa indahnya kedatangan mereka yang membawa kabar baik!” (Roma 10:14,15).
Nggak. Jawaban diatas nggak ada kaitan dgn pertanyaan-nya sehubungan dengan ayat ttg "kunci Kerajaan Sorga" yg diberikan ke Petrus.

Tidak ada kaitannya antara kunci dengan Firman Kristus.
"Kunci" di ayat tsb = otoritas.
Ibarat kata kalo di jaman tsb Petrus bilang : "boleh aborsi" ---> maka ini dilepas didalam Kerajaan Sorga.
Kalo Petrus bilang : "tidak boleh melakukan aborsi" ---> maka ini diikat didalam Kerajaan Sorga.


Kunci itu secara logika adalah alat untuk membuka bukan otoritas dan satu satunya jalan untuk membuka pintu Sorga adalah iman berdasarkan firman yang berotoritas.


Bersambung
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on October 24, 2015, 06:45:12 AM
@odad,

Quote
Quote
T : Jadi mereka inilah pembuka jalan bagi berita keselamatan itu ya ?

J : Memang demikian buktinya pertama kalinya Petrus dan Yohanes sudah membuka jalan penginjilan kepada bangsa Yahudi (Kis.2) dan bangsa bangsa lain ( Kis.8:14 ; Kis.10).
OOT. Pertanyaan dan jawaban di quote ini gak ada hubungannya ama "kunci" .


Petrus dikhususkan oleh Tuhan untuk membuka pintu keselamatan kepada bangsa lain melalui penginjilannya kepada keluarga Kornelius.


Quote
Quote
T : Apa kaitannya kunci yang melepas dan mengikat itu itu diberikan kepada para Rasul ?

J : Ya..itu tentunya berkaitan dengan “otoritas” mereka sebagai Rasul yaitu orang orang yang dipilih dan diangkat sendiri oleh Yesus sebagai Rasul
Bukan "mereka", tapi hanya Petrus.

Semua Nabi dan Rasul memiliki otoritas yang sama karena tidak ada diskrimininasi dimata  Tuhan.


Quote
Quote
T : Jadi kalau ada gereja yang membuat ajaran baru yang bertentangan dengan kebenaran dari semua wahyu Tuhan yang diajarkan dan ditulis oleh para Rasul bagaimana ?

J : Itu sih bukan gereja Kristus karena Kitab Suci sudah memperingatkan
Sekali lagi, "kunci" disitu = otoritas. Ajaran "baru" itu bisa bersifat dinamis sesuai sikon, jaman, dlsb ... DAN nggak ada hubungannya dgn kebenaran dari semua wahyu Tuhan melainkan sehubungan hal2 duniawi.

Kalo DULU, gereja nggak mungkin bisa ada bilang "dilarang nonton bokep" .... tapi SEKARANG kalo gereja bilang "jangan nonton bokep" ---> maka ini "diikat" di Kerajaan Sorga.

Otoritas Tuhan adalah kebenaran didalam Alkitab firman Tuhan yg berotoritas karena kelak semua manusia akan dihakimi berdasarkan otoritas kebenaran Alkitab tsb.


Quote
Quote
T : Apa maksudnya ajaran dongeng itu ?

J : Artinya banyak ajaran yang hanya dongengan penuh isapan jempol belaka (2 Pet.2:3) misalnya arwah manusia yang bisa pulang pergi mengelilingi dunia dan mengaku datang dari Sorga dan bisa menyelamatkan manusia ; manusia yang merasa dirinya seperti Tuhan yang tidak mungkin salah ; air dan roti bisa benar benar langsung berubah menjadi darah dan daging kalau dimakan ; dosa bisa dikurangi kalau membeli kertas surat tertentu,manusia biasa bisa ikut menebus dosa dan ikut ikutan sebagai pengantara keselamatan,... dll.
Sudah tak jelasin diatas ... "otoritas" itu bersifat dinamis. "Deklarasi" gereja yg mana yg boleh/harus/bisa dilakukan = begitu jugalah di Kerajaan Sorga. "Deklarasi" gereja yg mana yg tidak boleh/tidak harus/tidak bisa dilakukan = begitu jugalah di Kerajaan Sorga. Dan ini tidak sertamerta artinya pasti tidak berubah.

Kalau semua tradisi yang tidak ada dasar kebenaran Alkitab yg berotoritas dan merupakan anti-tesis thd firman Tuhan yg tertulis sudah pasti itu semua hanyalah dongengan dan isapan jempol belaka.


Quote
Quote
T : Gereja seperti ini apakah masih bisa memasuki Kerajaan Surga / Allah ?

J : Kalau tidak segera bertobat dari pembelokan ajaran lurus dari para Rasul tsb,maka hanya tempat dimana kerajaan si Iblis ada didalamnya saja mereka ini akan masuk kelak (Mat.25:41 ; Yoh.8:44).
OOT lagi. "Kunci" di ayat ybs bukan lagi ngomongin sebuah alat / kunci utk membuka pintu Kerajaan Sorga sehingga tinggal ceklek! buka pintu lalu masuk Sorga dgn lenggang-kangkung. . Ada banyak faktor2 lain namun yg pasti cuma ada satu "pihak" yg menentukan sso masuk ato kagak ... dan "pihak" ini bukan dari sisi manusia duniawi, melainkan rohani :

Aku telah mati, namun lihatlah, Aku hidup, sampai selama-lamanya dan Aku memegang segala kunci maut dan kerajaan maut

Satu satunya jalan measuk kedalam kerajaan surga adalah dengan iman dan kunci untuk beriman adalah menerima firman dengan iman berdasarkan anugerah Tuhan saja.


Quote
Quote
T : Walah...walah....amit ...amit !
Tenaaanng .... nggak lah perlu ampe "walah.. walah.. amit amit!" . "kunci" yg diberikan ke Petrus itu BUKAN sebuah alat pembuka pintu Kerajaan Surga. Ada faktor2 laen, salah satunya faktor iman si manusia itu sendiri ---> dan ini BUKAN otoritas manusia utk nge-judge secara sebuah kepastian, melainkan :

Hal itu akan nampak pada hari, bilamana Allah, sesuai dengan Injil yang kuberitakan, akan menghakimi segala sesuatu yang tersembunyi dalam hati manusia, oleh Kristus Yesus.


Dan firman Tuhan yg tertulis didalam Alkitab akan menjadi hakim manusia kelak :

Yohanes 12:48 Barangsiapa menolak Aku, dan tidak menerima perkataan-Ku, ia sudah ada hakimnya, yaitu firman yang telah Kukatakan, itulah yang akan menjadi hakimnya pada akhir zaman.


Quote
Quote
T: Katanya gereja Roma katolik adalah warisan atau suksesi  dari Rasul Petrus ?

J : Yang diwariskan oleh GRK sama sekali bukan ajaran Petrus melainkan perbuatan munafik yang diperbuat Petrus semasa hidupnya,karena dimulut mengatakan GRK menggunakan Alkitab sebagai salah satu pilar gereja tetapi semua praktek dan tradisinya anti kebenaran Alkitab sebagaimana Petrus yg mengaku mau membela Yesus dengan nyawanya tetapi pernah menyangkalinya juga sampai 3 kali. Dia juga ditentang oleh Paulus karena kemunafikannya didalam Galatia 2:11.
Apa hubungannya dengan "kunci" ? Apa hubungannya dengan kemunafikan ? Kalo mao di jabarkan, kan ada juga kemunafikan tokoh2 Alkitab PL ? Paulus sendiri yg berpegang pada gak perlu sunat, namun melakukan penyunatan kan ? .


Faktanya memang hanya kemunafikan,kekeliruan dan penyangkalan Petrus saja yg diwariskan  didalam gereja tsb sampai hari ini sesuai dengan sejarahnya selama ribuan tahun itu.

Jadi mengatakan gereja adalah warisan Rasul Petrus sekali lagi hanyalah dongengan dan isapan jempol belaka.


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on October 24, 2015, 06:48:37 AM
dikutip dari http://katolisitas.org/3347/arti-kunci-rasul-Petrus-dan-kerajaan-surga

Daripada dikerjai Om Salt, ambil tanya jawab dari Katolisitas saja.   :blush: :blush: :blush:


AKSES MENUJU KERAJAAN Allah

Kunci Kerajaan Allah, adalah istilah yang digunakan dalam Alkitab, dalam sebuah pernyataan Yesus kepada Petrus dalam Injil Matius 16:19. Kunci Kerajaan Surga merupakan sebuah ungkapan yang digunakan untuk merujuk kepada sosok Yesus. Ungkapan ini adalah sebuah bentuk penekanan dari inti pelayanan tugas Yesus Kristus di dunia.

KUNCI KERAJAAN SURGA bandingkan dengan istilah JALAN MASUK/ AKSES MASUK (PROSAGÔGÊ) yang dibahas di artikel di jalan-jalan-Tuhan-vt2967.html#p16752 bandingkan pula dengan istilah AKULAH PINTU yang dibahas dalam artikel di akulah-i-am-ani-hu-ego-eimi-vt2829.html#p16014 .

Apa yang dimaksud sebagai KUNCI KERAJAAN SURGA dan JALAN MASUK/ AKSES MASUK (PROSAGÔGÊ) dan juga PINTU, oleh Tuhan Yesus pastilah jalan menuju Kerajaan Surga, pintu-nya Kerajaan Surga, dan kunci masuk Kerajaan Surga, dan Tuhan Yesus adalah satu-satunya akses untuk menuju ke sana,melalui iman berdasarkan firman Tuhan.

Baik domba-domba maupun para gembala yang sejati haruslah masuk melalui pintu itu. Melalui ilustrasi ini Yesus mengatakan bahwa setiap orang yang masuk melalui Dia pastilah selamat, dan mempunyai hidup dalam segala kelimpahan (Yohanes 10:10). Inti dari kesaksian Yesus Kristus ini menyatakan bahwa Dialah "satu-satunya" akses ke dalam Kerajaan Surga (bandingkan Kisah 4:12). Masuk melalui pintu lain berarti menuju kebinasaan kekal.

Dan satu satunya akses kepada Kristus adalah dengan iman melalui firman Tuhan yang berotoritas.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on October 26, 2015, 05:19:15 AM

AKSES MENUJU KERAJAAN Allah

Kunci Kerajaan Allah, adalah istilah yang digunakan dalam Alkitab, dalam sebuah pernyataan Yesus kepada Petrus dalam Injil Matius 16:19. Kunci Kerajaan Surga merupakan sebuah ungkapan yang digunakan untuk merujuk kepada sosok Yesus. Ungkapan ini adalah sebuah bentuk penekanan dari inti pelayanan tugas Yesus Kristus di dunia.

KUNCI KERAJAAN SURGA bandingkan dengan istilah JALAN MASUK/ AKSES MASUK (PROSAGÔGÊ) yang dibahas di artikel di jalan-jalan-Tuhan-vt2967.html#p16752 bandingkan pula dengan istilah AKULAH PINTU yang dibahas dalam artikel di akulah-i-am-ani-hu-ego-eimi-vt2829.html#p16014 .

Apa yang dimaksud sebagai KUNCI KERAJAAN SURGA dan JALAN MASUK/ AKSES MASUK (PROSAGÔGÊ) dan juga PINTU, oleh Tuhan Yesus pastilah jalan menuju Kerajaan Surga, pintu-nya Kerajaan Surga, dan kunci masuk Kerajaan Surga, dan Tuhan Yesus adalah satu-satunya akses untuk menuju ke sana,melalui iman berdasarkan firman Tuhan.

Baik domba-domba maupun para gembala yang sejati haruslah masuk melalui pintu itu. Melalui ilustrasi ini Yesus mengatakan bahwa setiap orang yang masuk melalui Dia pastilah selamat, dan mempunyai hidup dalam segala kelimpahan (Yohanes 10:10). Inti dari kesaksian Yesus Kristus ini menyatakan bahwa Dialah "satu-satunya" akses ke dalam Kerajaan Surga (bandingkan Kisah 4:12). Masuk melalui pintu lain berarti menuju kebinasaan kekal.

Dan satu satunya akses kepada Kristus adalah dengan iman melalui firman Tuhan yang berotoritas.

Apakah ada tertulis di Alkitab, bahwa arti daripada "kunci kerajaan Allah" adalah seperti yg kau jabarkan di atas ?

Camkan itu!

Dan Catat!

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on October 28, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
Apakah ada tertulis di Alkitab, bahwa arti daripada "kunci kerajaan Allah" adalah seperti yg kau jabarkan di atas ?

Camkan itu!

Dan Catat!


Memang demikianlah yg harus ditafsirkan bukan dengan cara mempertuhankan manusia seperti praktekmu yang penuh dengan pemberhalaan manusia itu !

Ajaran mengenai Petrus di Alkitab sudah kau manipulasikan dengan menjadikannya batukarang gereja,Paus,Kepala Gereja,Kepala Rasul dlsb yang penuh dongengan dan isapan jempol.

Kalau kau mau meninggikan Petrus silahkan kau jawab pertanyaan dibawah ini dulu :

Kalau anda ngotot terus tanpa fakta sejarah maka menarik kalau anda mencoba menjawab 25 pertanyaan berikut ini mengenai Petrus :

25 Questions That Catholics Must Answer about Peter As The Foundation of the Church

"...the attempts of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to establish its authority from Scripture are astonishingly weak...The assertion that the Roman Catholic bishops are the apostles' successors is based upon the thinnest of implications....we must conclude that the power of the Pope and bishops does not come from God." (James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome [hereafter "GAR"], page 260, 261)


1 - If Peter was assigned the position of leader of the Church why did Jesus declare emphatically: “. . . do not call anyone on earth ‘father’, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’, for you have one Teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:9, 10)?
Note: The context indicates that the reference is to the final authority vis-à-vis spiritual questions. No man can assume this role.

2 - If Peter and the disciples had understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter’s supremacy and leadership position, why a little later the disciples disputed who would be the greatest amongst them?
Note: They would rather be disputing the number 2 position, not the number 1, since that would have been already assured to Peter by Jesus.

3 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why wasn’t he who presented the final decision of the Jerusalem Council, but James (see Acts 15)?

Note: He only delivered an introductory speech, but James was the Christian leader who spoke on behalf of the body of apostles, which can be concluded reading carefully the entire chapter, especially verses 12ff.

4 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why was he sent by the Church to Samaria with John (see Acts 8:14)? As the No. 1 leader of the Church, he would be sending missionaries.

5 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did he himself attribute to Christ the role of the basic rock, and never claimed to himself or mentioned any special leadership role in the Church (see 1 Peter 2:6-8)?

6 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why didn’t Paul confirm this in 1 Corinthians 10:4, as he assured that Christ is the rock?

7 - If Peter was the first Pope, how could Paul reprimand him so severely because he acted in a wrong way (see Galatians 2:11-14)?
Note: Nowhere in the writings of Paul does he confer any primacy to Peter whatsoever. On the contrary, when he had the opportunity to call Peter the Rock of the Church, Paul said that there's no other foundation other than Christ. I Cor 3:11.

8 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul say that the Church is built on the human foundation of the apostles and prophets, without discriminating Peter as the most important of these (see Ephesians 2:20)?
Note: Christ in this text is presented again as the Church’s cornerstone.

9 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t Paul discriminate Peter as the principal one, as he made reference to Peter, together with James and John as the columns of the Church (see Galatians 2:9)?
Note: He mentions James in the first place.

10 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t the final authority of the Jerusalem church remain with Peter, but with the apostles, later substituted by “elders”?
Note: Besides having been “the apostles” who sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14) to supervise the new Christian communities, they also did the same sending Barnabas to Antioquia (Acts 11:22), later Judas and Silas to the same place (Acts 15:22-27).

11 - If Peter was the first Pope, why were “James and the elders” the ones who recommended that Paul submitted himself to a purification rite in the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24)?

12 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul make clear in Galatians that he did not consider Jerusalem a divinely appointed administrative center for all the congregational activity?

Note: After his conversion Paul did not go to Jerusalem, to seek guidance from Peter and the leadership of the Church there, but to Damascus.

13 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul, after his conversion, receive divine instructions through a native of Damascus, called Ananias, and not through Peter?
Note: In Galatians 1: 16, 17 he says clearly that after his conversion he did not resort to any human source of authority.

Bersambung
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on October 28, 2015, 05:29:04 PM

14 - If Peter was the first Pope, why did Paul travel to Jerusalem only three years later and declared that he only saw Peter and James, and no other apostle in his fifteen-day sojourn there?

15 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul set Antioch as the base of his operations, and although that city was near Jerusalem he did not see a reason to address himself to the capital of the Judea?

16 - If Peter was the first Pope, why don’t the stories of Paul’s missionary trips ever indicate that he undertook them under the recommendation of any “administrative board”, and with a route duly approved by an ecclesiastical leader (Acts 13, 15, 20, etc.--especially 15:36)?

17 - If Peter was head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul go back up to Jerusalem only after fourteen years, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus and not Peter, and that because he had a “revelation” from the Lord (see Gal. 2: 1, 2)?

18 - If Peter was the first Pope, why the only Biblical manuscripts after the fall of Jerusalem, from the apostle John, written decades after the desolation of Jerusalem, don’t ever mention any Church leader [or Pope] or Christian administrative center in his days, having a Peter as the top leader?

19 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why does John in the book of Revelation, portray Christ as sending messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, not any Pope (Rev. 1 to 3), and in none of these messages is there any suggestion or indication that those congregations were under an external direction, but that of Christ Himself?

20 - If Peter was the first Pope, why, in the available writings of Christian authors from the second and third centuries, nothing is indicated regarding the existence of a centered administration to supervise the numerous Christian congregations, under the command of Peter?

Note: The history of the period discloses, in contrast, something much different--that the centered religious authority was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development.

21 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus plainly say, 'UPON YOU', will I build my Church?

Note: Obviously because Jesus was referring to another Rock, the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. He was obviously contrasting the character of Peter as expressed in the Gospels with the solid and unshakeable rock of Jesus.

22 - If Peter was a solid Rock, why did Jesus severely rebuke him shortly after? Matthew 16:22-23

Note: Jesus rebuked Satan who was speaking through Peter. So, if Peter had just been considered by Jesus as a 'rock', how could he have become so quickly an instrument of Satan?If Jesus had just established Peter as the foundation of the Church, this episode would clearly demonstrate that Jesus made a gross mistake, which is of course, absurd. Therefore, rock CANNOT be referring to Peter.

23 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus commission Peter to build his church, instead of saying I WILL BUILD my church?

Note: Jesus is the builder and maker of the church and its foundation. "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." I Cor. 3: 11.

24. If Jesus' statement in Matthew 16 was so important to the establishment of the Church, why do all the other Gospel omit these words altogether?

Note: If all we had were the other 3 Gospels, the Catholic Church would not have ANY biblical basis for their Papacy. But then again, the Catholic hierarchy DOES NOT need the Scriptures to invent new dogmas, they resort to their own tradition to supplant the Scriptures.

25. If Peter was the solid rock, what does his denial of Christ reveal about Peter's total inability to be the foundation of anything?

Silahkan dijawab satu persatu jangan kabur lagi seperti biasanya !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on October 29, 2015, 08:14:56 AM

Memang demikianlah yg harus ditafsirkan



memang demikian ???

Menurut siapa memang demikian ?

Menurut bapak moyangmu pengajar palsu itu ?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on November 07, 2015, 10:14:36 AM
memang demikian ???

Menurut siapa memang demikian ?

Menurut bapak moyangmu pengajar palsu itu ?


Mengapa tidak kau jawab 25 pertanyaan yang membuktikan kepalsuan ajaran Petrusmu itu ?

Makanya janganlah terlalu banyak memberhalakan manusia !


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on November 08, 2015, 06:39:05 AM

Mengapa tidak kau jawab 25 pertanyaan yang membuktikan kepalsuan ajaran Petrusmu itu ?

Makanya janganlah terlalu banyak memberhalakan manusia !

Pertanyaan mu itu cuma membuktikan kau cuma copy paste dari website engga jelas.

Dan semua itu sudah dijawab di website resmi kami.

Camkan itu.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on November 08, 2015, 08:57:15 AM
Pertanyaan mu itu cuma membuktikan kau cuma copy paste dari website engga jelas.

Dan semua itu sudah dijawab di website resmi kami.

Camkan itu.

Silahkan dibahas disini pertanyaan saya tsb kalau kau mampu,kalau tidak mampu jangan cari cari alasan kosong karena ini forum diskusi bukan forum omong kosong doang !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on November 08, 2015, 09:45:45 AM
Silahkan dibahas disini pertanyaan saya tsb kalau kau mampu,kalau tidak mampu jangan cari cari alasan kosong karena ini forum diskusi bukan forum omong kosong doang !

yeahh elah ini anak...


http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on November 08, 2015, 11:11:17 AM
yeahh elah ini anak...


http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock


Tidak ada jawaban thd semua pertanyaan itu dan kemampuanmu memang hanya tukang kutip tetapi tidak paham apa yang kau kutip !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on November 08, 2015, 08:02:09 PM

Tidak ada jawaban thd semua pertanyaan itu dan kemampuanmu memang hanya tukang kutip tetapi tidak paham apa yang kau kutip !

Ada.

Kamu aja engga ngerti. bahasa inggris.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on November 10, 2015, 07:52:55 AM
Ada.

Kamu aja engga ngerti. bahasa inggris.

Ada 25 pertanyaan bung dan sama sekali tidak ada jawabanmu selain hanya kutip apa yg tidak nyambung !

Atau kau memang tidak paham bahasa Inggris ?

1 Pet. 5:1 - 4 Aku menasihatkan para penatua di antara kamu, aku sebagai teman penatua dan saksi penderitaan Kristus, yang juga akan mendapat bagian dalam kemuliaan yang akan dinyatakan kelak.Gembalakanlah kawanan domba Allah yang ada padamu, jangan dengan paksa, tetapi dengan sukarela sesuai dengan kehendak Allah, dan jangan karena mau mencari keuntungan, tetapi dengan pengabdian diri. Janganlah kamu berbuat seolah-olah kamu mau memerintah atas mereka yang dipercayakan kepadamu, tetapi hendaklah kamu menjadi teladan bagi kawanan domba itu. Maka kamu, apabila Gembala Agung datang, kamu akan menerima mahkota kemuliaan yang tidak dapat layu.

Dari ayat diatas ada dua hal yang diajarkan :

1.   Bahwa Petrus sendiri dengan rendah hati mengakui bahwa dirinya hanyalah ‘teman penatua’ ( fellow elder),bukan Kepala para Rasul atau Paus,atau gembala dari jemaat.

2.   Gembala yang Agung hanyalah Yesus itu sendiri.

Jadi menjadikan Paus sebagai gembala agung kepala gereja sedunia hanyalah kecongkakan rohani saja sifatnya !


Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Gavin Tuturuga on November 11, 2015, 02:58:37 AM


Jadi menjadikan Paus sebagai gembala agung kepala gereja sedunia hanyalah kecongkakan rohani saja sifatnya !

Jadi begini soli.

Memang diperlukan kemauan untuk membaca. (jika ingin pintar)
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on November 22, 2016, 09:09:19 AM
Kunci Kerajaan Surga adalah berita Injil.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on February 19, 2017, 04:08:45 PM
Kunci Kerajaan Surga adalah berita Injil.

Tafsir Bro Soli  :D
Karena gak ada tertulis di Alkitab
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on March 05, 2017, 02:27:28 PM
Tafsir Bro Soli  :D
Karena gak ada tertulis di Alkitab

Trinitas juga nggak ada istilahnya tetapi secara teologis memang didukung oleh ajaran Alkitab.

Demikian juga berita Injil sebagai kunci keselamatan manusia.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on March 11, 2017, 08:38:12 AM
Trinitas juga nggak ada istilahnya tetapi secara teologis memang didukung oleh ajaran Alkitab.

Enggak bro Soli, Trinitas melalui proses Magisterium, Alkitab dan Tradisi.
Dijamin pasti benar.

Quote
Demikian juga berita Injil sebagai kunci keselamatan manusia.

Kalo ini jelas2 tafsir karena enggak ada di Alkitab.
Tafsir bro Soli sendiri.
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on March 16, 2017, 10:22:01 PM
Enggak bro Soli, Trinitas melalui proses Magisterium, Alkitab dan Tradisi.
Dijamin pasti benar.

Kalo ini jelas2 tafsir karena enggak ada di Alkitab.
Tafsir bro Soli sendiri.

Ajaran Trinitas sudah ada di Alkitab selama ribuan tahun sejak Musa menulis Kitab Kejadian sebelum magisterium grk yg muncul di abad  4 masehi.

Kunci utk masuk Kerajaan Surga adalah kelahiran baru oleh Roh dan Firman sesuai perkataan Yesus.


Yoh.3:4,5 Kata Nikodemus kepada-Nya: "Bagaimanakah mungkin seorang dilahirkan, kalau ia sudah tua? Dapatkah ia masuk kembali ke dalam rahim ibunya dan dilahirkan lagi? Jawab Yesus: "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan dari air dan Roh, ia tidak dapat masuk ke dalam Kerajaan Allah

Ajaran magisterium banyak yg ngaco khususnya ajaran mariology yg anti Alkitab.

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on March 17, 2017, 10:24:48 AM
Ajaran Trinitas sudah ada di Alkitab selama ribuan tahun sejak Musa menulis Kitab Kejadian sebelum magisterium grk yg muncul di abad  4 masehi.

Sudah ribuan tahun enggak ada yang ngomong Trinitas ya Bro Soli.
GK yang mencetuskan. Kalo enggak ada yang mencetuskan bisa bablas ribuan tahun lagi.



Trinitas juga nggak ada istilahnya tetapi secara teologis memang didukung oleh ajaran Alkitab.

Demikian juga berita Injil sebagai kunci keselamatan manusia.



Quote
Kunci utk masuk Kerajaan Surga adalah kelahiran baru oleh Roh dan Firman sesuai perkataan Yesus.


Yoh.3:4,5 Kata Nikodemus kepada-Nya: "Bagaimanakah mungkin seorang dilahirkan, kalau ia sudah tua? Dapatkah ia masuk kembali ke dalam rahim ibunya dan dilahirkan lagi? Jawab Yesus: "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan dari air dan Roh, ia tidak dapat masuk ke dalam Kerajaan Allah


Enggak ada kata2 Berita Injil di ayat yang anda kutip ???

Quote
Ajaran magisterium banyak yg ngaco khususnya ajaran mariology yg anti Alkitab.

Oooo tidak bisaa...
Sudah pasti benar semua.

Hanya anda yang bandel saja, cuman ngikuti sebagian sesuai kehendak hati (manusia) sendiri
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on March 19, 2017, 03:28:07 PM
Sudah ribuan tahun enggak ada yang ngomong Trinitas ya Bro Soli.
GK yang mencetuskan. Kalo enggak ada yang mencetuskan bisa bablas ribuan tahun lagi.


Tertullianus, seorang teolog Latin yang menulis pada awal abad ke-3, dianggap sebagai orang pertama yang menggunakan kata-kata Latin terkait "Trinitas", "pribadi" dan "substansi",[21] untuk menjelaskan bahwa Bapa, Putra, dan Roh Kudus adalah "satu dalam esensi—bukan satu dalam Pribadi".

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritunggal

Jadi pengetahuan anda memang sangat cetek mengenai sejarah Gereja,krn jauh sebelum GRK lahir diabad 4 sudah ada istilah tsb.

Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on March 05, 2017, 02:27:28 PM

Quote
Kunci utk masuk Kerajaan Surga adalah kelahiran baru oleh Roh dan Firman sesuai perkataan Yesus.


Yoh.3:4,5 Kata Nikodemus kepada-Nya: "Bagaimanakah mungkin seorang dilahirkan, kalau ia sudah tua? Dapatkah ia masuk kembali ke dalam rahim ibunya dan dilahirkan lagi? Jawab Yesus: "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan dari air dan Roh, ia tidak dapat masuk ke dalam Kerajaan Allah

Enggak ada kata2 Berita Injil di ayat yang anda kutip ???


Berita Injilnya adalah iman kepada Yesus yang lahir akibat Kelahiran baru oleh Roh Kudus dan Firman

1 Tesalonika 1:6 Dan kamu telah menjadi penurut kami dan penurut Tuhan; dalam penindasan yang berat kamu telah menerima firman itu dengan sukacita yang dikerjakan oleh Roh Kudus,

Itu kalau menurut Alkitab bukan tradisi palsu bikinan manusia


Quote
Quote
Ajaran magisterium banyak yg ngaco khususnya ajaran mariology yg anti Alkitab.

Oooo tidak bisaa...
Sudah pasti benar semua.

Hanya anda yang bandel saja, cuman ngikuti sebagian sesuai kehendak hati (manusia) sendiri

Kalau begitu mana dasar Alkitabnya ajaran paralelisasi Maria sbb :

1.   Theotokos yaitu bunda Allah yg bisa mendikte Yesus yg adalah Anak Allah
2.   Immaculate Conception meniru Yesus yang tidak berdosa
3.   Obyek doa dan penyembahan (doa Rosario) seperti juga kepada Allah Bapa.
4.   Ratu Surga meniru Yesus Raja Surga
5.   Ibu Gereja meniru Yesus adalah Kepala Gereja
6.   Co-redeemer meniru Yesus sebagai Penebus
7.   Mediatrix meniru Yesus sebagai pengantara manusia dengan Allah
8.   Souvereign meniru Yesus juga berdauat
9.   Pengantin Roh Kudus,ini sudah sangat menghujat Roh Kudus.
10.   Morning Star meniru Yesus Bintang Timur
11.   Apparition meniru Yesus yang muncul setelah kematian-Nya
12.   Assumption meniru kebangkitan dan kenaikan Yesus ke Surga
13.  Tidak boleh menyebut nama Maria dgn sia sia meniru kepada YHWH

Silahkan dijelaskan satu persatu dasar Alkitabnya !

Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: Phooey on March 20, 2017, 11:00:29 AM

Tertullianus, seorang teolog Latin yang menulis pada awal abad ke-3, dianggap sebagai orang pertama yang menggunakan kata-kata Latin terkait "Trinitas", "pribadi" dan "substansi",[21] untuk menjelaskan bahwa Bapa, Putra, dan Roh Kudus adalah "satu dalam esensi—bukan satu dalam Pribadi".

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritunggal

Jadi pengetahuan anda memang sangat cetek mengenai sejarah Gereja,krn jauh sebelum GRK lahir diabad 4 sudah ada istilah tsb.


Aduh.. malu2in bener Bro Soli ini.
Gereja yang satu, kudus, katolik dan apostolik ialah Gereja Katolik, yang didirikan oleh Tuhan Yesus sendiri.  :afro:
Tidak terpecah belah seperti punya anda.

18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya.
19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga." (Mat 16:18-19 ITB)

Jelas ya bro Soli  :D
Kalo gereja mu saya bisa menaksir paling2 tahun 1900 baru berdiri di Indonesia  :D
Itu pun sekarang saya yakin pada tahun 2017 ini sudah terpecah2 entah menjadi berapa banyak.  :D


Kunci utk masuk Kerajaan Surga adalah kelahiran baru oleh Roh dan Firman sesuai perkataan Yesus.

Yoh.3:4,5 Kata Nikodemus kepada-Nya: "Bagaimanakah mungkin seorang dilahirkan, kalau ia sudah tua? Dapatkah ia masuk kembali ke dalam rahim ibunya dan dilahirkan lagi? Jawab Yesus: "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika seorang tidak dilahirkan dari air dan Roh, ia tidak dapat masuk ke dalam Kerajaan Allah

Quote
Berita Injilnya adalah iman kepada Yesus yang lahir akibat Kelahiran baru oleh Roh Kudus dan Firman

1 Tesalonika 1:6 Dan kamu telah menjadi penurut kami dan penurut Tuhan; dalam penindasan yang berat kamu telah menerima firman itu dengan sukacita yang dikerjakan oleh Roh Kudus,


Kemarin ngutip Johanes, sekarang ngutip 1Tesalonika.
Mana tertulis "Kunci utk masuk Kerajaan Surga adalah kelahiran baru oleh Roh dan Firman sesuai perkataan Yesus" seperti tulisan anda terdahulu ???

Tambah lama kog tambah mbleyot sih.
1Tesalonika itu surat Rasul Paulus ya bro Soli, bukan perkataan Tuhan Yesus.
Jangan nafsir yang enggak2 atau malahan ngarang lagi  :D
Ayo cepetan ngaku, kalo keliru nulis ngaku saja keliru. Daripada ngarang2 nanti tambah lama tambah keliatan boongnya.



Quote
Itu kalau menurut Alkitab bukan tradisi palsu bikinan manusia


Kalau begitu mana dasar Alkitabnya ajaran paralelisasi Maria sbb :

1.   Theotokos yaitu bunda Allah yg bisa mendikte Yesus yg adalah Anak Allah
2.   Immaculate Conception meniru Yesus yang tidak berdosa
3.   Obyek doa dan penyembahan (doa Rosario) seperti juga kepada Allah Bapa.
4.   Ratu Surga meniru Yesus Raja Surga
5.   Ibu Gereja meniru Yesus adalah Kepala Gereja
6.   Co-redeemer meniru Yesus sebagai Penebus
7.   Mediatrix meniru Yesus sebagai pengantara manusia dengan Allah
8.   Souvereign meniru Yesus juga berdauat
9.   Pengantin Roh Kudus,ini sudah sangat menghujat Roh Kudus.
10.   Morning Star meniru Yesus Bintang Timur
11.   Apparition meniru Yesus yang muncul setelah kematian-Nya
12.   Assumption meniru kebangkitan dan kenaikan Yesus ke Surga
13.  Tidak boleh menyebut nama Maria dgn sia sia meniru kepada YHWH

Silahkan dijelaskan satu persatu dasar Alkitabnya !

Kamu kog enggak sembuh2 sih.... dari dulu nulisnya juga begitu2 enggak ada kemajuan cara berpikirnya.
Apa yang kamu tulis diatas, sepenggal2 sesuai keinginan (manusia) dirimu sendiri.
Baca satu2 penjelasannya di website Katolik.


18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya.
19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga." (Mat 16:18-19 ITB)

20 dan ajarlah mereka melakukan segala sesuatu yang telah Kuperintahkan kepadamu. Dan ketahuilah, Aku menyertai kamu senantiasa sampai kepada akhir zaman." (Mat 28:20 ITB)

Gereja Katolik didirikan oleh Tuhan Yesus sendiri, dan Tuhan Yesus berjanji menyertai sampai akhir jaman. Anda tidak percaya perkataan Tuhan Yesus ?
Title: Re: Kunci Kerajaan Surga
Post by: solideogloria on March 21, 2017, 12:56:45 PM
Aduh.. malu2in bener Bro Soli ini.
Gereja yang satu, kudus, katolik dan apostolik ialah Gereja Katolik, yang didirikan oleh Tuhan Yesus sendiri.  :afro:
Tidak terpecah belah seperti punya anda.

18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya.
19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga." (Mat 16:18-19 ITB)

Jelas ya bro Soli  :D
Kalo gereja mu saya bisa menaksir paling2 tahun 1900 baru berdiri di Indonesia  :D
Itu pun sekarang saya yakin pada tahun 2017 ini sudah terpecah2 entah menjadi berapa banyak.  :D


Jadi sudah terbukti kebodohanmu yg tidak paham sejarah Gereja tetapi fanatik buta thd golongan sendiri tanpa mau diuji oleh sejarah Gereja.

Gerejamu bukan yg didirikan oleh Yesus karena tidak pernah ada praktek dan ajaran Yesus sbb :

1.   Jabatan Paus
2.   Jabatan Kepala Gereja selain Kristus
3.   Jabatan Bapa Suci selain Allah Bapa
4.   Infallible Pope
5.   Purgatory
6.   Ritual Salam maria
7.   Doa Rosario

Dll terlalu banyak penyimpangan kalau disebut semua.

Quote
Quote from: solideogloria on March 16, 2017, 10:22:01 PM
Kemarin ngutip Johanes, sekarang ngutip 1Tesalonika.
Mana tertulis "Kunci utk masuk Kerajaan Surga adalah kelahiran baru oleh Roh dan Firman sesuai perkataan Yesus" seperti tulisan anda terdahulu ???

Tambah lama kog tambah mbleyot sih.
1Tesalonika itu surat Rasul Paulus ya bro Soli, bukan perkataan Tuhan Yesus.
Jangan nafsir yang enggak2 atau malahan ngarang lagi   
Ayo cepetan ngaku, kalo keliru nulis ngaku saja keliru. Daripada ngarang2 nanti tambah lama tambah keliatan boongnya.

Kitab Tesalonika itu ditulis oleh Rasul Paulus berdasarkan inspirasi Roh Kudus yaitu Rasul yg diangkat sendiri oleh Tuhan Yesus dan diakui oleh semua gereja kecuali olehmu yang sudah memberhalakan Gerejamu itu sebab begitu banyaknya penyimpangan dari kebenaran Alkitab akibat kultus kepada manusia.

Quote
Quote
Itu kalau menurut Alkitab bukan tradisi palsu bikinan manusia

Kalau begitu mana dasar Alkitabnya ajaran paralelisasi Maria sbb :

1.   Theotokos yaitu bunda Allah yg bisa mendikte Yesus yg adalah Anak Allah
2.   Immaculate Conception meniru Yesus yang tidak berdosa
3.   Obyek doa dan penyembahan (doa Rosario) seperti juga kepada Allah Bapa.
4.   Ratu Surga meniru Yesus Raja Surga
5.   Ibu Gereja meniru Yesus adalah Kepala Gereja
6.   Co-redeemer meniru Yesus sebagai Penebus
7.   Mediatrix meniru Yesus sebagai pengantara manusia dengan Allah
8.   Souvereign meniru Yesus juga berdauat
9.   Pengantin Roh Kudus,ini sudah sangat menghujat Roh Kudus.
10.   Morning Star meniru Yesus Bintang Timur
11.   Apparition meniru Yesus yang muncul setelah kematian-Nya
12.   Assumption meniru kebangkitan dan kenaikan Yesus ke Surga
13.  Tidak boleh menyebut nama Maria dgn sia sia meniru kepada YHWH

Silahkan dijelaskan satu persatu dasar Alkitabnya !

Kamu kog enggak sembuh2 sih.... dari dulu nulisnya juga begitu2 enggak ada kemajuan cara berpikirnya.
Apa yang kamu tulis diatas, sepenggal2 sesuai keinginan (manusia) dirimu sendiri.
Baca satu2 penjelasannya di website Katolik.

18 Dan Akupun berkata kepadamu: Engkau adalah Petrus dan di atas batu karang ini Aku akan mendirikan jemaat-Ku dan alam maut tidak akan menguasainya.
19 Kepadamu akan Kuberikan kunci Kerajaan Sorga. Apa yang kauikat di dunia ini akan terikat di sorga dan apa yang kaulepaskan di dunia ini akan terlepas di sorga." (Mat 16:18-19 ITB)

20 dan ajarlah mereka melakukan segala sesuatu yang telah Kuperintahkan kepadamu. Dan ketahuilah, Aku menyertai kamu senantiasa sampai kepada akhir zaman." (Mat 28:20 ITB)

Gereja Katolik didirikan oleh Tuhan Yesus sendiri, dan Tuhan Yesus berjanji menyertai sampai akhir jaman. Anda tidak percaya perkataan Tuhan Yesus ?

Lain yang ditanya lain lagi jawaban alias ngeyel doang modalmu !

Hayo buktikan semua ajaran palsu Gerejamu itu satu persatu kalau mampu,inikan diskusi saling beradu argumentasi bukan asbun.

Jangan mengelak dari apa yg ditanyakan bung !