Sword & Trowel 2019: Issue 1
prevailed against the church of Christ? We look back at tremendous victo- ries for the Gospel, when remarkable things have happened. We think of the Reformation in Britain. How un- likely it was that there should be the collapse of Roman dominance and that the Gospel should be preached in every city and town and hamlet, with people turning to Christ in their hundreds of thousands. There were so many benefits of the Reforma- tion for the entire land, saved and unsaved alike. It heralded a new era of clear thinking and education. Even in public behaviour, coarseness and brutality gave way to a measure of courtesy, respect and refinement, and over it all a glorious increase of
‘UPON THIS ROCK...’ B
spiritual life came about. We look back at other times of
revival, when God moved in a spec- tacular way, and over a period of five, ten, thirty years, vast numbers of people were saved. We may also think of times like the Puritan era, or much later the Victorian era, when despite much hypocrisy in society, and much deprivation and poverty, there were vast numbers of commit- ted and earnest believers thronging the churches everywhere. So great was the influence of godly pulpits that even the unbelieving world re- spected Christian moral values, and much godlessness was curbed and subdued. Traditional Western values such as probity in government administration
Y ONE OF the most disastrous misinterpretations of Scripture, the
Church of Rome makes the apostle Peter the foundation and head of the church. It is claimed that Christ’s words to Peter give him that status: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ But in Christ’s words there is an obvi- ous contrast between Peter, the stone, and the mighty rock which is the foundation stone of the church. When the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock,’ he clearly referred to the statement Peter had just made – ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ The Lord commended him for this statement, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’ Peter’s confession of Christ identified the foundation of the church, which is Christ himself. Of course he is the only
possible foundation because he suffered and died on Calvary’s cross to make the vital substitutionary atonement for the sins of all who would be saved. If Christ, the incarnate Son of God, had not taken the eternal punishment of our sin there would be no church. He alone is the chief cor- nerstone, the foundation of the church. It is inconceivable that the Lord would have given the status of ‘foundation’ to a fallible apostle, however noble his service. If Christ had not come into this world
and lived a life so perfect and so pure that it could earn Heaven for all his elect, there would be no church. We must be clear that the claim of the
Church of Rome to make Peter, a sin- ful man, the foundation and head of the church (so that a succession of popes may be justified) is nowhere in the New Testament. All depends on a childish mis- interpretation of this text.
page 26 Triumphs of the Church in an Atheistic Age
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
