The Pope is Going to Hell

[Churchwork]

I do not believe the Pope is born-again, because there are no Popes in the Bible. If he was a Christian he could never allow himself to be the leader of religious Rome (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Revelation_17.htm) warned about in Scripture, which makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (Rev. 14.8)-the Thyatira church period (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/7churches.htm). I am convinced according to Scripture that he is going to Hell. The proof is as follows...

The Roman Church teaches that you can lose salvation after being born-again, but the Bible is very clear you cannot. For a person to think they can lose salvation shows me they don't have a regenerated spirit indwelt with God's life, the Holy Spirit, in knowing they have eternal life that can never be lost. How can that which is eternal lose its eternality? since salvation is not works, lest any man should boast; it is a free-gift. The Roman Church tries to control you falsely by works unto them, e.g. paying for indulgences and other such unbiblical antics. This is just men trying to control men and being abusive towards women (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/womenapostles.htm), by disallowing them from being Apostles, Elders, Teachers, etc. But throwing women a bone by telling them Mary was without sin. Silly eh? It's amazing so many people can't see past this nonsense. Junias was a female, and she was an Apostle in Scripture. There is no requirement for being single if you are a priest. Various individuals who were workers for the Church in Scripture were married.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

Paul said, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1.12). We, too, have believed and know the One in whom we are eternally secure. We, too, are fully persuaded that "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1.3-5).

Plus, there are other verses to show the other false teachings of the Roman Church. For example. Rev. 20.3 says the nations won't be deceived in the 1000 years, but the nations are still deceived obviously, since they war. Therefore, amillennialism is false and Jesus is not reigning with a "rod of iron" now (mentioned 3 times in Revelation). Premillennialism and the Great Tribulation to come is the correct eschatological view then Christ steps down on the mount of olives to return in Person (Zech. 14.4, Acts 1.11, Rev. 1.7) to reign during the millennial kingdom with His overcomer believers (reward for believers who keep the word of His patience, are prayerful, watchful, keep the conduct of Matt. 5-7).

I could say many more things, but leave it at that. All that is born of the flesh is flesh, including Mary. You can find instances in Scripture where she was being selfish and sinned, so Christians reject the immaculate conception and a quaternity of sorts.

[theraptureisheresy]

The Bible does, however, use the term episcopos, which, if you know what "episcopate" means, refers to a Bishop. To use an example: "Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood." (Acts 20:28). Historically, being "Pope" meant a certain type of Bishop with a "primacy of honor," and while the term may not be in the Bible -- is the word "Trinity" in the Bible?

Rev. 20:3 does not refer to Rome qua the Vatican. Revelation is either targeting the government at the time, or is of a prophetic nature that we as sinners are unable to understand in full -- and we certainly cannot interpret it outside of tradition. Furthermore, amillenialism was the position held by the Early Church; we have documents besides the Gospels, Epistles, etc. from the First Century, and I'm sure there would be a reference to such a thing, especially considering the fact that many believed the end was coming in their lifetimes.

Your interpretation is founded upon the Latin (Vulgate) translation, as there would be pre-millenial Rapture without the Vulgate, which was translated by a Western member of the Catholic (pre-schism) Church. Such a term is not used in the Greek. Indeed, the first time I believe it appeared in English in the Bible (i.e., the term "rapture") was in the 19th century.

Mary could not have been simply born tainted by original sin in the Western Tradition (Catholics AND Protestants included here), as Christ was not conceived in sin -- specifically the marital act, yes, but also could be construed as referring to the presence of Original Sin. You all are far more "Roman" than you think, as this is certainly not an opinion found in the East!

Immaculate Conception does not equate to a "quaternity," as if you know you Trinitiarian theology, the members of the Trinity are not "members of the Trinity" only insofar as they are "sinless." Rather, it is in accordance with right Christian teaching that such "persons" are fully God. Mary being born without the taint of Original Sin does not change her nature from that of a human being to that of God.

Oh, by the way, you're a heretic.

[Jack Newman]

A few quick points: First, under Catholic dogma there most certainly is a Pope in Scripture in the form of St. Peter; his ordination as such by Christ is in John 21:16-17, as foretold in Matthew 16:18-19. Now, you can debate this, but the fact is that for the earliest members of the Church, it was understood that apostolic succession was the ordained ecclesiology for Christians. For example, Irenaeus writes

"Since, however, it would be 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 preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

To claim otherwise is, in effect, to reject traditional teachings, refined over centuries, for one's own discernment--certainly an option, but not the wisest one.

Secondly, even if your theology is right on every point, it still doesn't prove that this Pope, or any of them, is going to hell--what's the Biblical proof that genuine error in matters of theology leads to damnation? And please don't cite Rev 22:18-19, because adding, in one's exegesis of Revelations, a rather spurious, Johnny-come-lately doctrine (rapture), certainly falls afoul of that passage

Finally, if we accept Original Sin--and I'm with you on that one--then the unique nature of Christ dictates that Mary must have been sinless. This is because the beauty and the mystery of Christ is that He was the Word made Flesh--that God truly became man in all aspects but that of sin--He was born of the flesh (see for example Romans 8:3). Unless we are to say that Christ had sin, we must instead hold that the flesh that bore Him was likewise free of original sin. Thus, the Immaculate Conception follows of necessity.

The early church believed in chiliasm, this is another word for premillennialism. Those are the earliest quotes. Amillennialism came along centuries later.

The highest order of worker is the Apostle which extends regionally, not popishly. There is no pope of the world in God's kingdom. Your idolatry is destroying you.

Revelation 20.3 says the nations won't be deceived in the 1000 years. Obviously they are still deceived because they war and you hear rumours of wars. Hence, amillennialism is a lie from that old serpent and men's flesh gorge in it. Consequently you get weird teachings like your popes and priests can't be married, so they have sex with little boys and girls and don't get punished for it. Crazy is as crazy does!

The Roman Church view God had sex with Mary must mean Mary had to be sinless is ridiculous. God can enter His creation as He wishes and still not be stained by sin. It does not require God produce a goddess idol to make it happen. Most people in religious Rome are going to Hell because they don't know the One True God like and my brothers and sisters in Christ do.

Obviously you're not born-again. That means you are going to Hell. You've already decided it seems.

[Churchwork]

Being an Apostle is not the same thing as a Pope, nor is there Apostolic succession such that the Apostles appoint the next Apostle. Rather, an Apostle is someone who is directly commissioned by God to set up the churches and appoint the Elders of those church localities.

Irenaeus is wrong when he said "every Church should agree with this Church [speaking of the church of Rome]" if he means by this that Rome is the center and not Israel. Consider this setting the seeds of the heresy brought in by making Peter the Rock when it is Jesus who is the Rock. Peter is the rock, not the Rock. That's what the Bible says in Matthew 16. The Church is founded on the Rock with the help of a rock.

The reason why the Pope is going to Hell is because he is not saved by grace through faith once-saved-always-saved. His various false teachings reflect that fact. The Bible says there is only one way to be saved and he prefers another.

Why do you hate the rapture so much? (1 Thess. 4.15-17) How else do saints come "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9) in 3rd heaven if not by rapture?

All that is born of the flesh, the Bible says, is flesh. Mary's parents were of the flesh, so she was too. It is then only God who can be born sinless. Mary can't do that. The Eastern Orthodox Church also rejects the Roman Church view.

The Bible says Jesus was not born of the flesh but the "likeness" of the flesh. Read Romans 8.3 again.

The immaculate conception therefore is a heresy of the greatest magnitude. It's ironic that in your profile you agree with the first question essential for salvation but admit, speaking of yourself, "According to the Bible I am going to Hell." Yet you try to defend religious Rome's heresies.

The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

[OrthodoxChristian]

Are you God? Nope. You aren't. So you have absolutely no authority to say who is going to hell.

[Churchwork]

It is not by my authority as an Apostle that I say all the Popes are going to Hell, but by the word of God, since the Pope is the leader of the great harlot (Rev. 17) that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8). God told me all the Popes are going to Hell since there is no Popes in God's word and because, obviously, the Pope has refused to give his life to the God who keeps, for those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). The Pope wants to be saved by works, since he claims a Roman Catholic can lose salvation and still go to Hell. No man is saved by works, lest anyone should boast. That would be a weird kind of salvation if you could get saved, lose it, get it back, to lose it again. God simply won't save you to begin with.

[OrthodoxChristian]

The Pope wants to be saved by works, since he claims a Roman Catholic can lose salvation and still go to Hell. No man is saved by works, lest anyone should boast. That would be a weird kind of salvation if you could get saved, lose it, get it back, to lose it again. God simply won't save you to begin with.

That's all fine and dandy but the Catholics don't believe in salvation by works. Nor do the Orthodox. Both churches believe in having an active faith. Ie, you don't just get dunked under water, say a prayer, and BOOM, you're saved so you can go and live your life however you want.

[Churchwork]

That's all fine and dandy but the Catholics don't believe in salvation by works. Nor do the Orthodox. Both churches believe in having an active faith. Ie, you don't just get dunked under water, say a prayer, and BOOM, you're saved so you can go and live your life however you want.
Catholics don't realize that they do believe in salvation by works or self-strength since they claim they can keep themselves saved, since they claim they can lose salvation. Whereas someone who is actually a Christian can't lose salvation even if he is faithless; for God is faithful even when we are faithless. God will restore his faith, renew it, and strengthen it based on the initial relationship promise. He will never turn His back on a person who is born-again. God promises to keep those who genuinely enter into a relationship with Him and not accept Satan's counterfeit.

If you claim to have gotten saved then go on a murder and rape spree, then clearly you were never born-again to begin with. You received Satan's counterfeit.

There are consequences for Christians even though we can't lose eternal life. A carnal Christian will not be raptured at the first rapture "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9) before the Tribulation starts, but must pass through the time of testing. Nor will a carnal or fleshly Christian get to return with Christ to reign over the nations during the 1000 years on earth (Rev. 2.26, 20.4; Jude 14,15). That's a long time to be in "outer darkness" outside the light of reward of reigning with Christ for 1000 years. After the 1000 years rewards are done away with in the New City and New Earth.

[AlertStatusRed]

Catholics don't realize that they do believe in salvation by works or self-strength since they claim they can keep themselves saved, since they claim they can lose salvation. Whereas someone who is actually a Christian can't lose salvation even if he is faithless; for God is faithful even when we are faithless. God will restore his faith, renew it, and strengthen it based on the initial relationship promise. He will never turn His back on a person who is born-again. God promises to keep those who genuinely enter into a relationship with Him and not accept Satan's counterfeit.

If you claim to have gotten saved then go on a murder and rape spree, then clearly you were never born-again to begin with. You received Satan's counterfeit.

There are consequences for Christians even though we can't lose eternal life. A carnal Christian will not be raptured at the first rapture "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9) before the Tribulation starts, but must pass through the time of testing. Nor will a carnal or fleshly Christian get to return with Christ to reign over the nations during the 1000 years on earth (Rev. 2.26, 20.4; Jude 14,15). That's a long time to be in "outer darkness" outside the light of reward of reigning with Christ for 1000 years. After the 1000 years rewards are done away with in the New City and New Earth.

We can lose salvation by leaving Jesus (Hebrews 10:28-29, 2 Peter 2:22). Our free will is related to our salvation when we are saved and during this period. Not only when we choose Christ. Likewise, There is no such thing as the Rapture, this is Man-Made theology which has no place in the Christian life. Furthermore, if you were prepared to understand the Scriptures, you would see that Kephas is the Kephas which Christ built his Church upon. To translate, Peter is the Rock which Christ built his Church upon. To ignore this in Scripture, and to ignore the many Christians who have spoken of this and who believed it (St. Augustine, etc.) is to support your own man-made doctrines. This is the bad fruit of Schism. You follow the way of Korah (Jude 11). As Christians, we are to remain in the Lord's Kindness. You are correct when you say that it is our response to God (in your previous posts and messages on websites) however, this is not a one time event. Our salvation is either accepted or rejected by us through our actions. However, the source of our salvation is not from within us, but from Christ and his Sacrifice. Please do not spread any more heresy, it is rather tiring to refute these simple matters. The Pope is going to Heaven, providing he is in a State of Grace. Which I have no doubt that he is. Peace be with you.

[Churchwork]

Heb. 10.28 For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us.

When I read this verse it tells me the person was never saved to begin with, for what Christian would do this?

2 Pet. 2.21 It would be better if they had never known the way to righteousness than to know it and then reject the command they were given to live a holy life. 22 They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.”

This verse tells me this person came up to the door of salvation but did not enter in. Again, he was never saved to begin with.

Our salvation is such that we give our lives to the God who keeps, for we can't keep ourselves saved, so God keeps His promise and keeps us saved. This is the Christ we gave our lives to. Those who are born-again, therefore, "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). When God gives eternal life it is eternal. Once-saved-always-saved.

People want a selfish salvation where they can get saved and lose it tomorrow if they wish. God will not save you selfishly. You will have to genuinely give your life to Him, otherwise, you will die in your sins.

If there is no rapture, then how do the saints meet the Lord in the air or come "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9) in 3rd heaven? The only way is by being raptured.

The rock which the Church is built on is not Peter but the Rock Christ Jesus: not the little Peter stone, but the large corner stone which is Jesus.

The Holy Spirit told me Augustine was never born-again. He was an amillennial Calvinist so he worshiped a false Christ. He claims he was irresistibly selected. God never irresistibly imposes regeneration on anyone but gives us the choice. God is big enough to be do that.

As many Christians have said that would be a strange kind of salvation if you could be born-again, lose it, get born-again again, lose it again, and then get born-again again again. God is no fool! He is no reincarnationist. He simply won't save you the first time. Not until you are willing to come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior to KEEP YOU, only then will He regenerate you and KEEP YOU so that you will never perish. Only then! Not before! God looks through eternity and foreknows your free-choice whether you genuinely receive Him or not. Just as you can only be physically born once, you can only be born-again once. Once you remain physically born once, you remain physically born forever (you will get a physical body at resurrection); likewise, when you are spiritually born once, you remain spiritually born forever. Amen!

The Pope will never give his life to Christ. He is going to Hell. I am not aware of anyone that old who ended up giving their lives to Christ.

[AlertStatusRed]

When I read this verse it tells me the person was never saved to begin with, for what Christian would do this?

2 Pet. 2.21 It would be better if they had never known the way to righteousness than to know it and then reject the command they were given to live a holy life. 22 They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.”

This verse tells me this person came up to the door of salvation but did not enter in. Again, he was never saved to begin with.

Our salvation is such that we give our lives to the God who keeps, for we can't keep ourselves saved, so God keeps His promise and keeps us saved. This is the Christ we gave our lives to. Those who are born-again, therefore, "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). When God gives eternal life it is eternal. Once-saved-always-saved.

People want a selfish salvation where they can get saved and lose it tomorrow if they wish. God will not save you selfishly. You will have to genuinely give your life to Him, otherwise, you will die in your sins.

If there is no rapture, then how do the saints meet the Lord in the air or come "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9) in 3rd heaven? The only way is by being raptured.

The rock which the Church is built on is not Peter but the Rock Christ Jesus: not the little Peter stone, but the large corner stone which is Jesus.

The Holy Spirit told me Augustine was never born-again. He was an amillennial Calvinist so he worshiped a false Christ. He claims he was irresistibly selected. God never irresistibly imposes regeneration on anyone but gives us the choice. God is big enough to be do that.

As many Christians have said that would be a strange kind of salvation if you could be born-again, lose it, get born-again again, lose it again, and then get born-again again again. God is no fool! He is no reincarnationist. He simply won't save you the first time. Not until you are willing to come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior to KEEP YOU, only then will He regenerate you and KEEP YOU so that you will never perish. Only then! Not before! God looks through eternity and foreknows your free-choice whether you genuinely receive Him or not. Just as you can only be physically born once, you can only be born-again once. Once you remain physically born once, you remain physically born forever (you will get a physical body at resurrection); likewise, when you are spiritually born once, you remain spiritually born forever. Amen!

The Pope will never give his life to Christ. He is going to Hell. I am not aware of anyone that old who ended up giving their lives to Christ.

My friend, the Pope gave his life to Christ and confirmed this when he was ordained. Yes, I agree, you remain spiritually born, but Christ Jesus warns us not to be afraid of those who kill the body, but of the one who both destroys the Body and the Soul. Likewise, the Holy Spirit told you? My friend, you have no pedigree. You have no way to prove this. The Mormons could say that. The Jehovah's Witnesses could say that. You do not show that you have actually heard the Holy Spirit, it seems that you only claim what you cannot back up. Now, in regards to your first statement, you believe that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). This is true, 100%. Now look at Galatians 5:4:


4You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace.


How can one be "fallen from grace", if they never had it to begin with? A Christian is one who is saved by grace. They have grace. However, as you can see, the Galatians lost this grace. They fell away from it, which shows that they were in it, therefore they were saved. Unless you wish to preach that Grace does not save.

Likewise, I bolded your statement becuase you highlight a misconception. If you understood greek, you would know that Petros is the Male stem. It would make sense to call Simon Petros, because he was male. To assign him Petra, the female stem, is ridiculous. Furthermore, if you remember, Jesus spoke aramaic. So, this is how it would have sounded:

You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church. Now, if you understand your Aramaic, Kepha means rock. So, You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

Therefore, this makes this verse extremely clear:

18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Therefore, Peter/Petros/Kepha is the Rock which Christ built his Church, which is One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic. :cool:

Oh, and what's also cool is if you look at the "proof-text" you used, for supporting your unchristian doctrine, we find this:

2 Pet. 2.21 It would be better if they had never known the way to righteousness than to know it and then reject the command they were given to live a holy life. 22 They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.”

If you notice, I bolded a certain phrase because it says a washed pig. The pig was washed, cleaned. Compare this with 1 Corinthians 6:11:

And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

Those who are washed, who are justified, can leave Jesus and lose their justification.

[Churchwork]

Petra is a large rock. Petros is a small rock.

There is no requirement of pedigree in the Bible. The Pope is not saved because he prefers and teaches a selfish salvation where he and other Roman Catholics could lose salvation. Salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. A person can't keep himself saved, nor can he lose salvation if he is saved. The Bible is clear those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). The Holy Spirit testifies in my spirit this is true in agreement with the word of God. Don't Mormons and JW's teach the same as the Roman Church that a person who is saved can potentially lose salvation? Yet this is in contradiction with John 10.28 and other such verses.

Galatians 5
1 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.

This verse does not suggest a person can lose salvation, only that a person can backslide.

2 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) I’ll say it again. If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses. 4 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.

The falling away from God's grace here is not a falling away all the way, for the person is still saved and "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). The falling away from God's grace here is backsliding, not losing eternal life.

5 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us. 6 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love.

"We" indicates believers who have eternal life. They at times can fall back by trying to follow the law to make themselves right, but Christians know better not to do this. So place your faith in Christ Jesus and do not try to make yourself right by following the law. We who are saved have died to the law.

7 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) You were running the race so well. Who has held you back from following the truth? 8 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) It certainly isn’t God, for he is the one who called you to freedom. 9 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough! 10 (http://biblocality.com/forums/#) I am trusting the Lord to keep you from believing false teachings. God will judge that person, whoever he is, who has been confusing you.

The believer was running the race but has backslidden. Some Christians are harboring false teachings which they need to be delivered from.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [a large stone] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16.18). Peter is not a woman nor is Jesus so the feminine usage is not applied here. But the fact that the stone is large would not be humility for the man, since Jesus is the large cornerstone. The Church at the time of Jesus was not large. It was a "little flock" (Luke 12.32).

There is One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church of the body of Christ but it is not the Roman Church. The Roman Church is the great harlot that sits on the beast of nations (Rev. 17) and makes them drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8) and unpunished pedophilia. The Roman Church will be nuked in the first half of the Tribulation. "The scarlet beast and his ten horns all hate the prostitute [the Roman Church]. They will strip her naked, eat her flesh, and burn her remains with fire" (Rev. 17.16). This agrees with the first four trumpets of the first half of the Tribulation. "Fire mixed with blood were thrown down on the earth" (Rev. 8.7). "A great mountain [Rome with its 7 hills] of fire was thrown into the sea" (v.8). "A great star fell from the sky, burning like a torch" (v.10). Rev. 12 to 19 give the details of the major points in Rev. 11 to 19. So the major points of Rev. 8 for the first half of the Tribulation are expounded on with more specifics in Rev. 17.

You have a doubletongue. First you call Peter the rock then you call the Church the rock, but Jesus says, "upon this rock I will build my church." The Church is not built upon a man, nor would it make much sense to say "upon this Church I will build my Church" for that is redundantly nonsensical. The gates of Hell will not prevail against Jesus, yet Peter and the Church can yet be hurt by the second death as any Christian can be if they backslide. If a believer and the Church are being carnal though we can't lose eternal life, Hell can still hurt us. Hell is used to burn off the dross of our false works. And for the unsaved it is where they live out eternity.

But against Jesus Hell will not prevail.

“They shall never perish” (John 10.28) is “they shall not forever perish” in the original (The Englishman’s Greek New Testament with Interlinear Translation) so carnal Christians can yet be hurt by the second death though they cannot lose salvation for Jesus only gives a person eternal life once to save a soul. Eternal life is never given a second or third time. How silly and nonsensical that would be.

In 2 Pet. 2.21, "For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them."

They never believed in Christ. Rather, they came close to the door of salvation, perhaps investigated the faith, but did not enter by faith. Christians are not washed pigs. How dare you say that! A washed pig returns to the mud and his vomit because the washed pig was never saved to begin with. You are making the mistaken assumption the pig was washed clean. Nowhere does the passage say this. Perhaps that's why ancient Israelites were not supposed to eat pork.

You misread 1 Cor. 6.11, "Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

The phrase, "Some of you were once like that" is to say they were once unsaved and some more brutal in their unregenerate state. But now they are cleansed children of God. Where does this passage say a person can lose salvation? Nothing about them being pigs after being saved. How absurd! The woman washed Jesus' feet. Is she unsaved because she "washed"?

Those who are washed, who are justified, can never leave Jesus, never would want to, and never lose justification, because they genuinely gave their lives to Christ to keep us (for we can't keep ourselves saved, nor lose our salvation), something you are unwilling to do in your flesh.

Realize the Roman Church is trying to control you by getting you to think if you don't remain diligent with them and giving them your money, they can declare you unsaved. They have no such power. They are themselves unsaved and the Vatican will be nuked. This should happen somewhere from 2015 to 2019. Of course, many nations will be nuked (Rev. 9.18) in the 6th and 7th trumpets from 2019 to 2022, but the Vatican will be especially destroyed in the first half of the Tribulation.

God hates religious Rome (Rev. 17) so He will allow Satan to destroy it. Only by the second half of the Tribulation will political Rome (Rev. 18) be destroyed.

[AlertStatusRed]

There is no requirement of pedigree in the Bible.

There is if you do not want to preach a false Gospel. The fact of the matter is that the Apostles ordained Bishops, and those Bishops ordained Bishops, and this has come down to the Present day with the Catholic Church. Have you ever heard of any institution that never had a passing on of authority?


The Pope is not saved because he prefers and teaches a selfish salvation where he and other Roman Catholics could lose salvation. Salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast.


Good Pope Benedict XVI actually teaches a salvatiion that is open to all, a salvation in which we are to remain in the Kindness of the Lord, lest we be cut off. (Romans 11:22).


A person can't keep himself saved, nor can he lose salvation if he is saved. The Bible is clear those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/John 10.28)). The Holy Spirit testifies in my spirit this is true in agreement with the word of God. Don't Mormons and JW's teach the same as the Roman Church that a person who is saved can potentially lose salvation? Yet this is in contradiction with John 10.28 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/John 10.28) and other such verses.

Here is a link to the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 1. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

And here is a quotation:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema. CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Right here, in Catholic teaching, I have shown you that we do not believe that we are justified through our own works separate from Grace. Do not misrepresent my faith.
Two, not just Mormons and JW's, but Many Protestant Churches, including Lutherans, the First Protestants and the source of your faith. Furthermore, yes, no outside force can take us away from the Lord if we do not want to. However, it is the dog who returns to his own vomit, it is the washed pig who returns to the mud. And it is those who do not remain in the Lord's kindess and are cut off.

Notice how you speak much, but you do not address Ephesians 2:8 and Galatians 5:4. We are saved by Grace through faith, and those who fall from grace, having once been in it, who do not repent, will be sent to Hell. This is clear as day.


You misread 1 Cor. 6.11 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/1 Cor. 6.11), "Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." The phrase, "Some of you were once like that" is to say they were once unsaved and some more brutal in their unregenerate state. But now they are cleansed children of God. Where does this passage say a person can lose salvation? Nothing about them being pigs after being saved. How absurd! The woman washed Jesus' feet. Is she unsaved because she "washed"?

Notice that the pig was washed. The point is not whether the person is a pig, but what the pig was. It was washed. It was cleaned. And being cleaned from sin, it returned to it. I'm not mentioning those who "were once like that", that's not the phrase I'm loking at. Notice that these people have been washed. Cleaned. Because they were cleaned, they were saved. And they voluntarily returned to the mud. How does the woman who washed Jesus's feet have anything to do with being cleansed of sin? She was being repentant, rinsing Jesus's feet from dust. We're not referring to that at all. I have no clue why your mind jumped to such a pointless verse.




Those who are washed, who are justified, can never leave Jesus, never would want to, and never lose justification, because they genuinely gave their lives to Christ to keep us (for we can't keep ourselves saved, nor lose our salvation), something you are unwilling to do in your flesh.


Yet we see that there was clearly people who were washed who returned to the mud, to their sins! We see that those who were saved by grace fell from it, they lost their salvation. I mean, look at this: (From scripturecatholic.com)

2 Cor. 11:2-3 – Paul writes, “I betrothed you to Christ, but I am afraid that your thoughts will be led astray from a devotion to Christ.” The Corinthians already had a sincere devotion to Christ, for Paul wrote to them earlier in the letter, “you stand firm in your faith.” (2 Cor. 1:24). They are already “saved.” But Paul warns them that they can fall away just like Eve fell away (and, remember, Eve was created without sin!) This is another verse that is devastating to the belief of “once saved, always saved.”

Col. 1:21-23 - we have now been reconciled in His body to be presented holy and blameless, provided we continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which we heard. Paul warns them that it is possible to turn away and lose hope in the gospel.




Realize the Roman Church is trying to control you by getting you to think if you don't remain diligent with them and giving them your money, they can declare you unsaved. They have no such power. They are themselves unsaved and the Vatican will be nuked. This should happen somewhere from 2015 to 2019. Of course, many nations will be nuked (
Rev. 9.18 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/Rev. 9.18)) in the 6th and 7th trumpets from 2019 to 2022, but the Vatican will be especially destroyed in the first half of the Tribulation.

God hates religious Rome (Rev. 17) so He will allow Satan to destroy it. Only by the second half of the Tribulation will political Rome (Rev. 18) be destroyed.


If they wanted to control me to get my money, then why were they in the red in regards to their finances?

http://www.zenit.org/article-1900?l=english
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4582

The Church teaches the truth, that if we do not abide in Christ's commands, that if we do not remain in the Kindness of the Lord, we will be cut off.
Oh, now you're date setting?! Here, let's see all of the great date setters:

Harold Camping, May 21st, 2011
Ronald Weinland, April 17th, 2008
Shelby Corbett, 2007
Arnie Stanton, 2004
Monte Kim Miller and Concerned Christians, 1999
Harold Camping, 1994
Lee Jang Rim, 1992
Colin Deal, 1988
Charles Taze Russel and the Jehovah's Witnesses: 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 1994
William Miller, 1843 and 1844

It is pretty clear that if all of these people are wrong, then so are you. For no man knows the day nor hour. We're not to worry about dates, but to always be prepared for the Master when he returns. I can assure you that none of these dates you have suggested will come true even by a little bit. The Vatican will remain where it belongs, and I can assure you this. I can see though, that you will not be reached by me. I shall shake the dust from my feet and continue on, and I will pray a Rosary with you in mind, so that you may come to knowledge of the Truth, our Lord Jesus Christ.

[AlertStatusRed]

Yes, Petra is a Large Rock, and Petros is a small rock.

Now, go to what Jesus and Peter and the rest of the Apostles spoke: Aramaic. Ever heard of this language?
Petros is the male version, and Petra is the female version. To say that Kepha was Petra would be like saying that Christopher was Christina. They may both be called "Chris", but one is a male equivalent and one is a female equivalent.

Now, knowing that Jesus spoke the language of the time (this is called understanding the Scriptures in context), this is how it looks:

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ ܀
Translations

(Etheridge) Also I say unto thee, that thou art Kipha, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of Sheul shall not prevail against her.

(Murdock) Also I say to thee, that thou art Cephas: and upon this rock, I will build my church: and the gates of death shall not triumph over it.
(Lamsa) I tell you also that you are a stone, and upon this stone I will build my church; and the doors of Sheol shall not shut in on it.
(KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Here's some Protestant understandings:
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.



John Peter LangeGerman Protestant scholarThe Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19


Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.
Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church.
Thou art Petros and upon this Petra I will build my Church
Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Peter is Petros, Kepha, Rock. He is the Rock which Jesus built his Church upon, which has survived 2000 years and will survive another 2000 years if need be, for the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it. Amen!

[Churchwork]

Clearly, the emphasis is not on a female or male rock. It has nothing to do with male or female. We see male and female terms used all the time with no male and female emphasis. For example, the Holy Spirit has different terms applied to Him, sometimes male, sometimes female, so we should be careful just because a term is female that it is not necessarily being used in that sense. Read the context of the passage instead.

The emphasis is on the size of the rock. That's the clear emphasis. We know Jesus is the large rock and Peter is the small rock. Simple. And using your own argument you make Peter female so you contradict yourself.

Jesus was talking about Himself as the large rock: the large cornerstone. To place a man as a large rock is to self-exalt man above God. This is what the Roman Church does in the Pope. They go so far as to create Pope. He is unsaved. And they exalt man in his ability to keep himself saved or ability to lose salvation. Only God can keep a person saved and lets none of His elect perish. This is true love.

The gates of Hell can not succeed against Jesus. Against a Christian the gates of Hell can still have its effects. And the gates of Hell can hurt the Church if the Church is being carnal. A person can't lose salvation, but they can certainly fall from grace (backslide).

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " (Matt. 16.15-18).

Who was being exalted? "The Christ". Recognizing this "blessed art thou." Read the paragraph altogether. It wouldn't make much sense for Jesus to be exalting Himself "the Son of the Living God" then in the same passage exalt Peter. People who misread this passage that way do so by their "flesh and blood."

You are not blessed by God because the Father has not revealed it unto thee the Rock is Jesus. Jesus said of Himself, unless you believe who I say I am, you will die in your sins and He will deny you before the Father in heaven. You worship a false Christ who teaches you that you can lose salvation tomorrow. Satan casts that doubt and presents a false salvation. Satan exalts the leader of the pedophiles of the Roman Church who do not go to jail.

The Roman Church is evil! Satanic! We are only touching a few points. There is so much more evil we could cover of the Roman Church such as priests not allowed to be married. In the Bible teachers (priests), Apostles, Elders, etc. can all be married so it is against God's will to enforce abstinence. Just realize all that the Roman Church does is to selfishly support itself unethically. Even a corporation has more integrity and acts more truthfully than the Roman Church does.

Keep your singleness of heart on Jesus not on Peter, for the gates of Hell can hurt any man but not Jesus. The Bible says call no man your father. So don't refer to church fathers, that is, this apostolic succession of the Roman Church which would thus be violating this rule. All Christians are saints and a royal priesthood. Whereas the Roman Church says only some are.

My prayer is for you to leave this evil cult of Roman Catholicism.

[everstill]

There is no such thing as the Rapture, this is Man-Made theology which has no place in the Christian life.
I think what has happened to you is you lost the sense you may have once had because your heart has grown cold and stiff.


Rapture

This law of the mind’s assistance can be applied as well to the matter of faith concerning “the rapture.” At the beginning you enjoy the “spirit of rapture,” but later on you feel as though it is drained of its awareness of the nearness of the Lord’s return and the reality of your rapture. In that hour you should recall the law of the mind coming to the aid of the spirit. You ought to pray with the mind even while your spiritual sense is empty. If you merely wait to have your spirit refilled with the sense of rapture, you will never possess it again; but by exercising your mind to think and to pray, you shall shortly be filled with the spiritual awareness you once had.

[AlertStatusRed]

Clearly, the emphasis is not on a female or male rock. It has nothing to do with male or female. We see male and female terms used all the time with no male and female emphasis. For example, the Holy Spirit has different terms applied to Him, sometimes male, sometimes female, so we should be careful just because a term is female that it is not necessarily being used in that sense. Read the context of the passage instead.

The emphasis is on the size of the rock. That's the clear emphasis. We know Jesus is the large rock and Peter is the small rock. Simple. And using your own argument you make Peter female so you contradict yourself.

Jesus was talking about Himself as the large rock: the large cornerstone. To place a man as a large rock is to self-exalt man above God. This is what the Roman Church does in the Pope. They go so far as to create Pope. He is unsaved. And they exalt man in his ability to keep himself saved or ability to lose salvation. Only God can keep a person saved and lets none of His elect perish. This is true love.

The gates of Hell can not succeed against Jesus. Against a Christian the gates of Hell can still have its effects. And the gates of Hell can hurt the Church if the Church is being carnal. A person can't lose salvation, but they can certainly fall from grace (backslide).

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " (Matt. 16.15-18).

My friend, you clearly do not understand greek AT ALL. There was no such thing as a gender neutral term for rock at the time. When Christ was giving Simon a new name, it was the same way that Jacob was named Israel, that Abram was named Abraham. People were given a new name to symbolize who they were. Jesus and Peter lived in this era where the common language was ARAMAIC, while the language of trade was GREEK. So, in the Aramaic, if you were paying attention, it would read like this:

You are Kepha (ROCK) and upon this Kepha (ROCK) I will build my Church.

Thus, it doesn't matter what you mention in regards to the Greek, because if we understand the context, Jesus and Peter would be speaking Aramaic, and in either way, Peter would still be known as the ROCK. The ROCK which Jesus built his Church upon. Likewise, if you understood the Koine Greek, There were MASCULINE and FEMININE words. We can also find other languages that do the same, such as the French language. So, if we understand that the Koine Greek had Masculine and Feminine terms, then logically, we would not call Kepha (who is a Male) Petra, becaue Petra is feminine. Here, if you do not believe me, look at this website:

http://biblos.com/matthew/16-18.htm

To call Kepha Petra would be like calling Christopher Christina. It makes no logical sense. Therefore, it would make sense to call Kepha Petros which is the Masculine term. Therefore, it's not about the size of the Rock. You have to look at the way the Koine Greek was used at the time. It wouldn't make sense to call Kepha Petra.

Therefore, as I've stressed before:


Thou art Kepha (Male)

Thou art Petros (Male)

Thou art Peter (Male). Peter is the Rock.

[Churchwork]

Male and female are not in consideration here. Male or female has nothing to do with the context. Moreover, if Petra is emphasizing female for this passage which it is not then you contradict yourself because Peter is not female. The emphasis is Petros the small rock and Petra large rock. That's all. Since previous verses are emphasizing Jesus then the emphasis is on the large rock being Jesus. Very simple.

You are altering God's word, replacing Petra with Kepha because you are trying to exalt "I of Cephas" the Roman Church. Rome is dead to God. It is both the center of the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns and the center for the prostitute, the Roman Church. I

I don't know any Bible that agrees with you. You sound like Rob Bell emphasizing man when you say you are a large rock. Stop emphasizing man or a sinless Mary. Man and Mary are sinners, not the large cornerstone rock.

Peter is kepha a small rock but upon this large rock Petra {Himself} Jesus builds His Church.

Jesus is contrasting Peter a small rock to Jesus a large rock, for Jesus is the emphasis in the passage and the focus. I can imagine Jesus holding two rocks. Here He holds up a small rock representing Peter and then He holds up a large rock pointing to Himself. This takes humility to accept. To read properly you must read by the Holy Spirit and not the spirit of the great harlot of religious Rome. your allegiance is the latter and will destroy you.

Judgment is upon you for changing Petra to Kepha. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22.18,19).

Just because you should not call Peter a woman is not justification for altering Matthew 16.18 by changing Petra to Kepha. The purpose of the word Petra is to indicate a large rock even though it is feminine. The feminine is disregarded, like I said, there are lots of words that are feminine referring to male persona and vic versa when that is not the emphasis of the word being used, e.g. the Holy Spirit is given both male and female names, but that is irrelevant since the female names are not the focus as being female but some other context emphasizing a certain trait of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, don't hang your hate on female or male, since such usage is irrelevant here to the context of the passage of a large and small rock.

The link you gave distinguishes small rock (Petros) and large rock (Petra) so male or female rocks are irrelevant to the context of the passage emphasizing the size of the rock. And that's obvious, since Peter and Jesus are both male while Petra is feminine.

Kepha is not being called Petra. Petra is Jesus.

Peter thou art Petros (small rock). Peter thou art Kepha.

Peter thou are not Petra (large rock).

Jesus does not consider the individual male or female in the Church for it is the one body of Christ that includes both males and females.

So Jesus is the large rock. Peter is the small rock. Male or female usages of rock are irrelevant. It's not about males and females. Silly.

Who is the Rock? "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16.16). "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (v.17). A massive rock - http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4073.htm.

Petros is a small rock - http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4074.htm.

Why is a large rock feminine and a small rock masculine...maybe the female rock is larger because a woman's belly is large when she is pregnant. Who knows. Doesn't matter.

Isn't it amazing how the Roman Church is built on a lie just by altering this Matt. 16.18 because it exalts men (little rocks) not Jesus (large rock). There is no large rock mentality, but in the Rome Church the little rock is exalted above the large rock. The Roman Church, thus, is not built on a large rock but little rocks even pebbles in the sand that have no foundation: false saints.

The flesh always tries to exalt itself above God even to the point of having a pope of the planet or archdiocese of a continent. Crazy! Regional apostles do not extend themselves over such a vast region of responsibility for God knows man's flesh all too well how men try to exalt themselves; so He contains the Apostle to a relatively small region of churches. The truth is the Pope is going to Hell and he will never repent. Sooner you accept that, the sooner you can leave the Roman Church cult.

This just touches the tip of the iceberg of all the false teachings of the Roman Church. God's verdict is its final destruction within the next decade.

I think what is most telling is that the earliest manuscripts we have are Greek which were translated from Aramaic. The word used was Petra. We should not doubt them and think the word is Kepha. It also gives more meaning to the passage in its context exalting Jesus. Even when talking about the kingdom, Jesus says He is the focus: "I will give unto thee" (v.19).

[Churchwork]

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16.18). What church is this? Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and our Lord declared that He would build His Church upon this confession—the confession that, as to His Person He is the Son of God, and as to His work He is the Christ of God. This Church comprises all the saved, without reference to time or space, i.e. all who in the Purpose of God are redeemed by virtue of the shed Blood of the Lord Jesus, and are born again by the operation of His Spirit. This is the Church universal, the Church of God, the Body of Christ.

We must see clearly before God that many spiritual things are in the Church, not upon individuals. The word of the Lord is plain yet wonderful: "upon this rock I will build my church." And the outcome will be, added the Lord, that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16.18b). In other words, this promise is given to thChurch, it is not given to individuals. How often in the Christian life it is hard individually to resist, but when the Church arises, Satan is defeated. I surmise that in these years there has not been a lack of personal blessings, but such are nonetheless rather limited. Only in the Church are the blessings unlimited and abundant. Hence, as a person walks outside of the Church the presence of God as well as the blessings he receives become circumscribed. He will not be able to touch many things in God. Pardon me for speaking frankly, but within the last ten years I have noticed that the people who do not know the Church are unable to keep that which they had had before but gradually lose out; whereas those who know the Church keep on growing and find the riches of the Head as their richness.

Each of us is but one member of the body of Christ, and consequently we cannot live without the protection of other brothers and sisters. Even Moses’ hands needed the support of Aaron and Hur. If even Moses needed the support of other members, what about us? The gates of Hades cannot prevail against the church. This very thing the Lord Jesus himself promised and declared (see Matt. 16.18). Yet our Lord has never promised God’s children that they could be independent or leave the church. Spiritual warfare is not a personal affair, it is a body task. It's not on Peter. The Church is not built on Peter but the body of believers. And hence, in order to obtain the needed protection, we must go to the brethren. Let us never think of ourselves as individually competent and "go it alone" as Poop of the planet.

After Peter had received this basic revelation of Christ, the Lord Jesus told him: "Upon this rock I will build My church" (Matt. 16.18). This rock points not only to Christ but to the revelation of Christ as well. Peter’s confession was not the outcome of what flesh and blood had revealed, but was the result of what was revealed by the Father who is in heaven. Through revelation we come to know that the rock is the Christ, the Son of God. The church is built upon this Rock. The foundation of the church is laid on Jesus as Christ, the Son of God. The gates of hades shall not prevail against the church because its foundation is Christ, the Son of God. But how is this Christ recognized? How is this Son of God known? He is known as such through revelation, not through Bible instruction given by flesh and blood. Supposing someone is speaking on the Bible today, that is to say, flesh and blood is teaching the Book; do you therefore know Christ? No. You know Christ when the heavenly Father reveals Him to you apart from the instruction of flesh and blood. As God speaks, you come to know who Jesus of Nazareth is. Thus is the church built upon this revelation of Christ.

Whether or not there is the revelation of Christ is a matter which concerns not only Peter, Paul, John, and Matthew; it also concerns the entire church. If we wish to serve God with His word we must possess this basic revelation. Otherwise, we may teach the Bible but we cannot supply Christ. A minister of the word is to serve people with Christ. This work of imparting the Lord to others requires us to have a revelation of who Jesus is. Without this revelation the church is without foundation.

What happened to Peter, Matthew, John, and Paul in the early days must happen to a minister of the word today. We have some brothers who do not possess much Bible knowledge; nevertheless, they have a special experience, that is, they have been brought by the Lord to such a place as to be prostrate before Him. They know Jesus of Nazareth is God’s Christ who surpasses all works; they know Jesus of Nazareth is God’s Son who transcends everything. And when they begin to preach from the Bible they are truly ministers of the word, because they know Christ. Do remember that the ministry of the word is based not only on familiarity with the Bible, but also, and more importantly, on the knowledge of Christ. This does not dismiss the preciousness of knowing and expounding the Scriptures. It only emphasizes the fact that there can be no ministry of the word through touching the Bible outwardly without an inward knowledge of Christ, for the ministry of the word is founded upon an inner revelation—not on many fragmentary revelations of different passages in the Bible but on one basic revelation of Christ.

When the Lord was baptized the voice out of heaven said, "This is my beloved Son": but Satan stubbornly refused to accept the fact: instead he continuously probed to see if this One were indeed the Son of God. How significantly related is this event to Hades! For please note that the first part of Matthew 16.18 records Jesus as saying, "Upon this rock I will build...", whereas in the latter part he says, "And the gates of Hades. . ." What Satan with all his power cannot shake is the Son of God. If we stand on this testimony, we too shall overcome.

I have the keys of death and of Hades. Revelation 1.18. In Revelation 6.8 it is said that Hades follows death. In Revelation 20.14 we see that both Hades and death end up in being cast into the Lake of Fire. In these two passages just cited it would seem that both Hades and death have taken up personality. This would appear to be confirmed by such Scripture passages as Hebrews 2.14 which says the devil has the power of death and Matthew 16.18 which mentions the gates (or powers) of Hades. Behind death and Hades there is a personal devil who holds the power. But our Lord has risen from the dead. Over Him death and Hades have no more power; quite the contrary, He holds the keys of both. Here we see that far from death and Hades holding power over our Lord, the Latter has in fact overcome them!