This is from Robert Reymond, “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith,” pg 818:
Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.
Published by John Bugay
"We are His workmanship," His poiema, His "poetry." If you've ever studied poetry, or struggled to write a poem, you understand the care God takes to "work all things together for good" in our lives. For this reason, and many others, I believe in the Sovereignty of God. I have seen His hand working in my life, and I submit myself to His merciful will, with all my being.
View more posts
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the significance of this particular writer commenting about Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16?
Michael — I’m not sure why you’re asking me this. If you’ve read any of my blog, you’ll understand that I’ve taken a certain position on the issue of Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16. Reymond, in his Systematic Theology, has analyzed the whole question, and come up with a conclusion, which I agree with, and which I’ve published.
Either the Roman Catholic Church was right at the time of the Reformation, or the Reformers were right. I believe that the Reformers were right. And I believe that such questions continue into our day, not because Rome was right, but because of a number of other reasons: the papacy (and the Roman Church) had a tremendous amount of power and influence, and it was able to consolidate its influence in certain areas; the heirs of the Reformation, being new, not having the power base that Rome had, became entangled in other questions, and, over the course of several lifetimes, failed to understand the significance of these questions.
But with the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, I believe that it will be a good time to re-visit these issues. Rome no longer has the power base it had; new scholarship has shed new light on many old problems; and the Internet gives us a very good means of communication to spread a great deal of information very rapidly. All of these factors, I believe, will help enable many people to understand and think through some very old issues, and I do believe that the kind of clarification that people like Reymond can supply, can be decisive in helping people in our era decide in favor of the Reformation.
Thank your for your response Mr. Bugay. I had not gone through other articles. If Dr.Reymond has gone into a deeper analysis of the issue and you referred to this in other articles, I would like to read them if they are still on-line. The cited reference did not go into detail of why Rome’s interpretation was wrong. The reasons you listed in your response to my question demonstrates why you refered to him and would like to read more of the same.
Thanks Michael — Reymond’s analysis is about 20 pages long in his Systematic Theology. I’ve published snippets of it around — maybe some of it at my old blog, and certainly in some discussion groups.
I don’t have the page citations at this point, but I’ll be happy to provide them. It’s in his section on “the church”.
Is that why the ESV Study Bible notes identify Peter as being the rock of Matthew 16? ;)
On a more serious note (and yes of course I realize that identifying Peter as “the rock” is not the same as making Roman claims to primacy), I echo Michael’s interest in reading Reymond’s analysis. Who publishes his systematic theology? I’d like to read his take on Matthew 16.
Comments are closed.