Peter the "rock"?

[SHW]

And one more proof:

“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:14)

That foundation stone says “Peter” - not “Peter’s faith”!

Hi Luke,

Another Scripture for this thread:

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

SHW

 

[promethius]

Point 3 is correct.

The cornerstone is not just an integral part of the building, it is THE INTEGRAL PART of the building, which sets the square of THE ENTIRE building.

Everything is built FROM THE CORNERSTONE.

First and foremost, I never stated that the cornerstone is not an integral part of the building. It certainly is. Generally in an old structure if you were to demolish the cornerstone then the entire structure would fall.

HOWEVER, I’m going to take it that you haven’t traveled much of Europe, or that if you have you don’t have a keen interest in the structural composition of medieval and roman buildings. You see, as I clearly stated, the cornerstone and the foundation are TWO SEPARATE things. Generally, you can find the cornerstone and point to it. Most often it is found above ground.

The foundation stone, however, is the very bedrock a large structure is built on top of. Walking around the building, you can’t see it. In fact, there are few cases where you can truly see the foundation of ancient and medieval buildings. Those rare cases are when tunnels or catacombs have been bored into the bedrock of the earth.

I say this from poring over approximately 300 churches in Europe, and roughly getting to experience around 30 roman structures.

So please, don’t bring up a point I didn’t make and try to bash it down like a strawman argument. The process is insulting and deceptive to readers.

 

[Howie01]

promethius:

First and foremost, I never stated that the cornerstone is not an integral part of the building. It certainly is. Generally in an old structure if you were to demolish the cornerstone then the entire structure would fall.

I wasn’t making a big deal out of what you said, but only clarifying it, but seeing as how you are making a big deal out of it, sure you did. I’ll post what you said, and you can see that what you’re saying now conflicts with what you said then:

A cornerstone is not a foundation. It is an integral part of the building, but it is not that on which the building is built. By definition, the cornerstone and the foundation of a building were two seperate things.

In fact, the cornerstone is that upon which the building is built, and if it’s off at all, the whole building is off, and as you say, if you remove it, the building could collapse; therefore, once again, the building is built upon the cornerstone, and in the case of the church Christ is not only the cornerstone, but the foundation as well (Lk 20:17; 1 Cor 3:11).

promethius:

HOWEVER, I’m going to take it that you haven’t traveled much of Europe, or that if you have you don’t have a keen interest in the structural composition of medieval and roman buildings. You see, as I clearly stated, the cornerstone and the foundation are TWO SEPARATE things. Generally, you can find the cornerstone and point to it. Most often it is found above ground.

I’m an ICC certified Residential and Commercial Building and Construction Inspector; ‘nuff said.

Christ is both the Cornerstone, and the Foundation upon which the Church is built (Lk 20:17; Eph 2:19ff; 1 Cor 3:11).

If Christ is building His church upon Peter as the Rock, then it’s the confession of faith that Peter made, and that God revealed to him:You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God"—that is the proclamation of the Church—the church does not proclaim “Peter,” at least, Christ’s true church doesn’t proclaim Peter.

What an odd thing to proclaim.

promethius:

So please, don’t bring up a point I didn’t make and try to bash it down like a strawman argument. The process is insulting and deceptive to readers.

I didn’t offer a strawman, but clarified your initial statement.

 

[SHW]

Which of those writers believes the passage supports what the RCC claims it supports; namely, Rome’s papacy?

Hi Howie,

I would say none of them. They all protest against the authority of the Church since they are all Protestants.

However, Scripture does indeed support the Catholic Church’s claim that the Church has a hierarchy of authority and that this hierarchy was put in place by Jesus. Even the angels in heaven are in a hierarchy (principalities, powers, etc.) Scholars believe that there are 9 choirs of angels, each choir with different attributes and duties. So heaven has a hierarchy with God above all. nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy

2 Corinthians 13:10 “Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction.”

Titus 2:15 “Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.”

Hebrews 13:7 " Remember those** who rule over you**, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

Jesus founded a Church and appointed its leaders. These leaders appointed other leaders to carry on the faith, and this has continued for two thousand years in the Catholic Church.

2 Timothy 2:2 “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

If you want to know if you are truly walking according to God’s will in matters of faith and morals, worship practices, and Scripture interpretation; then listen to His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which will continue until He returns at His Second Coming. (Matthew 28:19-20, Matthew 16:17-19, John 16:12-14, Acts 9:31)

The Lord said to the Apostles and the seventy disciples whom He appointed: "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Luke 10:2-16 Jesus appointed the first hierarchy and sent them out to teach and to rule over His Church on earth with His authority. But only Peter received the “keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19) Only one person can have the keys.

These “keys of the kingdom” signify an office and this office passes to another when it becomes vacant. When an earthly steward can no longer serve the king, the “actual” keys to a kingdom’s treasury storeroom are passed down to another so that the newly appointed steward can now guard the kingdom’s treasury. The treasury storeroom will always need guarding.

Examples of Excommunication:
1 Timothy 1:18-20 “This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

Matthew 18:15-19 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 **And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.**18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.”

First record of Apostolic Succession:
Acts 1:15-26 "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry…”

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it’; and,
‘Let another take his office…’

23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26** And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.**"

If you desire to do the will of God in spiritual matters, then listen to His Church and obey. He put the hierarchy in place to rule and to teach with His authority on earth.

SHW

 

[Howie01]

Hi Howie,

I would say none of them. They all protest against the authority of the Church since they are all Protestants.

However, Scripture does indeed support the Catholic Church’s claim that the Church has a hierarchy of authority and that this hierarchy was put in place by Jesus. Even the angels in heaven are in a hierarchy (principalities, powers, etc.) Scholars believe that there are 9 choirs of angels, each choir with different attributes and duties. So heaven has a hierarchy with God above all. nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy

2 Corinthians 13:10 “Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction.”

Titus 2:15 “Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.”

Hebrews 13:7 " Remember those** who rule over you**, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

Jesus founded a Church and appointed its leaders. These leaders appointed other leaders to carry on the faith, and this has continued for two thousand years in the Catholic Church.

2 Timothy 2:2 “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

If you want to know if you are truly walking according to God’s will in matters of faith and morals, worship practices, and Scripture interpretation; then listen to His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which will continue until He returns at His Second Coming. (Matthew 28:19-20, Matthew 16:17-19, John 16:12-14, Acts 9:31)

The Lord said to the Apostles and the seventy disciples whom He appointed: "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Luke 10:2-16 Jesus appointed the first hierarchy and sent them out to teach and to rule over His Church on earth with His authority. But only Peter received the “keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19) Only one person can have the keys.

These “keys of the kingdom” signify an office and this office passes to another when it becomes vacant. When an earthly steward can no longer serve the king, the “actual” keys to a kingdom’s treasury storeroom are passed down to another so that the newly appointed steward can now guard the kingdom’s treasury. The treasury storeroom will always need guarding.

Examples of Excommunication:
1 Timothy 1:18-20 “This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

Matthew 18:15-19 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 **And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.**18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.”

First record of Apostolic Succession:
Acts 1:15-26 "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry…”

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it’; and,
‘Let another take his office…’

23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26** And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.**"

If you desire to do the will of God in spiritual matters, then listen to His Church and obey. He put the hierarchy in place to rule and to teach with His authority on earth.

SHW

You should start another thread with this post.

 

[SHW]

You should start another thread with this post.

Hi Howie,

Please go ahead and start one and let me know the address. It is my birthday today and some of my family (4 out of 11 siblings) surprised me by flying in and arriving at my door as a personal singing telegram. I may not be able to post for a couple of days as I will be busy entertaining. I have never been so surprised in my life. But a very nice surprise indeed.

Pax,
SHW

 

[jcrichton]

Eggsactly! So their agreement that Peter is the rock, is really somewhat of a chimera for the more important meaning Catholics claim the passage contains.

But I doubt that they would agree–it is similar to the constant assailment the Church suffers by those who continue to pretend that they are concerned with the abuses of the past while they ignore Martin Luther’s alteration of the Bible’s Canon and the fact that, as with the Church’s past, personal, political and financial interests took over his “reformation movement.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi Howie,

I would say none of them. They all protest against the authority of the Church since they are all Protestants.

However, Scripture does indeed support the Catholic Church’s claim that the Church has a hierarchy of authority and that this hierarchy was put in place by Jesus. Even the angels in heaven are in a hierarchy (principalities, powers, etc.) Scholars believe that there are 9 choirs of angels, each choir with different attributes and duties. So heaven has a hierarchy with God above all. nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy

2 Corinthians 13:10 “Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction.”

Titus 2:15 “Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.”

Hebrews 13:7 " Remember those** who rule over you**, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

Jesus founded a Church and appointed its leaders. These leaders appointed other leaders to carry on the faith, and this has continued for two thousand years in the Catholic Church.

2 Timothy 2:2 “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

If you want to know if you are truly walking according to God’s will in matters of faith and morals, worship practices, and Scripture interpretation; then listen to His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which will continue until He returns at His Second Coming. (Matthew 28:19-20, Matthew 16:17-19, John 16:12-14, Acts 9:31)

The Lord said to the Apostles and the seventy disciples whom He appointed: "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Luke 10:2-16 Jesus appointed the first hierarchy and sent them out to teach and to rule over His Church on earth with His authority. But only Peter received the “keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19) Only one person can have the keys.

These “keys of the kingdom” signify an office and this office passes to another when it becomes vacant. When an earthly steward can no longer serve the king, the “actual” keys to a kingdom’s treasury storeroom are passed down to another so that the newly appointed steward can now guard the kingdom’s treasury. The treasury storeroom will always need guarding.

Examples of Excommunication:
1 Timothy 1:18-20 “This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

Matthew 18:15-19 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 **And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.**18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.”

First record of Apostolic Succession:
Acts 1:15-26 "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry…”

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it’; and,
‘Let another take his office…’

23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26** And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.**"

If you desire to do the will of God in spiritual matters, then listen to His Church and obey. He put the hierarchy in place to rule and to teach with His authority on earth.

SHW

Hi SHW!

Excellent post! :clapping:

…all I could add is:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MDK]

My friend, that is exactly what I said in my post.

No, you said everything is built from the Cornerstone… and your context from there was leading in a different direction. So, no it was not “exactly what you said.” Your post was misleading.

Perhaps you missed that, so here’s my statement again:And Christ is the akrogoniaios, or cornerstone (Eph 2:20; cf Lk 20:17).

Yes, we know that. Yet, you make no point here.

If you were to read that passage critically, and more carefully, you would see no such command contained in it.

Well, who is saying there is? Really, who are you talking to?

In fact, if you had continued in your reading to the next verse, you would see that Peter says just the opposite:2 Peter 3:17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness…The immediate context being the distortion of Scripture by unprincipled men, the guard against being carried away by them is to have a clear and firm understanding of scripture, an understanding which Christ has promised to give to those who are His.

No, that’s not the opposite. Neither do you understand this. What Peter said was very plain, and you are living up to his warning about the ignorant twisting Scripture to their own destruction.

Based upon the entirety of your post, your argument here is, "if one believes in Scripture, one will agree with you as to what Scripture says."

No, if you can’t even interpret me, why should anyone believe you can interpret the Word of God?

Peter’s warning in Scripture is plain and simple, yet those who desire to interpret for themselves will arrogantly brush it aside.

For those who could not even interpret what I had said, it was if you believe in Scripture as Christ taught, and as handed down by the Apostles, doing what Scriptures taught, then you would not interpret as you do.

I would turn your argument around on you, but to do so would be to wallow with you in the absurdity of your logic.

You can’t, as there is no moral equivalent here. I follow what Christ established to teach the faith without error. You do your own thing and get it wrong, as one who is ignorant twisting Scriptures to your own destruction.

You’re saying two different things, only on of which is contained in the question of the OP.

Nope. It’s your inability or unwillingness to understand that has you in this confusion.

Again you engage in the absurd notion that only if one agrees with you, does he really love Christ and believe in Him.

You lack a lot of understanding, and here is another spot. If you really love Christ, you will do what He asked us. You really show no depth of understanding at all to claim that I am asking you to agree with me. It’s agreeing with Christ that is important. Christ established a means to have His truth taught. I set myself in agreement with what Christ established, and I recommend you believe in what Christ established. The fact that you can’t see this, doesn’t make it less true. It only puts you on the wrong side of truth. It’s very evident from your errant posts that you don’t follow what Christ established.

Your question to me, as with the majority of the sentiments expressed in your post, have nothing to do with the question posed by the OP.

Once more, a lack of depth. It’s the heart of the matter. You get these things wrong for the reasons that I shared with you.

Your answer is completely out of context with the question I asked. The question I asked pertained to those Protestant theologians, cited in support of Peter as the Rock, by Randy Carson.

No, it’s completely in context and answers the question accurately. That you don’t understand it is evident, but a different matter.

Perhaps you missed that, so here’s my the question again:

No, I didn’t miss it. I answered why you’re getting this all wrong in the first place. You have no foundation or guidance for understanding Scripture. Therefore, you will be off track very often and make false interpretations based on other false understandings. This strikes to the heart of the problem. If you resolve this, then you can answer properly, as Christ teaches through His Church, not because of me.

 

[Gamera]

Scripture uses three different “rock” metaphors. God is the “rock” of our salvation (Ps 62:2). Abraham is the “rock” from which the Jewish people were hewn (Isaiah 51:1). Peter is the “rock” on which the Church is built (Matt 16:18). To argue that “Peter can’t be the rock because God is the rock” makes no more sense than to argue “God can’t be the rock because Abraham is the rock.” They are different metaphors. Peter’s being the “rock” on which the Church is built does not detract from God being the “rock” of our salvation.

 

[MDK]

Scripture uses three different “rock” metaphors. God is the “rock” of our salvation (Ps 62:2). Abraham is the “rock” from which the Jewish people were hewn (Isaiah 51:1). Peter is the “rock” on which the Church is built (Matt 16:18). To argue that “Peter can’t be the rock because God is the rock” makes no more sense than to argue “God can’t be the rock because Abraham is the rock.” They are different metaphors. Peter’s being the “rock” on which the Church is built does not detract from God being the “rock” of our salvation.

A related example is that Christ is the Light of the World, and we are the light of the world. The similarity is that Peter is the rock only because of Christ, just as we are the light of the world only because of Christ. It was not a contest that Peter won on his merit, as Peter didn’t merit this post, but was appointed by Christ as Christ built His Church. It is Christ’s Church, not Peter’s Church. Christ is responsible for His Bride being without stain or blemish, and He is up to the task. God can certainly prevent the office of the Papacy from teaching error in faith and morals. Therefore, Christ’s Church always has taught faith and morals without error, and always will teach faith and morals without error… because of God’s protection in this area.

 

[Howie01]

MDK:

No, you said everything is built from the Cornerstone…

Here is what you said:

MDK:

Actually, everything is measured from the Cornerstone.

Here is what I said:
Howie:

Everything is built from the Cornerstone…

Where I’m from, we call what you are doing quibbling.

Measuring and building from the cornerstone are the same.

In the case of Christ, and His church, that point is driven home because Christ is not only the cornerstone, but the foundation as well (Lk 20:17; 1 Cor 3:11).

MDK:

Well, who is saying there is? Really, who are you talking to?

You said there is, “there” being a command by Peter in 2 Pet 3:16 that one should not rely on himself to privately interpret Scripture:

MDK:

So, the same applies to you. First problem is that you’re relying on yourself as final interpreter of Scripture. This same Peter that you discuss told you and me and everyone not to do this (2 Peter 3:16).

There’s no command about privately interpreting scripture in that passage. There is only a statement that there are some who are untaught and unprincipled who twist the Scripture. That statement is not command, neither in the Greek, nor in the English

MDK:

What Peter said was very plain, and you are living up to his warning about the ignorant twisting Scripture to their own destruction.

Your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC, as I said earlier.

MDK:

For those who could not even interpret what I had said, it was if you believe in Scripture as Christ taught, and as handed down by the Apostles, doing what Scriptures taught, then you would not interpret as you do.

Firing again for effect, your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC.

MDK:

You can’t, as there is no moral equivalent here. I follow what Christ established to teach the faith without error. You do your own thing and get it wrong, as one who is ignorant twisting Scriptures to your own destruction.

Firing once more for effect, your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC.

MDK:

Nope. It’s your inability or unwillingness to understand that has you in this confusion.

You’re definitely saying two different things:

MDK:

And so,

1. Peter is the rock of the Church, according to what Christ taught the Apostles
2. Christ is the one who makes Peter (and his successors) the rock of the Church.

”Rock” is singular in the statement made to Christ. Jesus never says anything about “Rocks” of the church.

MDK:

You lack a lot of understanding, and here is another spot. If you really love Christ, you will do what He asked us. You really show no depth of understanding at all to claim that I am asking you to agree with me. It’s agreeing with Christ that is important. Christ established a means to have His truth taught. I set myself in agreement with what Christ established, and I recommend you believe in what Christ established. The fact that you can’t see this, doesn’t make it less true. It only puts you on the wrong side of truth. It’s very evident from your errant posts that you don’t follow what Christ established.

Continuing to fire for effect, your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC.

MDK:

Once more, a lack of depth. It’s the heart of the matter. You get these things wrong for the reasons that I shared with you.

Once again your POV, "if Howie’s heart were right, he’d be like me, viz an RC."

MDK:

No, I didn’t miss it. I answered why you’re getting this all wrong in the first place. You have no foundation or guidance for understanding Scripture. Therefore, you will be off track very often and make false interpretations based on other false understandings. This strikes to the heart of the problem.

** If you resolve this, then you can answer properly, as Christ teaches through His Church, not because of me.**

That’s what I’ve been saying, if I agree with you, viz the RCC.

Thank you MDK, you’ve shown me to be true, and yourself to be …mistaken.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which of those writers believes the passage supports what the RCC claims it supports; namely, Rome’s papacy?

None to my knowledge…that’s why they’re Protestants.

However, by their own admission, Peter is the Rock.

This is an important point.

No Protestant can ever seriously make the argument that Jesus was declaring anyone or anything OTHER THAN PETER to be the Rock in light of the fact taht more than a dozen Protestant scholars from a wide variety of denominations have all weighed in on the matter in favor of the Catholic interpretation.

 

[Howie01]

None to my knowledge…that’s why they’re Protestants.

However, by their own admission, Peter is the Rock.

This is an important point.

Peter as the Rock is a minor point used to prove the greater point—the claims by the RCC that there exists a Papacy.

The greater point—the RCC claim to a Papacy—is that point with which Protestants disagree, including those who agree that Peter is the Rock.
Randy Carson:

No Protestant can ever seriously make the argument that Jesus was declaring anyone or anything OTHER THAN PETER to be the Rock in light of the fact taht more than a dozen Protestant scholars from a wide variety of denominations have all weighed in on the matter in favor of the Catholic interpretation.

Throughout the history of Protestantism, I would dare say that there have been tens-of-dozens who have disagreed that Peter is the Rock.

Were I you, I would not make too much of the very few you’ve cited who agree with Peter as the Rock.

Many of them make very reasonable cases; nevertheless, they all agree that the foundational message of Christianity are the words of Peter’s confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

Christianity’s foundational message is not, "Peter!"

 

[paul_c]

Howie,
A lot of your scriptural interpretations require literary gymnastics. Does it ever occur to you that when this happens, you might be interpreting it wrong.

After all, what could be more straight forward than this sequence from Matthew chapter 16: 13-19 ==>

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Knowing that Peter means rock and that this whole discussion is between Jesus and Peter, how can you possibly come up with an interpretation that denies that Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church. Especially when you couple that with the end of John’s Gospel: John 21: 15-17:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

If you didn’t have an interest in Denying the Role of Peter in the church, you would never try to bring in the cornerstone discussion from Ephesians and try to make this a building discussion.

 

[jcrichton]

Here is what you said:Here is what I said:Where I’m from, we call what you are doing quibbling.

Measuring and building from the cornerstone are the same.

In the case of Christ, and His church, that point is driven home because Christ is not only the cornerstone, but the foundation as well (Lk 20:17; 1 Cor 3:11).

You said there is, “there” being a command by Peter in 2 Pet 3:16 that one should not rely on himself to privately interpret Scripture:There’s no command about privately interpreting scripture in that passage. There is only a statement that there are some who are untaught and unprincipled who twist the Scripture. That statement is not command, neither in the Greek, nor in the English

Your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC, as I said earlier.

Firing again for effect, your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC.

Firing once more for effect, your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC.

You’re definitely saying two different things:”Rock” is singular in the statement made to Christ. Jesus never says anything about “Rocks” of the church.

Continuing to fire for effect, your basis for making that statement is that what I understand scripture to say disagrees with what you understand scripture to say, viz the RCC.

Once again your POV, "if Howie’s heart were right, he’d be like me, viz an RC."

That’s what I’ve been saying, if I agree with you, viz the RCC.

Thank you MDK, you’ve shown me to be true, and yourself to be …mistaken.

So you disagree with MDK because he agrees with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scriptures while your own interpretation of Scriptures is the correct one passed down to you from where?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Peter as the Rock is a minor point used to prove the greater point—the claims by the RCC that there exists a Papacy.

The greater point—the RCC claim to a Papacy—is that point with which Protestants disagree, including those who agree that Peter is the Rock.

Throughout the history of Protestantism, I would dare say that there have been tens-of-dozens who have disagreed that Peter is the Rock.

Were I you, I would not make too much of the very few you’ve cited who agree with Peter as the Rock.

Many of them make very reasonable cases; nevertheless, they all agree that the foundational message of Christianity are the words of Peter’s confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

Christianity’s foundational message is not, "Peter!"

The problem is that “Christianity’s foundational message” continues to expound new definitions as the various non-Catholic Christians determine that their group should travel in this or that direction… One Faith it is not!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Howie01]

paul c:

Howie,

A lot of your scriptural interpretations require literary gymnastics.

Not as much as yours.
paul c:

Does it ever occur to you that when this happens, you might be interpreting it wrong.

It depends on the difficulty of the passage; does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong?

And how about your Church?
paul c:

Knowing that Peter means rock and that this whole discussion is between Jesus and Peter, how can you possibly come up with an interpretation that denies that Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church.

The fact that Jesus is speaking only to Peter in Mt 16 is understandable since he is responding to Peter’s confession. What’s more, making Peter a rock in the foundation of the church does not thereby endow him with all of the magisterial authority Rome loads in the term “primacy.” Jesus gave the same binding and loosing power to all the apostles (mt 18:18).

Additionally, there are good reasons to believe that Peter was not the rock; Peter’s confession was the occasion for Jesus’ statement, and Peter’s confession is the foundational confession of the Church (Mt 16:16; Jn 20:31; 1 Jn 5:13).

Besides, if the Lord meant all the things He said in the way Rome claims he meant them, why didn’t Jesus just come out and say those things the RCC way??

Could it possibly be, he didn’t mean what Rome claims he meant?

Who found out that He meant it? The apostles didn’t find out at that time. Up to the night of the Supper they continued to dispute who should be the greatest. Why didn’t the Lord answer them that Peter was the greatest on the earth and in the kingdom when they asked Him later (Mt 18:1-4)?

Furthermore, Peter never referred to himself as the supreme authority, but as a fellow "presbuteros," an elder (1 Pet 1:5).
paul c:

Especially when you couple that with the end of John’s Gospel: John 21: 15-17:

D.A. Carson has been cited by R. Carson on this thread, let’s cite him again with respect to that passage, “the task of teaching Christian truth and of protecting it from error is part of the function of the supreme pastor. But he could not fulfill this task if, in exercise of his supreme teaching office, he himself were subject to error.”

It’s pastoral care that’s in view.

Leon Morris points that out as well in his book, *The Gospel According to John, *New Intl. Commentary on the NT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 767, and it’s a long quote, and you folks’ll all be just pooh, poohing my whole post anyway, so I’ll save myself some time, and just offer the closing of it: *"…Jesus was restoring Peter to a place of *[pastoral] trust."

The context of the passage demonstrates Jesus’ restoration of Simon to properly administer pastoral care to the flock. But nowhere does the text suggest that this role involved a charism of primacy. Feeding the flock is a God-given pastoral function that even non-apostles, such as Timothy, had in the NT.

Moreover, Peter did not demonstrate an exemplar primacy in faith and practice, even in NT times where the apostle Paul rebuked Peter for his practice that was contrary to the Gospel (Gal 2:11-12). Paul called what Peter did hypocrisy and a denial of the straightforward truth of the Gospel. Peter’s denial was a de facto denial of the Gospel.

That’s seriously inconsistent with Rome’s claim that Peter is the primary teacher of faith and practice in the church.
paul c:

If you didn’t have an interest in Denying the Role of Peter in the church, you would never try to bring in the cornerstone discussion from Ephesians and try to make this a building discussion.

That’s a fallacious statement, Paul, and dishonest of you. If it were the first time you’ve been dishonest with me, I’d call you on it and let it go.

But, it’s not the first time. Perhaps I’ll ignore you from now on.

I’ve nowhere Denied the Role of Peter in the Church; but just Rome’s embellishment of it.

 

[paul_c]

Not as much as yours.

It depends on the difficulty of the passage; does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong?

And how about your Church?

What makes you think you can interpret scripture better than the millions of Catholic theologians, who also benefit from Tradition?

The fact that Jesus is speaking only to Peter in Mt 16 is understandable since he is responding to Peter’s confession. What’s more, making Peter a rock in the foundation of the church does not thereby endow him with all of the magisterial authority Rome loads in the term “primacy.” Jesus gave the same binding and loosing power to all the apostles (mt 18:18)

When Jesus says to Peter in Mt 16:19: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." that defines his primacy. He has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That is not given ot the rest of the Apostles in Mt 18:18.

Additionally, there are good reasons to believe that Peter was not the rock; Peter’s confession was the occasion for Jesus’ statement, and Peter’s confession is the foundational confession of the Church (Mt 16:16; Jn 20:31; 1 Jn 5:13).

What are the good reasons that Peter was not the rock.?After all, It is clear that Jesus gave him the name “rock”, when we know his given name was Simon.

Besides, if the Lord meant all the things He said in the way Rome claims he meant them, why didn’t Jesus just come out and say those things the RCC way??

Could it possibly be, he didn’t mean what Rome claims he meant?

Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom and told in John 21 to tend the flocks. What more do you want Jesus to say to him?

Who found out that He meant it? The apostles didn’t find out at that time. Up to the night of the Supper they continued to dispute who should be the greatest. Why didn’t the Lord answer them that Peter was the greatest on the earth and in the kingdom when they asked Him later (Mt 18:1-4)?

The teaching point for Matt 18: 1-4 is that the humble will inherit the earth. This is a reiteration of the beatitude. In John 13, he makes the further point that the leaders will in fact be the servants of all.

Furthermore, Peter never referred to himself as the supreme authority, but as a fellow "presbuteros," an elder (1 Pet 1:5).

D.A. Carson has been cited by R. Carson on this thread, let’s cite him again with respect to that passage, “the task of teaching Christian truth and of protecting it from error is part of the function of the supreme pastor. But he could not fulfill this task if, in exercise of his supreme teaching office, he himself were subject to error.”

Peter didn’t need to say he was the leader, he just acted in that role. For instance, when they all recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, it was Peter who spoke for the Group. And in Acts 1, it was Peter who defined the need to replace Judas with Matthias.
As to Peter’s suitability to exercise the office of Pope, He was chosen by God (Jesus said it was God who revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah) and he had the support of the Holy Spirit to make sure he got things right.

It’s pastoral care that’s in view.

Leon Morris points that out as well in his book, *The Gospel According to John, *New Intl. Commentary on the NT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 767, and it’s a long quote, and you folks’ll all be just pooh, poohing my whole post anyway, so I’ll save myself some time, and just offer the closing of it: *"…Jesus was restoring Peter to a place of *[pastoral] trust."

The context of the passage demonstrates Jesus’ restoration of Simon to properly administer pastoral care to the flock. But nowhere does the text suggest that this role involved a charism of primacy. Feeding the flock is a God-given pastoral function that even non-apostles, such as Timothy, had in the NT.

Give me a break. Jesus told Peter to tend his flock. What can be more straightforward than that?

Moreover, Peter did not demonstrate an exemplar primacy in faith and practice, even in NT times where the apostle Paul rebuked Peter for his practice that was contrary to the Gospel (Gal 2:11-12). Paul called what Peter did hypocrisy and a denial of the straightforward truth of the Gospel. Peter’s denial was a de facto denial of the Gospel.

That’s seriously inconsistent with Rome’s claim that Peter is the primary teacher of faith and practice in the church.

Paul tells the Galatians that he rebuked Peter for acting differently with the Gentiles than he did with the Jews. However, in Acts we learn that Paul circumcised Timothy and we also learn in Acts 21:24 that Paul shaved his head in atonement so that he could enter the temple. In essence, Paul did the same things that he rebuked Peter for doing. He learned what Peter already Knew: To act in ways with the people he was converting so as not to detract from the Gospel message.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
If you didn’t have an interest in Denying the Role of Peter in the church, you would never try to bring in the cornerstone discussion from Ephesians and try to make this a building discussion.

You say that Peter is not the leader of the Church. That is denying the Role of Peter in the Church.

I have never said anything to you that was dishonest, in this or any other thread - I just see things differently than you do. To accuse me of being dishonest rather than disagreeable is I think unfair and unwarranted.

If you don’t want to discuss these things with me, that is your perogative.