Peter the "rock"?

[limited_edition]

Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. The ACTUAL words in scripture ARE:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things:

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

I think we both can agree 4 is not an option.
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

One would then reasonable deduct that it is point 1 or 3.

Point 3 is makes direct reference to Ephesians 2: 19-20
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

So here, the bible is literally telling us what the “rock” is…

I was sent this as a email from someone trying very hard to talk me out of believing all things Catholic.

 

[promethius]

Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. The ACTUAL words in scripture ARE:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things:

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

I think we both can agree 4 is not an option.
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

One would then reasonable deduct that it is point 1 or 3.

Point 3 is makes direct reference to Ephesians 2: 19-20
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

So here, the bible is literally telling us what the “rock” is…

I was sent this as a email from someone trying very hard to talk me out of believing all things Catholic.

This is a patent misapplication of Ephesians 2: 19-20. That verse CONFIRMS that point 3 is not correct. 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.

Point 1 is faulty. Peter’s faith was tested time and again and he even denied the Christ three times.

Point 2 bears logical thinking then: it is important to note that even Peter fell short of salvation and needed Christ. Even though this is a repeat of erroneous application of said scripture by the protestants (since the verse they reference does not speak to individuals but rather to the gentiles and the jews AS A WHOLE), even if the verse DID apply in the way they mean it to (it doesn’t) it would still be irrelevant. The rock the church is built on is the OFFICE of Peter, not the man himself.

point 2 is the only one that makes logical and scriptural sense.

 

[Erich]

Here are some more good links:
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

 

[foundthelight]

Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

“Petra” is a large rock or bedrock. Jesus is the cornerstone, Peter is the bedrock on which the foundation is laid, and the Apostles are the foundation.

From Strong’s

G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

 

[MDK]

Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. The ACTUAL words in scripture ARE:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things:

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

I think we both can agree 4 is not an option.
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

One would then reasonable deduct that it is point 1 or 3.

Point 3 is makes direct reference to Ephesians 2: 19-20
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

So here, the bible is literally telling us what the “rock” is…

I was sent this as a email from someone trying very hard to talk me out of believing all things Catholic.

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). So, if you believe in Scriptures, why don’t you follow them?

So, you set out to demonstrate that Peter is correct in what he tells us, about the ignorant wresting Scripture to their own destruction… you conclude that Christ is indeed building on a fallible human alone. This is indeed not the meaning of Scripture. You can’t dissect and take out of context and expect to know what it means. Continuing, Christ is the one who makes Peter (and his successors) the rock of the Church. It is only because of Christ’s protection that the Church has never, and will never teach error in faith and morals. We see that you, without the Church have already interpreted falsely. So, if you really believe in Christ, you will believe Him in that He protects the office of head Bishop of His Church from teaching error. Now, this protection was for His Church and not the man. It doesn’t mean that the office of head Bishop (Prime Minister of Christ’s earthly Kingdom) is perfect, only will not be in error when teaching on faith and morals binding on all the faithful. Isn’t this what you would expect from Christ who loves us? If you love Christ and believe Him, then you will accept and honor what He established.

Bonus question: Since the Bible was written by Catholics in the context of Catholicism, then why is it that you can take it out of that context and expect to know what it says and then tell the author and keeper of the Bible for almost 2000 years that you know more about it? Would that be a bit arrogant? Secondly, if you don’t believe the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible, then what makes you even believe in the Bible at all? How do you know it’s inspired or even the correct Scriptures are in it apart from the Church telling you this? Please tell us independently how you absolutely know the Bible is inspired by God and all in it is without error?

 

[NotWorthy]

J
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

This would be absolutely true if the Church was entirely run and guided by men. The church would fall short of the glory of God.

But Christ had two promises that would affect your friend’s reasoning.

1. “Go therefore, making disciples of all nations… and I will be with you always, til the end of the age”.
2. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth… But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.”

No, Jesus was talking first and foremost about Peter (Point 2).

Why? Because he was grammatically astute. “You are rock and upon this rock I will build My Church”. “This rock” has to be referencing “You are Rock” or else Jesus would be using improper Grammar. So, Peter is the Rock, guided by God, to start Jesus’ Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. The ACTUAL words in scripture ARE:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things:

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

I think we both can agree 4 is not an option.
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

One would then reasonable deduct that it is point 1 or 3.

Point 3 is makes direct reference to Ephesians 2: 19-20
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

So here, the bible is literally telling us what the “rock” is…

I was sent this as a email from someone trying very hard to talk me out of believing all things Catholic.Protestant scholars have come around to the fact that Peter is the rock Jesus was referring to.

Here are a few samples of their writings:

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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 . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

—

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” “Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

 

[Luke65]

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”!

 

[dancny]

There are certain points people seem to forget.

Petra and Petros are masculine and feminine versions of the word. When you translate into a foreign language your are constrained by the languages rules. Simon cannot be referred to as Petra as he is male. He MUST be mentioned as Petros.

If you take the whole statement and translate it as Protestants would you get something like,

You are pebble and on this rock I will build my church… Now can you see Jesus calling any of the disciples pebble after that declaration , “You are the Christ, the son of God. The messiah.”?

If pone looks at the writings of the early church fathers we see that they held Peter and his successor to e prime.

Last, Peter and Jesus weren’t speaking greek. They were speaking aramaic. Greek is a language their conversation was translated into. It is as if we spoke in English and 30 years form now it is translated into Sweadish. Then some 2000 years later it is translated into chinese. In Aramaic, what they were speaking, we get …you are rock on this rock i will build my church.

Not on the faith of any one man or group, not on Himself, not on anything else bu the heirarchial structure of our church. Something Jews who came out of a heirarchial church would understand.

 

[JRKH]

If I may add:
Why can’t people just read it as it is written.
“You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”

The question as I see it really isn’t one of whether or not it is Peter the Christ is Talking about but rather - Why Peter?
Again the Answer is simple - Because God the Father Chose him.
Note that Jesus says, "17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

So God Chose Simon/Peter to reveal Jesus true nature to. Jesus acknowledged this and made Peter his Vicar.

Piece of cake - Easy as pie, unless of course your determined that the verse MUST point AWAY from the Catholic church. hmmmmm

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

promethius:

This is a patent misapplication of Ephesians 2: 19-20. That verse CONFIRMS that point 3 is not correct. 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.

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.

Another poster has quoted D.A. Carson with respect to Peter and the Rock, here’s Carson on Eph 2:19-22:A final image serves to underscore the glory of what God has accomplished in Christ for the former ‘outsider’ Gentile readers (picking up from v 13). They have been privileged to become fellow-citizens with ‘the saints’, that is, not with Jews or Jewish Christians, but with the rest of God’s people and full members of God’s heavenly city-temple household. Already in Gal. 4:26 Paul had upstaged the Judaizers by saying Christians belong not to the earthly Jerusalem, but to the heavenly one (cf Phil. 3:20). The theological force of the assertion derives from the assumption that the age to come is already realized in heaven, and Jerusalem, as she shall be in the new creation, is waiting to ‘descend’ (see e.g. Rev. 21:1–4; and 21:10–22:5). To say we are already citizens of that temple-city is to say we now, in union with Christ, participate in that heavenly city radiant with the glory of God, and that it shall finally be revealed and displace all that we know of as reality in this age. For a similar view, namely that the church now participates in and manifests the worship of the end-time glorified congregation of the saints in the heavenly city, see Heb. 12:22–24. The idea of being members of the temple-city continues the theme of access to God introduced by v 18, because the heavenly city is filled with the radiant presence of God. Indeed, according to Rev. 22:5, he is its very light, displacing night and day.

In vs 20–22 we have essentially the same message but with a slight shift in the imagery. Believers are now portrayed as the very stones with which the heavenly temple itself is gradually being built. Much of Judaism expected a new temple in the Jerusalem of the age to come, and already certain parts of Judaism had come to think that God’s people would constitute that holy dwelling-place of God (cf Jesus’ teaching in Jn. 2:19). This is the view expressed here, and it is said already to find fulfilment (as at 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16–17; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). Paul’s readers are, he says, even now being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The Greek syntax here, with one article governing both nouns (as at 3:5), suggests one foundational group, apostles functioning as prophets (i.e. bringing revelation), rather than two, though a separate group of prophets are also known at 4:11. Jesus himself is identified as the chief cornerstone, the one from which the rest of the foundation is built outwards along the line of the proposed walls. The point would then seem to be that the temple is built out and up from the revelation given in Christ, through the revelatory elaboration and implementation of the mystery through the prophetic-apostolic figures (see 3:4–11, esp. v 5). But all is built on Christ, supported by Christ, and the lie or shape of the continuing building is determined by Christ, the cornerstone. An alternative interpretation makes Christ the ‘keystone’ (the last to be added, the one that holds together the whole arching edifice); but this depends on a later sense of the word translated ‘cornerstone’, and it does not really fit the image of a temple being built, for it would imply Christ has no place in it yet.

The last verse of the chapter reminds the readers of the enormous privilege that they are part of this whole construction. They are incorporated in the building, the one universal church, which God makes his dwelling by the Spirit. And they are incorporated in it precisely by union with Christ, in whom all things are being brought into the cosmic harmony and peace enabled by reconciliation inaugurated at the cross.

Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (Eph 2:11). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

[Howie01]

Protestant scholars have come around to the fact that Peter is the rock Jesus was referring to.

Here are a few samples of their writings:

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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 . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

—

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” “Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

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

 

[MDK]

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.

Another poster has quoted D.A. Carson with respect to Peter and the Rock, here’s Carson on Eph 2:19-22:A final image serves to underscore the glory of what God has accomplished in Christ for the former ‘outsider’ Gentile readers (picking up from v 13). They have been privileged to become fellow-citizens with ‘the saints’, that is, not with Jews or Jewish Christians, but with the rest of God’s people and full members of God’s heavenly city-temple household. Already in Gal. 4:26 Paul had upstaged the Judaizers by saying Christians belong not to the earthly Jerusalem, but to the heavenly one (cf Phil. 3:20). The theological force of the assertion derives from the assumption that the age to come is already realized in heaven, and Jerusalem, as she shall be in the new creation, is waiting to ‘descend’ (see e.g. Rev. 21:1–4; and 21:10–22:5). To say we are already citizens of that temple-city is to say we now, in union with Christ, participate in that heavenly city radiant with the glory of God, and that it shall finally be revealed and displace all that we know of as reality in this age. For a similar view, namely that the church now participates in and manifests the worship of the end-time glorified congregation of the saints in the heavenly city, see Heb. 12:22–24. The idea of being members of the temple-city continues the theme of access to God introduced by v 18, because the heavenly city is filled with the radiant presence of God. Indeed, according to Rev. 22:5, he is its very light, displacing night and day.

In vs 20–22 we have essentially the same message but with a slight shift in the imagery. Believers are now portrayed as the very stones with which the heavenly temple itself is gradually being built. Much of Judaism expected a new temple in the Jerusalem of the age to come, and already certain parts of Judaism had come to think that God’s people would constitute that holy dwelling-place of God (cf Jesus’ teaching in Jn. 2:19). This is the view expressed here, and it is said already to find fulfilment (as at 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16–17; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). Paul’s readers are, he says, even now being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The Greek syntax here, with one article governing both nouns (as at 3:5), suggests one foundational group, apostles functioning as prophets (i.e. bringing revelation), rather than two, though a separate group of prophets are also known at 4:11. Jesus himself is identified as the chief cornerstone, the one from which the rest of the foundation is built outwards along the line of the proposed walls. The point would then seem to be that the temple is built out and up from the revelation given in Christ, through the revelatory elaboration and implementation of the mystery through the prophetic-apostolic figures (see 3:4–11, esp. v 5). But all is built on Christ, supported by Christ, and the lie or shape of the continuing building is determined by Christ, the cornerstone. An alternative interpretation makes Christ the ‘keystone’ (the last to be added, the one that holds together the whole arching edifice); but this depends on a later sense of the word translated ‘cornerstone’, and it does not really fit the image of a temple being built, for it would imply Christ has no place in it yet.

The last verse of the chapter reminds the readers of the enormous privilege that they are part of this whole construction. They are incorporated in the building, the one universal church, which God makes his dwelling by the Spirit. And they are incorporated in it precisely by union with Christ, in whom all things are being brought into the cosmic harmony and peace enabled by reconciliation inaugurated at the cross.

Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (Eph 2:11). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

Actually, everything is measured from the Cornerstone. And so, Peter is the rock of the Church, according to what Christ taught the Apostles, and the Apostles taught and handed down. It is also what is in Scriptures, very plainly.

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). So, if you believe in Scriptures, why don’t you follow them?

So, why are you adamant on wresting Scripture to your own destruction… you conclude that Christ not what Christ taught, but have made your own teaching apart from Christ. You can’t take the Scriptures out of the context in which they were written, and expect to know what they mean. Christ is the one who makes Peter (and his successors) the rock of the Church. It is only because of Christ’s protection that the Church has never, and will never teach error in faith and morals. So, if you really believe in Christ, you will believe Him in that He protects the office of head Bishop of His Church from teaching error. Now, this protection was for His Church and not the man. If you love Christ and believe Him, then you will accept and honor what He established.

The question to you is why should we believe anything you say, or what others say who reject those Christ sent, and thereby reject Christ in this way?

 

[MDK]

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

Any of them who knew the truth of Christ more fully. We don’t say that others are completely wrong, but do have some truth. That truth they do have can be used as a stepping stone to the fullness of truth. The fullest understanding and inerrant teaching of revealed truth is found in the Catholic Church. Why? It is because of the Papacy, which Christ established. This is how Christ protects His Church from teaching error in faith and morals.

It’s not surprising that when you reject what Christ established to teach His Truths, that you would go down wrong paths of understanding. There is a way back. The Church built by Christ is a beacon of the Way, Truth and the Life because Christ is the Head of His Catholic Church.

 

[PJM]

=limited edition;4860302]Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things: And just how does that change the words of GOD?

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

Right :tsktsk:

And all this is “just coincidence”…Not hardly, my friend!

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” 3. Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.
4. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42: Mt 16:18).

1. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28;1 Pet 5:2).
2. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
3. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
4. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
5. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
6. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
7. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
8. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
9. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
10. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
11. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
12. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
13. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
14. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
15. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
16. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
17. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
18. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
19. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
20. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
21. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
22. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
23. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16). ‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government.

The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

Love and prayers,

 

[Howie01]

MDK:

Actually, everything is measured from the Cornerstone.

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

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

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.

And Christ is the akrogoniaios, or cornerstone (Eph 2:20; cf Lk 20:17).

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).

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

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.

MDK:

So, if you believe in Scriptures, why don’t you follow them?

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."

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

MDK:

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

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

MDK:

So, if you really believe in Christ, you will believe Him in that He protects the office of head Bishop of His Church from teaching error… If you love Christ and believe Him, then you will accept and honor what He established.

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

MDK:

The question to you is why should we believe anything you say, or what others say who reject those Christ sent, and thereby reject Christ in this way?

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.

MDK:

Any of them who knew the truth of Christ more fully.

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.

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

Which of those writers [those cited by Randy Carson] believes the passage supports what the RCC claims it supports; namely, Rome’s papacy?

 

[jcrichton]

Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. The ACTUAL words in scripture ARE:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things:

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

I think we both can agree 4 is not an option.
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

One would then reasonable deduct that it is point 1 or 3.

Point 3 is makes direct reference to Ephesians 2: 19-20
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

So here, the bible is literally telling us what the “rock” is…

I was sent this as a email from someone trying very hard to talk me out of believing all things Catholic.Was Jesus in the habit of revealing His Teachings to the disciples or did He keep them in the dark?

The problem these people have is that they read the Holy Scriptures in a very narrow and selective manner; divorced from other passages, anyone can quote Scriptures to mean something that is not the Word of God–Satan himself used God’s own Word with Eve… by just twiking this and that and omiting that and the other and white washing everything in general he told Eve: ‘hey, why is Yahweh God keeping you from enjoying all of the wonderful fruits in this gaden?–you know, you will surely not die; He is afraid, selfish, and power hungry… He simply does not want any competition; come on, try it! …you’ll become as He!’

Many use these same techniques to attempt to strip away the Authority delegated by Jesus to the only Church He founded so that they can claim it as their own.

18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If they truly want a deeper understanding of the above passage they should read in light of the following:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ (St. Matthew 16:19–clearly still directed at Peter since He includes the rest in St. Matthew 18:15-20)

31 ‘Simon, Simon! Look, Satan has got his wish to sift you all like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in your turn must strengthen your brothers.’ (St. Luke 22:31-32)

15 When they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?’ He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ 16 A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He replied, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Look after my sheep.’ 17 Then he said to him a third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was hurt that he asked him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and said, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep. (St. John 21:15-17)

In the above passages Jesus is speaking to Peter (Church) as Yahweh spoke to Jacob (Israel); every single passage demonstrates that Jesus is delegating His Authority to Peter and is binding him to the Church.

The proceeding two passages demonstrates that, though Jesus had a special connection with John, He had a vested interest in Peter as He is not seen spending the same “quality” time with the rest of the twelve:

14 And going into Peter’s house Jesus found Peter’s mother-in-law in bed and feverish. 15 He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to serve him. 16 That evening they brought him many who were possessed by devils. He drove out the spirits with a command and cured all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: He himself bore our sicknesses away and carried our diseases. (St. Matthew 8:14-17)

24 When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel came to Peter and said, ‘Does your master not pay the half-shekel?’ 25 ‘Yes,’ he replied, and went into the house. But before he could speak, Jesus said, ‘Simon, what is your opinion? From whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute? From their sons or from foreigners?’ 26 And when he replied, ‘From foreigners,’ Jesus said, ‘Well then, the sons are exempt. 27 However, so that we shall not be the downfall of others, go to the lake and cast a hook; take the first fish that rises, open its mouth and there you will find a shekel; take it and give it to them for me and for yourself.’ (St. Matthew 17:24-27)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This would be absolutely true if the Church was entirely run and guided by men. The church would fall short of the glory of God.

But Christ had two promises that would affect your friend’s reasoning.

1. “Go therefore, making disciples of all nations… and I will be with you always, til the end of the age”.
2. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth… But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.”

No, Jesus was talking first and foremost about Peter (Point 2).

Why? Because he was grammatically astute. “You are rock and upon this rock I will build My Church”. “This rock” has to be referencing “You are Rock” or else Jesus would be using improper Grammar. So, Peter is the Rock, guided by God, to start Jesus’ Church.

Exactly! I truly do not understand why so many believe that they can control the Holy Spirit–defying, at their loss, Chirst’s own Word!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

Is that not the proverbial oxymoron?.. if they are protestants why would they support anything that has to do with Catholic Doctrine?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Howie01]

jcrichton:

Is that not the proverbial oxymoron?.. if they are protestants why would they support anything that has to do with Catholic Doctrine?

Maran atha!

Angel

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.