The "It" Against Which the Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail

[exnihilo]

Was that Paul Ryan?

For the record, in the Greek it’s not “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It’s “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” A feminine singular pronoun, in agreement with its antecedent “church,” a feminine singular noun. That should go a long way toward settling the argument.

It should but isn’t his argument that what will not be prevailed against is the rock which is also feminine? At least in the Latin it is. I assume it is in Greek due to the Petros/Petra issue.

Unless I’m misunderstanding what he’s saying, it seems to me like he’s saying Christ never promised to protect the Church against Hell, but only the foundation of the Church which is the belief in Christ’s divinity and death and resurrection.

It didn’t seem clear to me but I interpreted it as you did. In which case his argument rests on what the rock is. So it really isn’t that different from other rock arguments. For Catholics the rock is Peter and could include his confession of faith, which was a gift from God. For many others it is just the confession of faith. I think the confession of faith alone argument is bad. It ignores, among many other things, the fact that Peter wasn’t named Peter from the beginning but was given this name by Jesus here. He was given that name for a reason. This person also uses the pebble vs. big rock line of reasoning which is still popular but not very good.

 

[clem456]

It’s hard to stomach because of his arrogance and condescension, let alone the blatant ignorance or willful misrepresentation of Catholic history and Catholic doctrine, but his interpretation is a new one I haven’t heard before. We all know the verse, Matthew 16:18, and Catholics and Protestants have been arguing about the “rock” for 500 years, but I’ve never seen an argument that the “it” against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail isn’t the Church. I thought we just argued about the nature of the Church, not whether Hell would prevail against it. Unless I’m misunderstanding what he’s saying, it seems to me like he’s saying Christ never promised to protect the Church against Hell, but only the foundation of the Church which is the belief in Christ’s divinity and death and resurrection. This interpretation also seems to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 wherein the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth”.

Here’s the video: youtube.com/watch?v=iBtbgUP-8HA

I guess my questions are: Is this a common interpretation within Lutheranism? Where in history is the beginning of this interpretive tradition regarding the “it”; who first explicated it?

Bill Clinton, who famously parsed the word “is”, would be proud. Most all deceptions require the twisting of words into unrecognizable knots.

 

[benhur]

Well you should know that I respect your genuine faith. This means, from my point of view, that you have much Catholic faith.

I was probably “reading between lines” in stating that your belief leans towards “invisible” Church leadership. Maybe I was wrong to do so. But my perspective is that there is only ONE leadership. Let’s look at 1st Corinthians for me to explain…

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.11For it has been reported to me by Chlo′e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.12What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,”or “I belong to Christ.”13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?14I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga′ius;15lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.16(I did baptize also the household of Steph′anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Paul is addressing divisions over leadership. But some things are interesting about this passage.

First, Paul is appealing to faith in Christian as foundational! This is the best way to appeal to one another to come to agreement in matters of the faith. We see this here at CA too!

Second, Paul names Apolo, himself, Peter and Jesus. Jesus is obvious, and Paul and Apolos seems to have established and preside as their leaders. But Peter is still recognized as a leader among them.

Third, Paul names Jesus among them, so it isn’t the fact that they consider these men as their leaders, but that they consider them as divided! The problem has to do with them thinking they “belong” to one as opposed to the other. This causes division and breaking up the unity of Christmas and His leadership.

I bring all this up because we should not have leaders who are opposed to one another! And we should not consider our leaders opposed to one another.

Who is your leadership? Are they united to the Steward whom Jesus established with Peter? There cannot be perfect unity of faith without assent in to this Truth! Even though assent in to the leadership of the Papacy does not guarantee genuine “following” the faith professed through the Papacy. This is because “weeds” grow in every place.

HI rc,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You are correct that as far as invisible/visible leadership balance, the CC has more visible, obviously thru the papal office, cardinals ect. and perhaps we may have more invisible (liberty of conscience etc) .

As far as your Paul quote, I do not think they felt there was any concrete division (for lack of the better word that escapes me) but as you state pride in whom baptized them and that caused the division . It was a subjective division, and not due to any doctrine or practice. Paul and Peter and Apollos were *not *opposed to each other in this quote.

I also like Paul’s remarks where he chides cliques, and because they arise and are used to show “rightness”. On the surface it seems good (to be right, in practice or attitude or even minor doctrine) , yet wrong to be proud full in the division over it. That is to divide, to form cliques, specifically to show "our’’ rightness is wrong. As the Didache says “pacify those that contend”. Of course there comes a point over major doctrine or immorality to separate , as God showed His “dislike”, to put it mildly, over the Nicolatians in Revelations

As I have stated elsewhere , that I think all P’s and O’s are in unity with the CC leader, the pope, when he stresses certain Gospel Truths, of the need for Christ and to show forth His light and love to the world, etc. We are all united in this universal mission. To be divided over say Marion doctrine or communion beliefs is tending to what Paul spoke up against in my opinion.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Was that Paul Ryan?

It should but isn’t his argument that what will not be prevailed against is the rock which is also feminine? At least in the Latin it is. I assume it is in Greek due to the Petros/Petra issue.

It didn’t seem clear to me but I interpreted it as you did. In which case his argument rests on what the rock is. So it really isn’t that different from other rock arguments. For Catholics the rock is Peter and could include his confession of faith, which was a gift from God. For many others it is just the confession of faith. I think the confession of faith alone argument is bad. It ignores, among many other things, the fact that Peter wasn’t named Peter from the beginning but was given this name by Jesus here. He was given that name for a reason. This person also uses the pebble vs. big rock line of reasoning which is still popular but not very good.

HI e,

Quickly if i may. If rock /stone(pebble as you say) is “not very good”, I would also propose rock/rock is not very good. There are differences. Christ for sure is the Rock also . He is the cornerstone . A cornerstone is a cornerstone, howbeit also a Rock. Peter may be a “rock”, but he is not the Rock, nor the Cornerstone, though all three are "rocks’’. So there are legitimate differences that are acknowledged with the rock /stone/ petras/petros scenario that are not as clear with a rock/rock scenario.

The Greek is inspired and the differences can not be explained by simply trying not to apply the feminine to Peter, for it is applied to Christ elsewhere. A stone comes from, is birthed from a rock , just as assuredly as Peter, and more importantly, his confession is birthed from the Godhead , even Christ. “Her” is appropriate for the feminine certainly gives birth as does the masculine.

Blessings

Blessings

 

[DaveBj]

Bill Clinton, who famously parsed the word “is”, would be proud. Most all deceptions require the twisting of words into unrecognizable knots.

Nailed it.

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”

 

[DaveBj]

The “It” Against Which the Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail

Just by the by, I wanted to express my appreciation for the grammatical precision of the thread’s title. Well played

 

[rcwitness]

Just so everyone is aware of the relevant Scripture Jesus was fulfilling…

Isaiah 22:15-25

15Thus says the LordGodof hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:16What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?17Behold, theLordwill hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you,18and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house.19I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.20In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah,21and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.22And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.23And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.24And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.25In that day, says theLordof hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for theLordhas spoken.”

In this passage, we see what Jesus was doing with His words. He was founding an office, and the holder is regarded as “a” father to the whole house of Judah. This office is called “steward”

It makes sense that Jesus acknowledges His Father as revealing to Peter in order for Christ to establish him as the founding holder of this office.

All the terminology is there,… rock, keys, open/shut, office, etc

 

[conRep12]

Just by the by, I wanted to express my appreciation for the grammatical precision of the thread’s title. Well played

Haha. Thank you. I’m not actually an officer of the Grammar Police Department, but I play one on the Internet.

 

[rcwitness]

As I have stated elsewhere , that I think all P’s and O’s are in unity with the CC leader, the pope, when he stresses certain Gospel Truths, of the need for Christ and to show forth His light and love to the world, etc.

I agree. And our catechism puts this into an encouraging expression of faith as well.

We are all united in this universal mission. To be divided over say Marion doctrine or communion beliefs is tending to what Paul spoke up against in my opinion.

I can understand the struggle to see where Marian Doctrines are relative to the foundation of the faith and our salvation.

I think lots could be understood within these Teachings. But a core importance about them, is that they are Truths and have been officially professed as Truths by the full authority of the Church. So depending on one’s relation to the Church and her Sacraments, by believing these to be false, we can range from harming our relationship to Jesus… to destroying our relationship to Him.

 

[rcwitness]

As I have stated elsewhere , that I think all P’s and O’s are in unity with the CC leader, the pope, when he stresses certain Gospel Truths, of the need for Christ and to show forth His light and love to the world, etc.

There is true unity when we (P’s & C’s) believe and follow “certain gospel Truths”. There is also division when we don’t believe and follow “certain Gospel Truths”. If we believe the Church will prevail against the gates of hell, we can be sure her faith (as in Deposit of Faith) is sufficient to lead us. Just as Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith will not fail him, so the faith Confirmed through him (his office) will not fail the House of Judah (Church).

I like to stay positive in what we have in common. As you have expressed things in the above post, I think we agree. Yet you also have phrased it to sound like the Pope is only in Communion with you when he professes “certain Gospel Truths” which you agree with. This implies that his office came after the “denominations” and this office is in communion with Jesus, so long as it preaches “certain Gospel Truths”. When, really, the office of the Pope IS a “certain Gospel Truth” of which is a fundamental part of Sacred Revelation. The Mass is the Gospel message “remembered” through all ages. Every pope is bound to proclaim the Gospel which the Mass celebrates in all places and all times. Chris crucified for our salvation is proclaimed, and given thanks together with unity in His One Body.

We are all united in this universal mission.

Hopefully, but that’s also an over simplified statement, no?

To be divided over say Marion doctrine or communion beliefs is tending to what Paul spoke up against in my opinion.

But this is a leap that you are making of which Paul doesn’t actually specify. He does not explain anything specific, but general division. He speaks rather strongly that we all agree and have one mind and judgment!

He address Christ’s sacrifice as the great deed which brings us together! This is expressed at Mass! Later, he even goes on to express that the Spirit searches all things too!

God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.11For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

 

[exnihilo]

HI e,

Quickly if i may. If rock /stone(pebble as you say) is “not very good”, I would also propose rock/rock is not very good. There are differences. Christ for sure is the Rock also . He is the cornerstone . A cornerstone is a cornerstone, howbeit also a Rock. Peter may be a “rock”, but he is not the Rock, nor the Cornerstone, though all three are "rocks’’. So there are legitimate differences that are acknowledged with the rock /stone/ petras/petros scenario that are not as clear with a rock/rock scenario.

The Greek is inspired and the differences can not be explained by simply trying not to apply the feminine to Peter, for it is applied to Christ elsewhere. A stone comes from, is birthed from a rock , just as assuredly as Peter, and more importantly, his confession is birthed from the Godhead , even Christ. “Her” is appropriate for the feminine certainly gives birth as does the masculine.

Blessings

Blessings

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

Peter is a secondary cause. With that in mind I see no problem with him being a rock on which the Church is built.

 

[rcwitness]

Jesus was building a Church. Before He left us, He was the Church.

“Destroy this Temple…”

Everyone whom the Father draws, and they come, is grafted into the Church body.

The foundation stone is both a person and an office. Just as a steward is a person in an office. Without the office, the person does not have authority over the house.

Luke 12

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44 Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.

John 21

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.”

 

[benhur]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

Peter is a secondary cause. With that in mind I see no problem with him being a rock on which the Church is built.

Well I am not totally sure what you mean , but is it Peter as secondary cause and God, divine revelation and its fruitful confession in man, and Christ Himself, as primary causes, foundations for the church, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against, that petros is secondary to the primary petras ?

But we agree, Christ is the cornerstone bedrock, the twelve apostles our rock foundations, and our forefathers in the faith rocks laid on them, and we today are living rocks on which the church rests per scripture and tradition.

Blessings

 

[eazyduzit]

I have never questioned that “it” refers to His Church. What i do question is the assumption that “gates of hell” refers to Satan or his deceptions or his power. In Greek, the word is hades,which simply means the “abode or place of the dead”. This has nothing to do with Satan’s kingdom. Where does this interpretation come from?

 

[Peter_J]

It’s hard to stomach because of his arrogance and condescension, let alone the blatant ignorance or willful misrepresentation of Catholic history and Catholic doctrine, but his interpretation is a new one I haven’t heard before. We all know the verse, Matthew 16:18, and Catholics and Protestants have been arguing about the “rock” for 500 years, but I’ve never seen an argument that the “it” against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail isn’t the Church. I thought we just argued about the nature of the Church, not whether Hell would prevail against it. Unless I’m misunderstanding what he’s saying, it seems to me like he’s saying Christ never promised to protect the Church against Hell, but only the foundation of the Church which is the belief in Christ’s divinity and death and resurrection. This interpretation also seems to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 wherein the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth”.

Here’s the video: youtube.com/watch?v=iBtbgUP-8HA

I guess my questions are: Is this a common interpretation within Lutheranism? Where in history is the beginning of this interpretive tradition regarding the “it”; who first explicated it?

Admittedly I haven’t seen that video, but just based on what you posted I wonder if it isn’t even worth discussing.

 

[rcwitness]

Admittedly I haven’t seen that video, but just based on what you posted I wonder if it isn’t even worth discussing.

If anything, it would be interesting to see him discuss the topic in this thread.

 

[benhur]

I have never questioned that “it” refers to His Church. What i do question is the assumption that “gates of hell” refers to Satan or his deceptions or his power. In Greek, the word is hades,which simply means the “abode or place of the dead”. This has nothing to do with Satan’s kingdom. Where does this interpretation come from?

Guilty as charged. At times have alluded it as such , probably due to dialoguing in that paradigm here (CAF) so much. But have stated what you just did a long time ago. For sure it is fitting. Death could not hold back our Lord. Persecution and death could not stop the Holy Spirit falling upon mankind like never before, sweeping cultures and continents. Indeed nothing can separate us from the goodness and love of God thru Christ Jesus, not even the grave, nor the threat of it, for we shall all rise as the perfect bride of Christ , to meet Him in the air…Sounds so much better than to try justifying this church or that, this office or that, infallibility or not, etc…May the Truth set us free.

Thanks for the grounding.Blessings

 

[benjohnson]

Without carefully parsing the video, it’s seems to me to be pretty much standard Lutheran apologetics done in the Pastor’s typical bombastic style.

If we didn’t think that having the Chair of Saint Peter was ultimate importance then we could no longer remain outside of Rome.

In my opinion - Just as you see Lutherans squirming their way around this, you’ll also see Catholics reading too much into this verse as well. While not ideal, I see no reason to reject my own tradition just because we lack - the Chair of St. Peter being a historic benefit to the church, while faith in Christ Jesus being the reason for the church

Pastor Fisk should also develop some close ties with Catholics - it would temper his sharp tongue. I was happy to see him point out that he knows that Catholic’s think the church exists to point to Christ as well - so perhaps he’s learning to display the love I know he has for his fellow brothers in Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

Without carefully parsing the video, it’s seems to me to be pretty much standard Lutheran apologetics done in the Pastor’s typical bombastic style.

If we didn’t think that having the Chair of Saint Peter was ultimate importance then we could no longer remain outside of Rome.

I think you have one too many/few negations in that sentence … but that aside I’m curious: is it a traditional Lutheran position that Rome (and not eg the Orthodox or the OOs) has the chair of Peter?

 

[steido01]

I think you have one too many/few negations in that sentence … but that aside I’m curious: is it a traditional Lutheran position that Rome (and not eg the Orthodox or the OOs) has the chair of Peter?

It depends on what you mean when you say ‘Chair of Peter.’ Can you give a definition and list of responsibilities, functions, and authorities?