Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Why wasn't Peter's brother Andrew named Petros? Or what about Nathaniel?
Are you really asking me to tell you why God makes the choices that God makes? That seems a little above the pay grade of any man to explain the mind of God.

Best guess, because Peter was a rock ... fearless in Acts 2 and a leader after Jesus restored him. However, the CHURCH is not built on the strength of Peter (the boulder) but the immovable bedrock of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (God Incarnate).
 
Are you really asking me to tell you why God makes the choices that God makes? That seems a little above the pay grade of any man to explain the mind of God.

Best guess, because Peter was a rock ... fearless in Acts 2 and a leader after Jesus restored him. However, the CHURCH is not built on the strength of Peter (the boulder) but the immovable bedrock of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (God Incarnate).


You wrote, "the bedrock was the truth that Jesus is the Christ, son of the living God that Peter had just spoken." This does not make sense for two reasons:

1. Peter was not the first to acknowledge and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Peter's brother, Andrew, along with Nathaniel were the first. Yet Christ does not change their names.

2. A mere seven verses after Peter's confession, Jesus reprimands him for denying the very mission of the Christ. In other words, his confession was short lived and not an "immovable boulder".

Hence, it must be the PERSON whom Christ calls the rock. Here are Protestant commentators acknowledging this...

The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." - William Hendriksen, member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647


"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis." - Gerhard Maier, Evangelical Lutheran theologian, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate” (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58


"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." - Donald A. Carson III, Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368



"The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter." - Donald A. Carson III, Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78


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

Here is your argument specifically addressed...

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction
[between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” - John A. Broadus, Baptist scholar, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356



"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. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus." - J. Knox Chamblin, Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary, “Matthew”, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742


"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." - Craig L. Blomberg, Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252


"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." - David Hill, Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England, “The Gospel of Matthew” The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261


"The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community." - Suzanne de Dietrich, Presbyterian theologian, The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93

"The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." - Donald A. Hagner, Fuller Theological Seminary, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 47
 
Continued...

Protestant scholars now concede the point (see my previous post). The original founders of the Protestant religions had to remove Peter from the Church in order to supplant his authority with that of their own authority. In order to try and accomplish this, they had to replace the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 with something other than Peter, the man, i.e. "the rock is really Peter's faith."
 
Continued...

Protestant scholars now concede the point (see my previous post). The original founders of the Protestant religions had to remove Peter from the Church in order to supplant his authority with that of their own authority. In order to try and accomplish this, they had to replace the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 with something other than Peter, the man, i.e. "the rock is really Peter's faith."
So the original Greek is wrong and we need to wait on an Aramaic original to confirm that the Church is built on Peter, the man, rather than Christ, God incarnate. OK, Sure, Whatever.

I’ll take my chances trusting in Christ and what the Greek manuscripts actually say, and I’ll and leave you to trust in the modern Peter and the lost Aramaic originals.
 
So the original Greek is wrong and we need to wait on an Aramaic original to confirm that the Church is built on Peter, the man, rather than Christ, God incarnate. OK, Sure, Whatever.

I’ll take my chances trusting in Christ and what the Greek manuscripts actually say, and I’ll and leave you to trust in the modern Peter and the lost Aramaic originals.

Who said the original Greek is wrong?

Your assertion that the Greek word for Peter refers to his faith is wrong, as the Protestant scholars I quoted above state.

There is a reason Peter is the protos.
 
I was responding to this comment (your emphasis):

‘The only peaceful Muslims are the ones that DO NOT practice their faith.’ (Post 175).

In order to avoid confusion, please explain exactly what you mean by this.

The following statement (again, your words) is not in Post 175:

‘I said those that do not practice their religion are easier to get along with, are willing to integrate, and are those that are mostly against terrorism.’

Peace!
Hi N,
Been away - didn't mean to ignore you.
I wrote the wrong page number...it was 224; sorry.

I just feel that if someone lives in a muslim country and does NOT practice their religion, I'd probably get along better with them, for the reasons I had stated...one is that they are more willing to integrate into a society and the practicing muslims are not.

Islam has already tried to take command of the world they knew in the middle east and europe. If they were not pushed back by the Catholic church we'd all be speaking Arab right now.

Christianity also would like to introduced into every country, but it does so in a non-violent way by spreading the gospel.

But maybe they've gotten smarter?
Just recently a Muslim leader (can't remember the name) said that they were going to flood Europe with immigrants from the Islam religion and change the face of Europe. This will definitely work better than bombs and driving into crowds.

We won't change each other's minds...I don't care to debate a topic to death.

We could both pray for peace in the world. That would be nice.
 
The Creed is Catholic (uppercase) and Orthodox, since they did not split until the 11th century. However, the Orthodox do not reject the Church, but rather they are in schism. There is a big difference as Protestants positively reject the Church. (It is what the "protest" comes from in the name they gave themselves - Protestant.)

And while the majority of bishops at the Council were in fact from the East, the Council was convened by the bishop of Rome (the pope). While the pope was too old to personally attend the Council, he sent the Bishop of Cordova, Hosius (Osius), along with two priests from Rome, Vitus (Vito) and Vincentius, as his personal representatives at Nicea. These three representatives of the bishop of Rome were the first men the first to sign the official Acts of the Council; two of whom were but simple priests, signing ahead of the great Patriarchs of the East.

ETA: The reason why the Orthodox are unable to convene Councils since the schism is because they do not have the bishop of Rome.





My objection is based on the illogicalness of Protestants professing belief in the Church they positively reject. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. For example, the Church at Nicea:

- Declared Christ as the same substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) of the Father - contra sola Scriptura (Ecthesis of the Council) - contrary to sola Scriptura
- Supported the discipline of celibacy and clerical continence (Canon 3)
- Instructed on preserving valid Apostolic succession by requiring three bishops present for the consecration of subsequent bishops (Canon 4)
- Declaring Rome as the authority to grant jurisdiction to other Churches (Canon 6)
- Ruled on ordaining men to the priesthood (Canons 9 & 10)
- Instructed on giving viaticum to the dying (Canon 13)
- Instructed regarding catechumens (Canon 14)
- Affirmed the ordained episcopate, priesthood and deaconate (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the Eucharist as the literal “Body of Christ" (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the priests and bishops as they who "offer" the Eucharistic sacrifice. (Canon 18)

These are but a few examples, all of which are rejected by Protestants.

I am just trying to understand the logic in using a Creed composed by a Church with which one protests. For the very Creed composed by the bishops of the Church describes itself and professes a belief in it:

"...I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

The very Church described by the words of the Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject. Hence, my confusion. For it appears that Protestants either do not know what it is they are professing, or they do not actually believe what it is they claim to profess.
Hi Walpole...

Since you've widened your question regarding the Nicene Creed and have moved it to questioning the entire Council,,,I'd have to agree with you.

I haven't followed along....but I think the Protestants have accepted ONLY the Creed and not the teachings of the council in general. (of course).

Right now I'm more worried about the Catholic Church and this question is almost moot since Francis himself doesn't seem to believe Jesus was divine while on earth. I fear for what's ahead.
 
So the original Greek is wrong and we need to wait on an Aramaic original to confirm that the Church is built on Peter, the man, rather than Christ, God incarnate. OK, Sure, Whatever.

I’ll take my chances trusting in Christ and what the Greek manuscripts actually say, and I’ll and leave you to trust in the modern Peter and the lost Aramaic originals.
You don't know what the Greek manuscripts actually say.
Even if Jesus did not mean Peter to be the rock...
He MOST CERTAINLY handed Peter the keys to the Kingdom....
I'm sure you know what that means.

No need to reply to this.
Thanks.
 
The creed is a part of the early church's expression of the faith, and against Arianism.

The Nicene Creed is no more "Roman Catholic" than it is Greek Orthodox, in fact, most of the bishops at the two sessions were Eastern.

It is therefore an error to say that "Catholic bishops" gave us the CREED, no, more so Orthodox Bishops, in a period of an "undivided Church".

Whatever I say of why Calvinists recite or believe the Nicene Creed will be said to be "misrepresenting Calvinism", like everything else I might say of Calvinism, but I will venture to say they see it as a valid product of the ancient undivided Church, and not as something "Roman Catholic" - it is not, except for the spurious addition to it (filioque) which was added much later.

Calvinists claim to be, and are, part of Christianity.

Therefore the CREED is part of their heritage.

How Islam got in this thread, I do not know.

My main point is that the CREED is NOT "Roman Catholic" or uppercase Catholic in any way, it is just as much if not more so uppercase Orthodox, and today's Protestants see it as a valid declaration of the undivided ancient church's beliefs, except for those Protestants who are non-Trinitarian, like Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians, and others who dubiously fall into the designation "Protestant", like JWs.

I don't understand, Walpole, your objection to PROTESTANTS "professing to the beliefs of a church they REJECT."

The creed is the beliefs of an undivided ancient church, more Greek Orthodox than Roman Catholic, but including all ancient Christianity united against Arianism.
Since the early church was Catholic, the Creed is also Catholic.
There was NO OTHER CHURCH around back in 325 AD.

Please study your history.
 
Good to see you back, but study yours.

Orthodox and Catholic were not split in 325 AD

And majority of bishops at Nicea were Eastern Orthodox.
 
The Nicene Creed was first proposed in 325 at Nicea, finalized in 381 at Constantinople.

The "Catholic" and "Orthodox" churches were centuries away from being divided.

It is absolutely NOT TRUE that Catholic was only church in 325

Preposterous.
 
What defines a Christian is their baptism (1 Cor 12:13).

What defines what is or is not the Christian faith is the Church.

The Creed we are discussing was composed by Catholic bishops to defend the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. My question is for those to claim to profess the Nicene Creed, why would someone claim to profess a belief in a Church which they actually reject?
What defines what is or is not Christian is the New Testament, NOT the church
 
You are making my point. If you don't belong to the RCC because you do not believe it is the one, true church, then why are you professing belief in it?

The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. The Church the creed professes belief in is the Catholic Church!

Help me understand the logic.
When you recite the Nicene creed you are not professing to believe in the RCC you are professing to believe the words you are saying.
 
Good to see you back, but study yours.

Orthodox and Catholic were not split in 325 AD

And majority of bishops at Nicea were Eastern Orthodox.
What do you mean by Eastern Orthodox?
In the year 325 AD, the time of the Nicene Creed, the only church that existed was the Catholic church. If you don't believe so, could you post something please?

Orthodox could simply mean what is accepted by the majority of a religion. Or it could mean the patriarchs of the Eastern church, which was still catholic but the West and East did see some division in practices, although the church was united.

The Eastern Orthodox church, as we know it today, did not come about until about the year 1,000 at the time of the great schism.

I'll post the following and the link.
I think this is an interesting topic.

The Great Schism
The Great Schism is the title given to separation between the Western Church (the Roman Catholic) and the Eastern Church, (the Orthodox), which took place in the eleventh century. Relations between the two great traditions of the East and the West had often been strained since the fourth century. Yet, unity and harmony was maintained in spite of differences in theological expression, liturgical practices, and views of authority. By the ninth century, however, legitimate differences were intensified by political circumstances, cultural clashes, papal claims, and the introduction in the West of the Filioque phrase into the Nicene Creed. The Filioque affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son........

 
What defines what is or is not Christian is the New Testament, NOT the church
Doesn't your church teach you what a Christian is?
Do you suppose everyone in a church setting knows the bible so well as to understand what a Christian is biblically speaking? Does everyone read the bible these days?

Do we go to a church to learn about God and the bible, or do we just read on our own and come up with our own ideas?

Didn't a church write the Nicene Creed ?
 
The Nicene Creed was first proposed in 325 at Nicea, finalized in 381 at Constantinople.

The "Catholic" and "Orthodox" churches were centuries away from being divided.

It is absolutely NOT TRUE that Catholic was only church in 325

Preposterous.
First Creed ----- 325 AD NICEA
Second Creed--381 AD CONSTANTINOPLE

At the Council of 431 AD it was determined that the Creed of 325 was the correct and acceptable creed.

A local council of Constantinople in 382 and the third ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431) made no mention of it,[26] with the latter affirming the 325 creed of Nicaea as a valid statement of the faith and using it to denounce Nestorianism.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
 
It is not true that Catholic church was only church in 325.

It is not true that Eastern Orthodox "did not exist" until 1000

Until the great schism - 1054 - there was an undivided church, the lower-case catholic church, as well as bishops from Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople were a college of bishops - designating bishop of Rome as "first among equals"

Not meaning Boss of the other Orthodox bishops
 
It is not true that Catholic church was only church in 325.

It is not true that Eastern Orthodox "did not exist" until 1000

Until the great schism - 1054 - there was an undivided church, the lower-case catholic church, as well as bishops from Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople were a college of bishops - designating bishop of Rome as "first among equals"

Not meaning Boss of the other Orthodox bishops
Are you talking to me?

I posted links for you to check out.
You can't just tell me something is not true.

What other church was around in 325AD?
If there was only ONE CHURCH UNTIL the year 1,000....
how were there TWO churches?

You yourself have stated above that there was one church until 1054 because it was undivided.

The Bishops from Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Rome were just Bishops of important areas. Of course the one from Rome was an equal.

This did not change until about the 600's when it was decided to make the Bishop of Rome the "head Bishop" since everyone looked to Rome anyway by then when something had to be settled by an authority.
 
Yes, wondering, I am talking to you.

An "undivided church" is neither a Catholic church nor an Orthodox church.

Your own link that you posted, which I did read, talks about Orthodox churches.

If I think something posted by anyone is not true, I can say so.
 
Back
Top