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!

Christ is the Rock...not Peter - Here we go again!

I have a lot of admiration for Peter, Jesus chose him and the other apostles. But I don't think even Peter would believe that he was better than the rest of us.
He certainly had more understanding, since he was there with Jesus and believed him from the beginning. Peter was a leader, as were the other 10 apostles. They were chosen by Jesus to spread his word after He died, and was resurrected and then returned to His Father.
Are you a Catholic? I know that Catholics believe that there are some that are better than others, and become saints.(or something like that)
Peter was the first Christian, and the other apostles were also among the first Christians. All the first Christians were Jews, and stayed Jews and they were Christians because they followed Christ. Paul was a Jew, who spread The Word to the Gentiles.
Jesus, God, is the only one that we should follow. When Peter, Paul and all the others wrote their books in the bible when the they were inspired by God. Which means God wrote them. Even Paul in his epistles said that we should only follow Jesus, God's teachings.
I don't think we are as far away in our faith as you or I would think. I hope that these differences in opinion don't separate us from what is The Truth.
God Is Love.
 
ChristineES said:
You don't have to agree with what I said, I just thought I would write about what I came up with while thinking about the Trinity. I know there are actually some Christians out there who don't believe in The Trinity, I have seen all the threads on all the boards I belong to on it. I believe in the Trinity, however,and I thought that most Christians did believe in it, until I came to these boards and I found out I was wrong. The Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity, I don't think the SDA do either (if I am wrong about that, I apologize).
But I am confused, you know what I believe, but I don't know what you believe. Jesus was God, we agree on that, when He was born, do you believe that it was all of God that was born? There are few demoninations that believe that Jesus was Michael the Archangel, these denominations are the ones that I avoid. Maybe you can let me know what you believe, either on this board or you can PM me. I am very interested

Ok in a nutshell.

I believe that Jesus is the one and only true Son of God, conceived of God’s Spirit, born of a virgin, inheriting the righteousness of God with all the attributes of perfection, attributed to the Father, and without sin or blemish. To Jesus alone has the title been credited: ‘The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’

I make a clear distinction & state unequivocally that our Heavenly Father alone, is God. And the Holy Spirit is His Spirit which he has set as his seal of ownership on us. He has put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come – our eternal inheritance. I do not accept that the Holy Spirit is a person as defined by many in Christendom.
 
mutzrein said:
ChristineES said:
You don't have to agree with what I said, I just thought I would write about what I came up with while thinking about the Trinity. I know there are actually some Christians out there who don't believe in The Trinity, I have seen all the threads on all the boards I belong to on it. I believe in the Trinity, however,and I thought that most Christians did believe in it, until I came to these boards and I found out I was wrong. The Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity, I don't think the SDA do either (if I am wrong about that, I apologize).
But I am confused, you know what I believe, but I don't know what you believe. Jesus was God, we agree on that, when He was born, do you believe that it was all of God that was born? There are few demoninations that believe that Jesus was Michael the Archangel, these denominations are the ones that I avoid. Maybe you can let me know what you believe, either on this board or you can PM me. I am very interested



Ok in a nutshell.

I believe that Jesus is the one and only true Son of God, conceived of God’s Spirit, born of a virgin, inheriting the righteousness of God with all the attributes of perfection, attributed to the Father, and without sin or blemish. To Jesus alone has the title been credited: ‘The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’

I make a clear distinction & state unequivocally that our Heavenly Father alone, is God. And the Holy Spirit is His Spirit which he has set as his seal of ownership on us. He has put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come – our eternal inheritance. I do not accept that the Holy Spirit is a person as defined by many in Christendom.

Thank You.
:)
 
ChristineES,
I am a member of the New Church. The doctrine of my church is base on the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

1. There was no Son of God before creation, but only after creation when Jehovah God the creator became Man. The Son of Son is the Father's Human Form. The Catholic Church believe the Son was sent from eternity by Himself, but that is like divided the Soul from its Body. The New Church believes that if the Son descended from eternity, than why not the Father and He descending together as Soul and Body, and form in the wombs of the virgin Mary. This was done at the sametime the angel spoke to Mary in the Gospel of Luke.

2. Evils must be shun as sins, because they are harmful to the soul. Good works of charity must done because they are from God. They must be done as if from ourselves, but it is the Lord who is doing the good works in us and through us. If the person does not look to the Lord and shun evils as sins, and does good works, than the works are not good, because they are from self.

I hope you understand
Harry :fadein:
 
Thessalonian said:
Much more I could say about Peter. He obviously was a leader of the early Church.
Yes, but then Paul came along Paul became the one to follow and get their doctrine from by God's own choosing.
 
AVBunyan said:
Thessalonian said:
Much more I could say about Peter. He obviously was a leader of the early Church.
Yes, but then Paul came along Paul became the one to follow and get their doctrine from by God's own choosing.

Ah dispensationalism at it's finest. Your not just content with dividing up in to 10,000 denominations, you even want to divide the Apostles from eachother. If Paul was the one to follow only, then why did God have Peter convert the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Why did he having interacting with Gentiles in Antioch. He showed some weakness yet for sure but then so did Paul "the good that I would do I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do.". Truthfully AV, it saddens me that you have been deceived by this system of dispensationalism. It so limits you to the depth and wonder of God's ways.
 
ChristineES said:
I have a lot of admiration for Peter, Jesus chose him and the other apostles. But I don't think even Peter would believe that he was better than the rest of us.

Better than the rest of us? Who said I think Peter was "better than the rest of us". I quite agree with you. But that has nothing to do with whether God chose him as a servant over his Church or not. By the way, one of the primary titles of the Popes, held since I believe it was the seventh century is Servant of the Servant's of God. It is not about being "better" but about each man and woman being chosen by God for a purpose. Some are given more and some less. But each has his place and in the end the result is eternal life if we serve faithfully. Read Luke 12 starting about v. 35 if you don't think that some recieve more and some less for the glory of the kingdom of God and that there is a reckoning if they are not faithful to it.


He certainly had more understanding, since he was there with Jesus and believed him from the beginning. Peter was a leader, as were the other 10 apostles. They were chosen by Jesus to spread his word after He died, and was resurrected and then returned to His Father.


Amen. Were the 10 chosen for the same leadership? Matt 16:18 Peter is given the keys, singularly. Matt 16:18 all, including Peter were given binding and loosing authority. No mention of keys. Was Moses the leader of the 12 tribes? Yep. Were there other leaders? Yep. Yet there most certainly was a hierarchy of leadership.

Are you a Catholic? I know that Catholics believe that there are some that are better than others, and become saints.(or something like that)

Yes I am. You don't understand this belief. It is not about being "better". It is about recognizing that some have been given the grace by God in life to attain a heroic virtue. God gives us examples of faith that we are to look to so that we too might become saints. It is not about them being "better".
This is simply your misperception from the outside looking in. Many of these saints were actually great sinners at points in their lives. But they repented and let the grace of God produce 30, 60, or 100 fold in their lives. This is simply a recognition of what God has done for them and can do for us.
Peter was the first Christian, and the other apostles were also among the first Christians. All the first Christians were Jews, and stayed Jews and they were Christians because they followed Christ. Paul was a Jew, who spread The Word to the Gentiles.
Jesus, God, is the only one that we should follow. When Peter, Paul and all the others wrote their books in the bible when the they were inspired by God. Which means God wrote them. Even Paul in his epistles said that we should only follow Jesus, God's teachings.

I agree that we are 100% to follow the teachings of Christ.
Paul said "imitate me as I imitate Christ. He also said consider those who have gone before you in faith and imitate what they have done. We are to follow God for sure. This is one in the same as following Christ. You present more dichotomies that don't hold up to scrutiny of the Bible. Moses lead the Jews through the desert. In following Moses, God's chosen servant, they were following God. When they choose not to follow Moses and wanted to return to Egypt or follow Korah, and Dathan or Miram and Aaron, the consequences were not pretty. We must follow God's chosen servants who are following him. That is one and the same as following Christ. Jer 3:15 "I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will give you knowledge and understanding.".

I don't think we are as far away in our faith as you or I would think. I hope that these differences in opinion don't separate us from what is The Truth.
God Is Love.

In all honesty I don't think we are either. I see much good in what you understand.

Blessings
 
Thessalonian said:
By the way, one of the primary titles of the Popes, held since I believe it was the seventh century is Servant of the Servant's of God. It is not about being "better" but about each man and woman being chosen by God for a purpose.
Well, that may be what you and the Roman Catholic church think. Many of the popes and their lives show that they are no better than Muhammad. They murdered, committed adultery, had concubines, had young boys as lovers, showed nepotism, were drunkards, ran brothels, robbed the poor, gambled, had illegitimate children, supported the inquisition, committed incest, instigated the crusades, had their "opponents" tortured, several were bi-sexual or homosexual, several murdered and/or harassed true Christians etc etc .... you call that "fatherly guidance"; most other people call it debauchery.

Besides what you THINK God would want, why not see what the Bible SAYS about potential leaders.... and then compare that to some of the Roman Catholic popes.

Paul said:
Titus 1:6-9 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blamelessâ€â€not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Paul said:
1 Timothy 3:1-7 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

:bday: :evil: :bday: :evil:
 
Well, that may be what you and the Roman Catholic church think.

Not what I think. It's the title dude.


Many of the popes and their lives show that they are no better than Muhammad. They murdered, committed adultery, had concubines, had young boys as lovers, showed nepotism, were drunkards, ran brothels, robbed the poor, gambled, had illegitimate children, supported the inquisition, committed incest, instigated the crusades, had their "opponents" tortured, several were bi-sexual or homosexual, several murdered and/or harassed true Christians etc etc .... you call that "fatherly guidance"; most other people call it debauchery.

Here we have Gary mixing truth with error. I don't know of any who fathered illegitimate children while Pope. There were a couple who did before hand. Murder? Young boys as lovers? Gary, really, you really dig in the mud don't you. Can you prove such an accusation. Nepotism? Well that is up to God to judge. David had his son Solomon follow in his footsteps. Is that nepotism Gary? Adultery? Were they married Gary? Once again handwaving and allegations without proof. Ran brothels, Gary, your a liar. Incest? Once again Gary your a liar. Your posts are clouded by hatred, prejudice and misunderstanding. There were Popes who did serious evil. That is truth but the numbers of the total are in fact few and those who were doing this serious evil were too busy being evil to worry about changing and adding doctrines. The fact of the matter is that some evil leaders do not in fact prove anything as to whether God has chosen them as leaders and they have that authority. The Holy Spirit spoke through Caiphas who had Jesus crcified, saying "it is better that one man should die for the many". John 12 I think, perhaps 11. Matt 23 Jesus says "the scribes and the pharasees sit on moses seat, therefore do as they say but don't imitate their evil deeds". Gary, here is Jesus acknowledging the authority of the Scribes and Pharasees for gosh sake. Don't you read your bible. Read luke 12 which talks about the servant who his master came and found doing good. Yet when the master delayed and the servant became drunk and started abusing the other servants, he was treated with the unbelievers. It was the very same servant who was doing rightly. He did wicked deads and God judged him for it. Leaders do wrong and God is there judge and will judge them rightly. They have been given much and as the passage states much is expected of them, and if they do wrong they will be punished. I trust in that. You don't. Nevertheless they may well be his chosen.

As for the inquisition, the history of this is far to complex to go in to with this thread. But suffice it to say that certainly some bishops did wrong. You of course fault the Popes for allowing the Bishops to hold inquisitions. I reserve that judgement to God. Governments in general did the actual executions, the few that there were. Of course protestants will exagerate the number and say there was even up to 100 million I've heard. A historicaly ridculous number. But there were certainly many injustices. Yet some of the things done by the inquisitions were quite neccessary. Spain was trying to avoid being overrun by Muslems, of whom many had infiltrated the Church trying to subvert the leadership in the Spain. The Spainish people lived in fear of this murderous group for over 700 years. I can't fault them for the desire to root out the Conversos and protect their freedom and their country. I can't fault a Pope for allowing them to defend their country.

Besides what you THINK God would want, why not see what the Bible SAYS about potential leaders.... and then compare that to some of the Roman Catholic popes.

Some is the correct word Gary. Paul who had the authority and even said (the good that I would do I do not, while the evil that I would not do I do) tell us that there are really none of them that are perfect by a long shot. And your protestant leaders are far from perfect as well. You mention inquisition and murder. John Calvin and Martin Luther both had a few problems in these same areas. Calving did all but light the match regarding a man named Servetus. Priests were imprisoned and priests and nuns murder from England to Sweeden to France. Hey how about those protestants in the south and the KKK. There was even a pastor or two wearing those white robes of "purity".


Paul said:
Titus 1:6-9 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blamelessâ€â€not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Most certainly this is the standard. The fact of the matter is that most, in fact the vast majority quietly live their lives as faithful servants of Christ. It is unfortunate that the few who do not make such a mark and cause such division. Blinding people like you to truth and feeding your prejudice. As for having children and all do you think the scriptures are saying they must have children and wives. Paul did not have a wife. He recommends that people stay single. 1 Cor 7.


Paul said:
1 Timothy 3:1-7 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

You speak as if all priests live disgraceful lives. Some certainly do. You speak out of prejudice however broadbrushing them all in to the category of the wicked. We are told there will be wolves among you, tares among the wheat, so we know some will not live up to this standard. Once again I look at Swagart and Baker and Godfree or whatever his name is and the many others and I simply wonder what point you are trying to prove. 13% of Baptist pastors say they have cheated on their wives. So does that mean they are all eveil Gary?
 
Thessalonian said:
Ah dispensationalism at it's finest. Your not just content with dividing up in to 10,000 denominations, you even want to divide the Apostles from eachother.
Thess - I think I've had enough of you.
 
why have u had enough of him?

he is speaking the truth and nothing but the truth, of course we will be ridiculed and not be very popular for what we believe,

we r our brother's keeper and he is keeping you from lies, he is repectfully and peacfully correcting you on the topic u started,

now some ppl cant accept or understand the truth and it maybe because of pride,

anyways God Bless u brother
 
fatboyluis said:
now some ppl cant accept or understand the truth and it maybe because of pride, anyways God Bless u brother
Look fat - If you think Thess is "speaking nothing but the truth" then you are as blind as a bat coming in backwards when it comes to spirituial truth. :o
 
fatboyluis said:
why have u had enough of him?

he is speaking the truth and nothing but the truth, of course we will be ridiculed and not be very popular for what we believe,

we r our brother's keeper and he is keeping you from lies, he is repectfully and peacfully correcting you on the topic u started,

now some ppl cant accept or understand the truth and it maybe because of pride,

anyways God Bless u brother

Hi, do you know that the Bible tells us to watch out for false prophet? Do you know that the Bible tells us that we know by our fruit whether we are of God or not? Have you looked to see if your opposers are telling the truth? or are you blindly trusting your churches?
 
.

This is a 4 Part Article.
I have posted each PART in seperate messages.



Here is PART 1



Matthew 16:18: Peter is not "this rock"
By Dan Curry

The Roman Catholic Church holds to a unique doctrine: Papal primacy. This doctrine states that...

Christ the "living stone," thus assures his Church, built upon Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
- Catholic Catechism, section 552

Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
- Catholic Catechism, section 553

The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head. Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem. The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ's mission and his power, but also in his lot. By all his action, Christ prepares and builds his Church.
- Catholic Catechism, section 765

The sole Church of Christ [is that] which one Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it....This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.
- Catholic Catechism, section 816

Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.
- Catholic Catechism, section 862


However, that is not what the Bible teaches.

John 2:18-21
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.


I include the above Scripture passage to illustrate an interesting point: Jesus said "Destroy THIS temple". The Jews thought He was refering to the Jewish temple, but instead, Jesus was using a play on words. Now, compare these two verses:

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

Matthew 16:18
And 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.


Compare the phrases "this temple" and "this rock". We know that the first phrase was a play on words...Jesus used the opportunity to compare Himself to the Jewish temple, but the Scripture clearly teaches that "the temple he had spoken of was his body." (Matthew 16:21). Now the question is this: If the Bible did not include verse 21, would you understand "this temple" to mean Jesus' body, and not the Jewish temple? Of course you would! And this example of play on words uses the same general structure as Matthew 16:18. Allow me to break it down:

Object of comparison: Peter. Phrase used: "this rock".
Object of comparison: Temple. Phrase used: "this temple".


Now, we know in the John passage that Jesus did not mean the Jewish temple when He said "this temple", so why should we insist that He means Peter when He says "this rock"? The answer is that we should not understand the Matthew passage to be any less a play on words than the John passage. Allow us to delve deeper, shall we?

Matthew 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And 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.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."


source: http://www.geocities.com/apologeticsrepo/R.../4Catholic.html


PART 2: continued in next post.


.
 
.

Matthew 16:18: Peter is not "this rock"
By Dan Curry

PART 2

The Catholic church insists that the "rock" that Jesus refers to is Simon Peter, who they say was the first pope. They claim that when Christ gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom", He was giving him authority and leadership over the Church. My position is that the Catholic interpretation of this verse is a wrong interpretation.

Though not considered by many to be a valid arguement, due to the fact that Christ spoke in Aramaic, the examination of the Greek reveals this:
The "rock" which Christ refers to is what Peter said, namely, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This truth is the basis of all Christianity. Furthermore, Christ calls Peter by name because the name Peter, in Greek (petros), means "a small rock cleaved from a larger rock". The word for "rock" in Greek is "petra". Peter is a smaller rock that comes from the larger rock, which is Christ. Critics argue that the Greek has two words for rock (Petra and Petros), but that the Aramaic has only one word for rock, and hence, this interpretation is not valid. So, the Greek reveals this word play but the word play is not based on the Greek. But having only one word only strengthens the effect of the word play. But regardless of the language used, there are other reasons for believing that this interpretation (that Christ is the Rock, and that Peter, and likewise all Christians holding the faith of Peter, are "smaller" rocks cleaved from the lager Rock, which is Christ).

First, notice the fact that Christ say, "YOU are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build my church." This denotes a "shift" of some sort. As I have shown by citing John, Christ has indeed used a play on words using the word "this", so to automatically rule out the notion that Christ is using a play on words in the Matthew passage would be to ingore the fact that it is used elsewhere by Christ Himself!


source: http://www.geocities.com/apologeticsrepo/R.../4Catholic.html



PART 3: continued in next post.

.
 
.

Matthew 16:18: Peter is not "this rock"
By Dan Curry


PART 3



Second, many Early Church Fathers (ECF's) understood Matthew 16:18 to mean that Peter was NOT "this rock", as I will now document. I do not feel the need to thoroughly comment on these quotes, as I feel that they speak quite clearly for themselves.

Augustine - Sermons On the Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon XXVI, par. 1-2
When the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, "But whom say ye that I am?" Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven."(2) Then He added, "and I say unto thee." As if He had said, "Because thou hast said unto Me, 'Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.' " For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called(3) from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,"(4) who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ." And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, "Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"(5) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.


Here, Augustine clearly denies that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. We are not to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, which is Christ.

Augustine - Tractate CXXIV - Chapter XXI. 19-25.
(Peter) represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, "On this rock will I build my Church," because Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."(2) On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ;(3) and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.(4) The Church, therefore, which is rounded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church.


Here, Augustine elaborates as to what Peter's role in Matthew 16:18 is: He is the representation of all believers, or an example of what one becomes if he is built upon the Rock, which is Christ.

Augustine - OUR LORD'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT. BOOK II. ON THE LATTER PART OF OUR LORD'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT, CONTAINED IN THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH CHAPTERS OF MATTHEW.
87. Hence we must take special notice how terribly the conclusion of the whole sermon is introduced: "Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, is like(1) unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock." For no one confirms what he hears or understands, unless by doing. And if Christ is the rock, as many Scripture testimonies proclaim(2) that man builds in Christ who does what he hears from Him. "The rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat(3) upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."


Here, Augustine makes another clear statement that it is Christ who is the rock.

Augustine - SERMONS ON SELECTED LESSONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. SERMON LXXIX. ON THE WORDS OF THE GOSPEL, JOHN V. 39, " YE SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES, BECAUSE YE THINK THAT IN THEM YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE," ETC. AGAINST THE DONATISTS.
8. Understand then, my Brethren, our language and theirs, and look which ye would choose. This is what we say; "Be we holy, God knoweth it; be we unrighteous, this again He knoweth better; place not your hope in us, whatsoever we be. If we be good, do as is written, ' Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.'[3] But if we be bad, not even thus are ye abandoned, not even thus have ye remained without counsel: give ear to Him, saying, ' Do what they say; but do not what they do.'"[4] Whereas they on the contrary say, "If we were not good, ye were lost." Lo, here is "another that shall come in his own name." Shall my life then depend on thee, and my salvation be tied up in thee? Have I so forgotten my foundation? Was not Christ the Rock ? s Is it not that he that buildeth upon the rock, neither the wind nor the floods overthrow him?[6] Come then, if thou wilt, with me upon the Rock, and do not wish to be to me for the rock.


Here, Augustine makes another clear statement that it is Christ who is the rock.

Augustine - THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS, BOOK II: CHAP. I TO CHAP. XXXI
...the Lord said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church."(6) But we are not to understand that that was the time when he first received this name; but we are rather to suppose that this took place on the occasion when it was said to him, as John mentions, "Thou shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A stone."(7) Thus the Lord could address him at that later period by this very name, when He said, "Thou art Peter." For He does not say then, "Thou shalt be called Peter," but, "Thou art Peter;" because on a previous occasion he had already been spoken to in this manner, "Thou shalt be called."


Here, Augustine elaborates on the specific naming of Peter as "Cephas". "Cephas", he argues, should be interpreted as "a stone". And if, as Augustine has previously stated, Peter represents those who are the Body of Christ, then all who are the Body of Christ are therefore "stones".

Augustine - ST. AUGUSTIN: TEN HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. HOMILIES IX TO X.
What the devils said, the same said Peter also. When the Lord asked them who He was, and whom did men say that He was, the disciples made answer to Him, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."(7) And this he heard from the Lord: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." See what praises follow this faith. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." What meaneth, "Upon this rock I will build my Church"? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock," saith He, "I will build my Church." Mighty praise! So then, Peter saith, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God:" the devils also say, "We know who thou art, the Son of God, the Holy One of God." This Peter said, this also the devils: the words the same, the mind not the same. And how is it clear that Peter said this with love? Because a Christian's faith is with love, but a devil's without love. How without love? Peter said this, that he might embrace Christ; the devils said it, that Christ might depart from them.


Here, Augustine gives a verbatim explanation for the question when he says: "What meaneth, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church.'? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God'." In is not Peter on which the Church is built, but rather it is upon that which Peter believed that the Church was built, namely, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Tertullian - THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS (ELUCIDATION)
III. (Peter, cap. xxii. note 6, p. 253.)

In the treatise of Cyprian, De Unitate, we shall have occasion to speak fully on this interesting point. The reference to Kaye may suffice, here. But, since the inveterate confusion of all that is said of Peter with all that is claimed by a modern bishop for himself promotes a false view of this passage, it may be well to note (1) that St. Peter's name is expounded by himself (I. Peter, ii. 4, 5,) so as to make Christ the Rock and all believers "lively stones"--or Peters--by faith in Him. St. Peter is often called the rock, most justly, in this sense, by a rhetorical play on his name: Christ the Rock and all believers "lively stones," being cemented with Him by the Spirit. But, (2.) this specialty of St. Peter, as such, belongs to him (Cephas) only. (3.) So far as transmitted it belongs to no particular See. (4.) The claim of Rome is disproved by Proescription. (5.) Were it otherwise, it would not justify that See in making new articles of Faith. (6.) Nor in its Schism with the East. (7.) When it restores St. Peter's Doctrine and Holiness, to the Latin Churches, there will be no quarrel about pre-eminence. Meantime, Rome's fallibility is expressly taught in Romans xi. 18-21.


Tertullian corroborates Augustine. He explictly states that "all believers are 'lively stones'--or Peters--by faith in Him (Christ, the Son of the Living God)." He even explicitly states that what is occuring in this passage is a play on words! Interestingly enough, he ends his paragraph by saying that Rome is fallible. There is no way to conclude that Tertullian believed that the person of Peter is the rock upon which the Church would be built.

Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus - (Letter CXLVI). Letter To John the OEconomus
Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."(1) Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for "On this rock," He says, "I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."(2) Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. "I," he says, "as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."(3) How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation...


Theodoret confirms all this by claiming that it is Peter's confession of the person and nature of Christ that is "this rock", in Matthew 16:18. He acknowledges that it is the person of Christ, or the confession of Peter, not the person of Peter, that is the "rock".

Origen - COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW: BOOK XII
10. THE ANSWER OF PETER.
And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,"(1) if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven,(2) revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation" of God.(3) And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc.(4) For a rock(5) is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them,(6) and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.


Origen further corroborates the views of the previous people. He says explicitly that all those who believe what Peter believed (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God), we become as Peter. We become a Peter. We become stones, or as Origen says it, "For a rock is every disciple of Christ". We are equal with Peter in this sense, and in no way is the person of Peter the rock on which the Church is built.

Origen - COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW: BOOK XII
11.THE PROMISE GIVEN TO PETER NOT RESTRICTED TO HIM, BUT APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCIPLES LIKE HIM.
But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,"(7) hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"?(8) Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"(9) be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,"(1) etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"(2) etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord"(3) they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."(4) And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,(5) that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom.(6) And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs,(7) cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock,(1) is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.


Origen is crystal clear: All members of the Church are rocks, or as has been the term used before, stones. He clearly states that all authority which was given to Peter is also given to all those who are like Peter, namely those who derive their surname from Christ. There is no need to comment further.

St. John Chrysostom - ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, HOMILY LIV. MATT. XIV. 13.
3. What then saith Christ? "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas."(9) "Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;" all but saying, "As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father." Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;" but since he had said, "Son of God," to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;"(10) that is, on the faith of his confession.


It is not the person of Peter that the Church is built upon, but rather the faith of his confession.

Pope Leo the Great - SERMON LXII.
...Rightly was the blessed Apostle Peter praised for confessing this union, who when the Lord was inquiring what the disciples knew of Him, quickly anticipated the rest and said, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God[2]." And this assuredly he saw, not by the revelation of flesh or blood, which might have hindered his inner sight, but by the very Spirit of the Father working in his believing heart, that in preparation for ruling the whole Church he might first learn what he would have to teach, and for the solidification of the Faith, which he was destined to preach, might receive the assurance, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it[3]." The strength, therefore, of the Christian Faith, which, built upon an impregnable rock, fears not the gates of death, acknowledges the one Lord Jesus Christ to be both true God and true Man, believing Him likewise to be the Virgin's Son


Again it is the faith of Peter which is the "rock", only being the rock because it is built upon Christ...the "impregnable rock".

The ECF's are wholly silent on the notion of papal primacy (or, the idea that it is the person of Peter on which the Church is built, and that Peter held a particular "office" which has successors). Neither did they teach that Peter was the only one to recieve the "keys", but taught, on the contrary, that all Christians are in possession of them. Neither do they teach that Peter is the head of the Church.


source: http://www.geocities.com/apologeticsrepo/R.../4Catholic.html



PART 4: continued in next post.

.
 
.

Matthew 16:18: Peter is not "this rock"
By Dan Curry


PART 4

And now to further clarify my position, I turn to various commentaries pertaining to Matthew 16:18, by Protestant theologians. We will see that these people considerably corroborate the viewpoints of the aforementioned Church fathers.

Jamieson Fausset and Brown Commentary on Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee--that is, "As thou hast borne such testimony to Me, even so in return do I to thee."
That thou art Peter--At his first calling, this new name was announced to him as an honor afterwards to be conferred on him (John 1:43 ). Now he gets it, with an explanation of what it was meant to convey.
and upon this rock--As "Peter" and "Rock" are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. In French, as WEBSTER and WILKINSON remark, it is perfect, Pierre--pierre.
I will build my Church--not on the man Simon-Barjona; but on him as the heavenly-taught confessor of a faith. "My Church," says our Lord, calling the Church His OWN; a magnificent expression regarding Himself, remarks BENGEL--nowhere else occurring in the Gospel.
and the gates of hell--"of Hades," or, the unseen world; meaning, the gates of Death: in other words, "It shall never perish." Some explain it of "the assaults of the powers of darkness"; but though that expresses a glorious truth, probably the former is the sense here.

Matthew Henry Commentary on Matthew 16:13-20
Peter, for himself and his brethren, said that they were assured of our Lord's being the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God. This showed that they believed Jesus to be more than man. Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated "rock," is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men's sins, are blasphemous and absurd. None can forgive sins but God only. And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful.

Robertson's Word Pictures on Matthew 16:18
And I also say unto thee (kagw de soi legw). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on Kagw: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (John 1:42). Peter (Petrov) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse Matthew 16:17 Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname "Peter" which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter's name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife.
On this rock (epi tauth th petrai) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in Matthew 7:24 on which the wise man built his house. Petrov is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (Khfa). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?
I will build my church (oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian). It is the figure of a building and he uses the word ekklhsian which occurs in the New Testament usually of a local organization, but sometimes in a more general sense. What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant "assembly" (Acts 19:39), but it came to be applied to an "unassembled assembly" as in Acts 8:3 for the Christians persecuted by Saul from house to house. "And the name for the new Israel, ekklhsia, in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Deuteronomy. (Deuteronomy 18:26; Deuteronomy 23:2) and Psalms (Psalm 22:36), both books well known to Jesus" (Bruce). It is interesting to observe that in Psalm 89 most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the LXX text. So oikodomhsw in Psalm 89:5; ekklhsia in Psalm 89:6; katisxuw in Psalm 89:22; Xristov in Psalm 89:39, Psalm 89:52; aidhv in Psalm 89:49 (ek xeirov aidou). If one is puzzled over the use of "building" with the word ekklhsia it will be helpful to turn to 1 Peter 2:5. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is here speaking, writing to the Christians in the five Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1), says: "You are built a spiritual house" (oikodomeisqe oikov pneumatikov). It is difficult to resist the impression that Peter recalls the words of Jesus to him on this memorable occasion. Further on (1 Peter 2:9) he speaks of them as an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, showing beyond controversy that Peter's use of building a spiritual house is general, not local. This is undoubtedly the picture in the mind of Christ here in Matthew 16:18. It is a great spiritual house, Christ's Israel, not the Jewish nation, which he describes. What is the rock on which Christ will build his vast temple? Not on Peter alone or mainly or primarily. Peter by his confession was furnished with the illustration for the rock on which His church will rest. It is the same kind of faith that Peter has just confessed. The perpetuity of this church general is guaranteed.
The gates of Hades (pulai aidou) shall not prevail against it (ou katisxusousin authv). Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. Paul uses qanate in 1 Corinthians 15:55 in quoting Hosea 13:14 for aidh. It is not common in the papyri, but it is common on tombstones in Asia Minor, "doubtless a survival of its use in the old Greek religion" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary). The ancient pagans divided Hades (a privative and idein, to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both Abraham's bosom and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. Luke 16:25). Christ was in Hades (Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31), not in Gehenna. We have here the figure of two buildings, the Church of Christ on the Rock, the House of Death (Hades). "In the Old Testament the 'gates of Hades' (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isaiah 38:10; Wisdom 16:3; 3 Maccabees 5:51) than death," McNeile claims. See also Psalm 9:13; Psalm 107:18; Job 38:17 (pulai qanatou pulwroi aidou). It is not the picture of Hades attacking Christ's church, but of death's possible victory over the church. "The ekklhsia is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. It was a mysterious truth, which He will soon tell them in plain words (verse Matthew 16:21); it is echoed in Acts 2:24, Acts 2:31" (McNeile). Christ's church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church. The verb katisxuw (literally have strength against, isxuw from isxuv and kat-) occurs also in Luke 21:36; Luke 23:23. It appears in the ancient Greek, the LXX, and in the papyri with the accusative and is used in the modern Greek with the sense of gaining the mastery over. The wealth of imagery in Matthew 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklhsia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. Sublime Porte used to be the title of Turkish power in Constantinople.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on Matthew 16:18
On this rock - Alluding to his name, which signifies a rock, namely, the faith which thou hast now professed; I will build my Church - But perhaps when our Lord uttered these words, he pointed to himself, in like manner as when he said, Destroy this temple, John 2:19; meaning the temple of his body. And it is certain, that as he is spoken of in Scripture, as the only foundation of the Church, so this is that which the apostles and evangelists laid in their preaching. It is in respect of laying this, that the names of the twelve apostles (not of St. Peter only) were equally inscribed on the twelve foundations of the city of God, Revelation 21:14. The gates of hell - As gates and walls were the strength of cities, and as courts of judicature were held in their gates, this phrase properly signifies the power and policy of Satan and his instruments. Shall not prevail against it - Not against the Church universal, so as to destroy it. And they never did. There hath been a small remnant in all ages.


But let us not delve too far into the understanding of fallible men. Does the Bible say anything more about "the rock"? Yes it does. Fortunately, we have the inspired writings of Peter himself from which to draw. Does Peter shed any light on the subject of the "rock"? Yes he does, and plenty of it:

1 Peter 2:4-8
4 As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone, "
8 and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."


It is clear that Peter himself regards Christ to be the "rock", and himself to be a stone among other stones. Stones are merely any Christian...just like the early Church fathers say!

1 Peter 5:1-4
1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:
2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;
3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.


To quote John DeVito, "Seems that Peter didn't make such a distinction, and in fact admonished church leaders not to claim the lordship over the church [verse 3], and to be an example with their personal lives."

The Apostle Paul comments further on this topic, leaving no room for the notion that Peter is the rock:

1 Corinthians 10:3-4
3 ...They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Ephesians 2:19-20
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

1 Corinthians 3:11
No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.


Christ is the head, the foundation, and the Rock. One must completely alter, ignore, or misinterpret the Bible and history in order to come to the conclusion that the modern Roman Catholic teaching of papal primacy is Christian.


source: http://www.geocities.com/apologeticsrep ... holic.html

End of 4 Part article.

.
 
Gary said:
Many of the popes and their lives show that they are no better than Muhammad. They murdered, committed adultery, had concubines, had young boys as lovers, showed nepotism, were drunkards, ran brothels, robbed the poor, gambled, had illegitimate children, supported the inquisition, committed incest, instigated the crusades, had their "opponents" tortured, several were bi-sexual or homosexual, several murdered and/or harassed true Christians etc etc .... you call that "fatherly guidance"; most other people call it debauchery.

Thessalonian said:
Nepotism? Well that is up to God to judge.

Well, your own Roman Catholic "church" has accused and judged several popes of nepotism. :smt056 This is what they (the RCC) say about Pope Sixtus IV

newadvent.org said:
"....He (Pope Sixtus IV) now turned his attention almost exclusively to Italian politics, and fell more and more under his dominating passion of nepotism, heaping riches and favours on his unworthy relations.

:smt056

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14032b.htm

Looks like it is you Thessalonian who is the liar....

:)
 
Oh oh,

now, what are you going to do if Gary is telling the truth thess? Are you going to keep denying them?
 
Back
Top