William Putnam wrote:
The problem is, Matthew 16:18 says nothing about Jesus being a "foundation" or that Peter was a "brick." . . .
. . .
You are making too much of the word "foundation." While Christ is the ultimate foundation of the whole church, one can still say that Paul, for example, is the foundatiion for the church in Corinth, Thessololiki, or other churches he planted in the area. It takes nothing away from the fact that Christ is the ultimate foundation, or the deeper foundation if you like, that the statement can be made......
To which stanger replied:
Hi William,
Paul is the 'founder' of the church in Corinth where he laid the foundation which is Jesus Christ. I think you would agree with that.
Sure…
The foundation comes from the analogy of the church as a building whose builder is God. (from Paul as per previous post)
'The living stones' term is from 1Pet2:4-8. This is significant because it is the Apostle Peter talking about the church as a 'spiritual house' - again I think you would agree.
Tentatively, this is OK, so far…
v4. . . And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . .
v6 speaks about the cornerstone and v7 the stone which the builders rejected . . .
So this passage is about the Lord and His people built up into a spiritual house - the church. So I am not introducing anything of my own account here.
The passage in Matt16:18 has to be reconciled with the rest of scripture which I have attempted to illustrate.
Please do not make the mistake of mixing metaphors, (as I call it) as in all cases, rocks, stones, pebbles, etc. are metaphors. So the metaphors we see 1 Peter are not necessarily the same metaphors we see in Matthew 16:18. So while both cases are speaking of church, what Christ is of it (the cornerstone) in 1 Peter, are not the same stones we see in Matthew 16:18, where again, stone or rock is a metaphor of what Peter is and what Peter is named (the only apostle to have his name changed, a significant act we see God doing in the Old Testament with Abram to Abraham and others.)
Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter, which is “rock†and then says “upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church. Yet Peter does not consider himself the cornerstone - he considers Christ, the founder of the Church to be that.
I think we get ourselves all bound-up when we try to reconcile metaphors, as when I see others complain that Peter cannot be the rock Christ builds His church upon, since in other places, Jesus is considered a rock, and of course, Peter refers to him as the cornerstone. Can I not also call you a rock if I believe you to be steadfast, sincere and unchanging in your opinion on things? Sure, because rock, stone, boulder are good metaphors for describing such a condition. But I ramble too much here…
I previously said:
I think the great fear here is that the special place, Jesus places Peter in the founding of His Church, worries others that this impllies the primacy of Peter over the rest of the apostles.
Come to think of it, I think that fear is warranted.....
Because 'Protestants' know where you are going with the above quote - that is why we exercise 'caution'. I am open about discussions about 'Primacy' and believe:
- that it belongs to the 'Jews' first - even though a hardening has come upon Israel for the sake of the Gentiles.
Yes…
- I also see Jerusalem as the city that God has chosen so that His Name might dwell there.
OK, and I see it as both heaven and the Church, where it will be exclusively at the end of time.
- Apostolic primacy needs to be established from the scriptures. In this sense Protestants recognize that 'James, Peter and John' had a special place among the Apostles. Furthermore, and later, the Apostle Paul (with his helpers) 'turned the world upside down'.
I think you mention the only place in scripture where another apostle (James) is mentioned before Peter’s name. In all other occurrences, Peter is always listed first, one of many places in scripture where the primacy of Peter is indicated to be the leader among the apostles.
- and the council of Jerusalem - which ratified Paul's Gospel.
Led by Peter! However others think that it was James, who was the leader in Jerusalem. From Acts 15:1 through 12, we see Peter as the dominant person. But in verse 13, James speaks up.
Here is an interesting sidenote from my Catholic NAB that is an interesting read concerning James:
Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion then the meeting in question [The council of Jerusalem] This seems to be the case if the meeting in the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosiac law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from bloodmeats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lv 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem "council" that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).
All these have to do with the primacy question.
Let me see if I can dig up an interesting link for you:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/ ... trine.html
This is from Dave Aramstron’s blog/web site that you might find interesting to read.
While church history is valuable the primary discussion , I believe, has to take place in New Testament times and it is here that you need to convince Protestants before arguing from the early church Fathers.
But the early church fathers, who lived on the edge of the end of the apostolic era, all of them churchmen, mostly bishops of important sees, surely have weight in their writings, especially when they are in remarkable agreement on things doctrinal and in interpreting what scripture is saying. Some Protestants go the length to point out the disagreements among them, but most of them can be reconciled easily.
But you touch upon another subject I often get embroiled in - Sola Scriptura. So while it is wonderful that we read and attempt to understand scripture, something none of us could do before the advent of the printing press and we all became literate, who is to be the final judge to determine the correct interpretation? I can’t be the one in my isolation, and neither can others. I do suggest we leave that subject for another time…
I think that this discussion is valuable - nothing is cast your way that you don't willing embrace - nor do I have a sense that what I am arguing is contrary to the welfare of God's church.
Aye, I can agree here!
Already in another forum, on the very first day of posting, I go from the most gentle approach I can muster, to having to finally, at the end of the same day, simply say, “have a nice day†to an antagonist who very soon resorts to ad hominem.
That is not happening here!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
From the desire of being loved,
From the desire of being extolled,
From the desire of being honored,
From the desire of being praised,
From the desire of being preferred,
From the desire of being consulted,
From the desire of being approved,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being humiliated,
From the fear of being despised,
From the fear of being rebuked,
From the fear of being calumniated,
From the fear of being forgotten,
From the fear of being ridiculed,
From the fear of being wronged,
From the fear of being suspected,
Deliver me, Jesus.
That others may be loved more than I,
That others may be esteemed more than I,
That in the opinion of the world, others may
increase, and I may decrease.
That others may be chosen and I set aside,
That others may be praised and I unnoticed,
That others may be preferred to me in everything,
That others become holier than I , provided that
I may become as holy as I should,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.'
Cardinal Merry del Val
