Is Peter the foundation of the church?

[William Putnam]

William Putnam wrote:
As I understand it, the Koine Greek that was spoken in that time period required gender renderings of "rock", the norm being in the feminine petra. But if Jesus is going to change Simon's name to "rock," He then must use a masculine gender, since Simon is a guy.

That masculine gender is Petros.

So, in the Koine Greek, Jesus would have had to say (As Matthew is recording this) "You are Petros and upon this petra I will build my church..."


jgredline replied:

This is what the verse is saying....
William Putnam wrote:

Why the reversion to the feminine gender in the second mention of "rock" in Koine Greek?

The first word for rock here is Πέτρος / Petros; Peter = “a rock or a stoneâ€Â.
The second word here is πέτρα / petra = a ''large'' stone... It is used as a feminine noun to describe a large object. The same we we call Ships ''she''

But if Jesus is to change Simon’s name to “ROCK†as I understasnd it, you would have to use the masculinePetros, right? And again, as I understand it, when Petros is the anticecdent for the second occurrence of “ROCK,†in the same sentence in fact, it must be in the feminine gender. I am not a Greek scholar, and that this is applicable to the Koine Greek, a common dialect at the time, not what Greek has become in contemporary times.

William Putnam wrote:

Grammar requirements, that normally, petras is used in the normal manner in the second occurrance in the sentence.

Also note that there must be an anticedent to petras, and the closest one is Petros in the same santence!

But I will go silent here as we continue...

William the Pronoun is ταυτη / ''This''

OK???????

William
I am not sure I follow what it is that you are saying in your post. But none the less here is Matt 16:19 in Koine Greek.

Matt 16:18
18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης
1550 TR

Matt 16:18
18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος / Petros (Masculine noun,Peter = “a rock or a stoneâ€Â.) και επι ταυτη (pronoun) τη πετρα / petra (Feminine noun that is used in the ''singular'' form This nouns means A rock, a large stone. metaphor... a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul. οικοδομησω / oikodomeo ( indicative, verb used in the future tense. It is used in the singular and used in the first person = to found, establish)μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης
1550 TR

So the meaning is simple...The rock is Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of the living God, the truth on which the church is founded. Ephesians 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone. Its statement that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets refers not to them, but to the foundation laid in their teachings concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is NOT built on a little rock ''petros'' but built on a massive rock ''petras'' that is Jesus Christ, not the CC or RCC...


By the way, I do read and write Greek.

And you obviously can do Greek fonts as well!

But I do not agree with your conclusion. We have Jesus changing Simon’s name to “ROCK†(however this is interpreted-out as you do above) and then in the same sentence, declared that upon “this†(Is this the same “this†you speak of above?) we have a reference to the antecedent Petros, however different petras comes out in today’s Greek.

Actually, St. Augustine (and a few other others) also saw that it was upon Peter’s confession that Christ builds His church, and we can see the reason - the church needs to be built upon a faith as Peter espressed. But St. Augustine also saw that the church was built upon Peter Himself, as did most of the other early fathers, who were Greek scholars as well.

Get the book:

JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
By Scott Butler et al
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6

It explains the Catholic position far better then I could…

Also, I give you a link (which I may have given already in this thread) to what the early fathers believed:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[William Putnam]

My pebble in the pond.

I accept none other than Christ as The Rock. He is the foundation upon which His church (as opposed to the catholic church) stands.

Peter was a man who denied Christ and to whom Jesus said, "Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

So much for building on a man huh :-?

That is not all about Peter!

He was always being admonished by Jesus! If fact, he was the only one to feel the rath if you will, of Jesus. Peter, that loud mouth Peter! Always sticking his foot in it!

And yes, He denied Christ three times, yet it is interesting that in John 21:15 through 17, it was to Peter that he says "Feed my sheep/lambs" three times!

Of couse, this is taken to show Christ's forgiveness of Peter, who surely had his humility drawn out by the display of his own weakness, yet Peter remains the only one to be given the charge to "feed the flock" as it were, the only one to say this to. We also see a unique thing Jesus says to Peter in Luke 22:32. In all his own weakness, Peter is told to "strenthen his brothers"

And Paul even rebukes him! Why? because as the leader of the apostles, he showed a bad example!

Except for one occasion, Peter's name always preceeds the others. He is the leader at Pentecost, at the great Council of Jerusalem, and in other situations where it is obvious to the Catholic mind the primacy of Peter in scripture.

I am a retired Naval officer, and one of the things I have learned is determining the leadershop abilities of others. A big clue is their "loud mouths!

They are always sticking their noses into your business, inquisitive as they are, and a sign of leadership, if cultivated properly, become your leaders in the military. Jesus did the same thing with Peter, rebuked often as he was.

In this thread, I gave a link to a Dave Armstrong "50 reasons Peter is the leader of the apostles" (approximate title) that you may be interested in reading.

Oh, and by the way, I have no objection to the assertion the Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church! He is also the Church's founder!

We Catholics believe that Christ made Peter (and his successors) His "second in command" here on earth, that he would lead the Church after His ascension back to the Father in heaven.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[William Putnam]

Is Peter the Rock?

After posting my recent replies, I thought I would present a link that does a far better job of understanding what happened in Matthew 16:18 then what I have presented:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

While I believe the issue can be explained in the Koine Greek, which I am not an expert in (having enough trouble with my own native tongue - English) the issue of what Jesus actually said is important. What was His native tongue?

Aramaic.

This is explained in much greater detail, plus the refutation of other Protestant arguments, in the book I always recommend:

JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
by Scott Butler et al
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6

I hope this helps.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

[cyberjosh]

William,

What is your opinion on what I said about the "pillars" of the church on the last page?

 

[William Putnam]

William,

What is your opinion on what I said about the "pillars" of the church on the last page?

I will past-in what you said:

How does the Bible's statement that James, Peter, and John were "Pillars" of the church factor into this, to your mind? This would rule out Peter as being the sole one to carry the Church and it is clear that James carried his role of leader in the Jerusalem Church quite well.

I presume you mean from Galatians 2:9:

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

1. I think this is the only place where Peter is not the first in the list of apostles in scripture. Everywhere else, Peter is listed first. But since James wes the leader in Jerusalem (the presiding bishop) then in his honor, Paul lists him first. That is my conjecture, of course.

2. If you look at the text, Paul is obviously speaking about the first council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem, where the question of circimcision is to be resolved.

In that great council, who took the leadership role at first? It is obviously Peter, from Acts 7 through 12. But then we see James speaking up from verse 12 onwards. Notice the change in the subject? It goes from the issue of circumcision to one of diatary laws, something quite different.

I give you and interesting side note from my Catholic NAB on what went on from Acts 15:1 through 21:

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 is 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 t 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).

Bolding emphasis mine...

I would add that certainly all of the apostles were "pillars of the Church," since they formed what I would call the "charter clergy" of the Church. Somewhere else, Peter called his brother, "My fellow apostles" (Not exactly the correct words, from memory and I forget where in scripture) does not derate the office that Peter held. That reminds me of Pope John XXIII who addresses the Second Vatican Council as "My fellow bishops." That does not make John XXIII just an ordinary bishop, but rather a reference to the office of others in humility. Also, even the pope is a bishop - The Bishop of Rome.

All of the apsotles were "pillars of hte Church," which I certainly think you would agree here. But that statement takes nothing away from the fact that Peter was the Chief of the Apostles, which we Catholics believe, of course.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

[cyberjosh]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply William.

All of the apsotles were "pillars of hte Church," which I certainly think you would agree here. But that statement takes nothing away from the fact that Peter was the Chief of the Apostles, which we Catholics believe, of course.

Well if I may kindly differ with you here I don't believe that Peter was the Chief of the Apostles. He certainly took on a leadership role but he was no greater than the others and Paul even had occasion to rebuke him once. At any rate I don't think a single verse ("on this rock I will build my church") is something to build a doctrine on. Many people would agree with me that you need several verses that agree with one another in order to form a proper doctrine. One isn't enough, because it can be taken out of context then. And I'm sure you've seen examples of that happening before.

Tell me your thoughts.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[William Putnam]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply William.


Well if I may kindly differ with you here I don't believe that Peter was the Chief of the Apostles. He certainly took on a leadership role but he was no greater than the others and Paul even had occasion to rebuke him once. At any rate I don't think a single verse ("on this rock I will build my church") is something to build a doctrine on. Many people would agree with me that you need several verses that agree with one another in order to form a proper doctrine. One isn't enough, because it can be taken out of context then. And I'm sure you've seen examples of that happening before.

Tell me your thoughts.

God Bless,

~Josh

What occurs to me to to give you a link that answers your assertion better then my words:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/ ... trine.html

I invite you to explore all of what Dave Armstrong has on his blog/site, one of my favorite Catholic apologists.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[stranger]

primacy among the Apostles

What occurs to me to to give you a link that answers your assertion better then my words:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/ ... trine.html

I invite you to explore all of what Dave Armstrong has on his blog/site, one of my favorite Catholic apologists.

God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

Hi William,

I looked at the above link which seeks to establish the primacy of Peter over the other Apostles. I need to go through the list more carefully and will respond in due course, the Lord willing. Naturally, I seek a text that shows the recognition of the other Apostles of Peter's primacy definitively. I see why you refer to Matt16:17,18,19 as a key passage.

In the meantime - 1 Cor 3 - the whole chapter is also instructive but from another perspective. I could infer this chapter deals with 'Apostolic authority'

In the introduction to the argument Paul refers to the bickering believers as mere men- he does this twice. v3 , v4.

The conclusion to the argument is as follows:
v21f So then let no one boast in men . . .whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas. . . Now he argues that their 'leaders' are mere 'men' and he is speaking about himself and Cephas! (and Apollos)

From this passage Paul doesn't confer upon Peter anything he himself does not hold. Nor do I assign any significance to who is listed in what order in v22.

The inherent danger of this discussion - seen in and from scripture is to be but 'mere men' arguing about mere 'men'. This is real and is seen historically as a kingdom divided against itself. So in the link you posted has the author avoided this trap?

The conferring of Apostleship to successors is yet to be touched upon.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[francisdesales]

I also invite Francisdesale to respond.

I would be honored. However, it might be better in the future to private mail me to ping me to a particular thread, as I often don't read over all of these threads. It so happens that I came across this. (by the grace of God, no doubt, since I don't believe in "luck" or coincidence)

First of all, what does the Catholic Church teach on this matter...

The Catechism describes the Church's origin, foundation, and mission in CCC #758-769.

The subtitles read:

A plan born in the Father's heart...

The Church - foreshadowed from the world's beginning...

The Church - prepared for in the Old Covenant...

The Church - instituted by Christ Jesus (CCC#763-766)

The Church - revealed by the Holy Spirit...

The Church - perfected in Glory...

Now, from this section, I must tell you that Peter is mentioned in ONE sentence...

#765: "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 thte Twelve with Peter as their head. (footnote refering to Mark 3:14-15) Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem (footnotes to Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30; Rev 21:12-14). The twelve and the other disciples share in Christ's mission and His power, but also in His lot (footnotes to Mk 6:7; Lk 10:1-2; Mt 10:25; Jn 15:20). By all His actions, Christ prepares and builds His Church."

Plainly, the Church is NOT built upon the foundation of Peter, according to this section of the Catechism.

I think it would be an interesting read for Protestants to check out Article 9 of the Creed, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church", which goes from #748-975. In it, you will find out about the Communion of Saints (and why we ask for their intercessions), about the role of Mary TODAY, about WHO is in the "Church", the definition of the Church (which is visible AND invisible), the teachings of the Mystical Body of Christ, and so forth. In it, you will learn a lot about what Catholicism teaches - and how it would help our brother Protestants understand WHY we do and teach some things.


Now, what DOES the Church teach about Peter and the "keys of the kingdom"? Here, we have #551-553 describing the role of Peter and the Apostles. To better understand Catholics on this point, we should look there, as from above, Catholics DO BELIEVE THAT CHRIST BUILT THE CHURCH. What does Rome think about Peter and the Pope?

First, the Catechism notes that Christ chose 12 men for a reason - giving them power to participate in His mission (Mk 3:13-19, for example). He gives them authority and sent them out to preach the kingdom AND to heal.

#CCC 551 These apostles REMAIN associated FOREVER with Christ's Kingdom, for though them He continues to direct the Church:

"As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:29-30

Thus, the Apostles remain an important part of the church, as Paul relates in Eph 2, and Revelation also reveals.



Now, Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the twelve. Can ANYONE deny that? Jesus changed Simon's name. No one can deny that, either, because HE is called Kephas by Paul. Jesus is NOT called Kephas by anyone as a proper name, but rather as a metaphor. Jesus clearly has given Simon a mission. When God changes a man's name, it is for good reason, one of mission. Abram. Jacob. And now Simon. All are leaders of the people of God in their own dispensation.

The Catechism says in CCC #552: "Christ, the living stone (1 Peter 2:4) thus assures His Church, built on 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 is to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen the brother in it. (Lk 22:32)"

Clearly, Jesus is the architect of the Church. In Mat 16, Simon gives Jesus a title - the Messiah. Jesus responds, recognizing His Father's will and action through Simon's recognition of the Christ. As a result, Jesus gives Simon a NEW title, Rock. The Church Fathers have recognized that this Rock is not only Simon Peter, but ALSO his faith. Even Pope John Paul 2 makes this explanation. We don't separate the proclamation of faith from the person. Not "either/or". "Both".

The Catechism goes on to explain that a specific authority was given to Peter - the keys. In #553, it states that "the power of the keys designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church". Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confiormed this mandate after His Resurrection: Feed my sheep (John 21:15-17)."


Further on, #553 states: "Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles (Mt 18:18) and particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."

Thus, what Christ did was to give authority to the apostles, knowing that He would ascend into heaven. He delegated His authority to the Apostles, and in this sense, Jesus has built a foundation upon the Apostles and Prophets (Eph 2), since THESE men were given authority over the People of God. However, THEIR authority rests upon the TRUE "Rock", Jesus Christ. Without Christ, the apostles have NO authority over anyone. The Church recognizes this. There is a need for a visible authority for many reasons, and Christ has seen to it that it was provided for through the continued ministry of the Apostles.

Thus, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Church is built upon Simon in the sense that Golfjack explains - that is a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Catechism. The Church was established by Christ - and Peter's role is one of the head servant through whom Christ continues to lead His Church, through a visible head of authority. Peter was given this position. Peter did not establish the Church, nor is Peter the ultimate ground of authority in the Church. He is the head servant while his master is away:

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Mat 24:46-51

And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom [his] lord shall make ruler over his household, to give [them their] portion of meat in due season? Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. Luke 12:42-48

Bad Popes, Bishops, and Priests, beware!

On a final note, I agree with William that we must be wary of mixing metaphors from different writers of the Sacred Writ.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Question for you William;

Was it NOT Paul who FIRST brought the Word to Rome? Was it NOT Paul that first preached the gospel of Christ to the Romans? If this IS so, then HOW could Peter POSSIBLY be the founder of the Roman church?

As I am NOT a Biblical scholar, I may be mistaken on these statements, but from what I have gathered, there is NO sure information concerning the history of the Roman church that Peter EVER played a major role in the introduction of Christianity to these people.

Please don't take me for an ignorant fool. This I CERTAINLY may be. For I am certainly aware that Peter died in Rome. But I am also aware that MUCH of the information concerning Peter and Rome was fabricated by the CC in order to provide evidence of this very point which we discuss here. But as far as ANY actual PROOF of Peter being the 'first pope' or ANY such nonsense, ALL the factual evidence points to this being NOTHING other than a CC fabrication, (or perhaps just 'wishful thinking').

So, WHO actually formed the Roman church Peter or Paul? That is my question.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Question for you William;

Was it NOT Paul who FIRST brought the Word to Rome? Was it NOT Paul that first preached the gospel of Christ to the Romans? If this IS so, then HOW could Peter POSSIBLY be the founder of the Roman church?

Clearly, you are just being argumentative, Imagican. This has been thorougly answered only a few weeks ago, and you were there. Don't you have anything better to do than trying to stir up the pot?

No matter what William or I answer, you won't be satisfied with the answer, so just drop it in the name of peace. Unless you have some further evidence that disproves the Catholic claim, there is nothing further to say. You merely present opinion, not fact.

Regards

 

[jgredline]

Hi William or Joe
How would you interpret this verse?

eph 2:19-22 nkjv
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Thanks guys

 

[jgredline]

Hey Jack
Why is that you have not commented anymore on your OP?

 

[francisdesales]

Hi William or Joe
How would you interpret this verse?

eph 2:19-22 nkjv
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Thanks guys

If you read my interpretation of the Catechism, you would know that I agree that the Church, in one sense, is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, since they were visible authority figures for the People of God. However, this authority rests on God Himself. So ultimately, the Church has been delegated authority - but Christ certainly doesn't relinquish it...

Regards

 

[jgredline]

If you read my interpretation of the Catechism, you would know that I agree that the Church, in one sense, is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, since they were visible authority figures for the People of God. However, this authority rests on God Himself. So ultimately, the Church has been delegated authority - but Christ certainly doesn't relinquish it...

Regards

So Joe
Would I be correct in saying that the Church was buily upon the Apostles teachings and that the Church is built On Jesus Christ?

 

[stranger]

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......

Hi William,

The 'brick' reference from another post I equated to 'a living stone'. That aside - yes - foundation is not mentioned in Matt16. It arises from other scriptures that speak about the 'foundation' of the church. Consensus on both sides (Protestant and Catholic) perhaps with qualifications is that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church.


......[quote:b9fac]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…

[/quote:b9fac]

Important here is the use of the 'building metaphor' with the 'builder' and those who are built up in the most holy faith. If we take Matt. 16:15-19 as a central passage concerning Peter under consideration - are not Peter's own words about church also of paramount importance? If I am mixing metaphors what was Peter doing in 1Peter2:4-8 ?

What I am saying is that a building metaphor was used in both instances 1Cor 3 and 1Peter 2. Having said that - in Matt. 16 the Lord says I will build My church. . . and mention of the cornerstone are specific references to the metaphor in question.

In regard to 'whose interpretation' is right - the Spirit and the Letter agree. For this reason other scripture passages - where their relevance can be established - are introduced to look at Peter's primacy as you have put it forth.

I see that Francisdesales has entered the discussion!

In Christ: Stranger

 

[francisdesales]

So Joe
Would I be correct in saying that the Church was buily upon the Apostles teachings and that the Church is built On Jesus Christ?

Hello jgredline,

Christ built His community of believers, the Church, upon the Apostles whom He gave authority. He gave them the power to bind and loosen and to teach the rest of the world everything He taught them. Thus, it can be said that Christ built His Church upon the teachings of the Apostles - and certainly, on Jesus Christ - since HE is the source of the Apostles' teachings! But as in much of Scriptures, we have many layers of meanings in the same verse. Thus, we must be careful about latching onto one meaning only and discounting everything else.

For example, Christ built His Church upon the visible Simon and gave him authority; He built His Church upon the rest of the visible Apostles AND propets; He built His Church upon the faith of Simon - which has also been interprested by some Church Fathers as the faith of the typical believer; Jesus built His Church upon His own teachings - which means upon Himself. Thus, we have a layer of meanings that ALL apply and are true. It is not an "either/or". Eithe Peter or Christ.

Regards

 

[jgredline]

Hello jgredline,

Christ built His community of believers, the Church, upon the Apostles whom He gave authority. He gave them the power to bind and loosen and to teach the rest of the world everything He taught them. Thus, it can be said that Christ built His Church upon the teachings of the Apostles - and certainly, on Jesus Christ - since HE is the source of the Apostles' teachings! But as in much of Scriptures, we have many layers of meanings in the same verse. Thus, we must be careful about latching onto one meaning only and discounting everything else.



Regards

Joe
On this above part, I agree with you. This is what I thought you said the first time. On the second part, I will need to ponder it a bit as I have never really thought about it that way. Right now I can tell you that I disagree with you on "He built His Church upon the faith of Simon" because Simon is the fellow who denied Jesus 3 times and so says to me his faith was simply not there. Now perhaps if Jesus was speaking in the future tense, then maybe. I will have to look at that.
Thanks jg

 

[francisdesales]

Joe
On this above part, I agree with you. This is what I thought you said the first time. On the second part, I will need to ponder it a bit as I have never really thought about it that way. Right now I can tell you that I disagree with you on "He built His Church upon the faith of Simon" because Simon is the fellow who denied Jesus 3 times and so says to me his faith was simply not there. Now perhaps if Jesus was speaking in the future tense, then maybe. I will have to look at that.
Thanks jg

Jg,

Allow me to clarify on the "disagreement", as I believe it is my lacking explanation that is the cause of the problem. When I say "Christ built His Church upon the faith of Simon", I mean on the confession of a faithful Christian that was/is inspired by God Himself - "Jesus Christ is Lord!" This declaration of WHO Jesus is was first made by Simon as inspired by the Father. WE TOO are also inspired by the Holy Spirit to make the same proclamation. As such, that is what I meant. The Church is ALSO built upon the declaration of faith that "Jesus is Lord".

It is important that we see ALL of this in God's Word to us. I believe you will agree on this - we must not forget the multiple layers of Scriptural meaning.

Hope that brings us closer together.

Joe

 

[jgredline]

Jg,

Allow me to clarify on the "disagreement", as I believe it is my lacking explanation that is the cause of the problem. When I say "Christ built His Church upon the faith of Simon", I mean on the confession of a faithful Christian that was/is inspired by God Himself - "Jesus Christ is Lord!" This declaration of WHO Jesus is was first made by Simon as inspired by the Father. WE TOO are also inspired by the Holy Spirit to make the same proclamation. As such, that is what I meant. The Church is ALSO built upon the declaration of faith that "Jesus is Lord".

It is important that we see ALL of this in God's Word to us. I believe you will agree on this - we must not forget the multiple layers of Scriptural meaning.

Hope that brings us closer together.

Joe

Joe
Thank you for your explanation. I also agree with this so you and I are in agreement here as far as the Christ being the foundation...This is also what I said in an earlier post.
Thanks Joe
jg