Aw... shucks...
Posted on 06/02/2018 6:34:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: A Protestant told me recently that Peter can’t be the rock since Jesus is described as the rock and cornerstone of the Church, and he showed me a couple of places where Jesus is described as the cornerstone and even a stumbling block to unbelievers. Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C.
Answer: Of course Jesus, Peter and others who are called “rock” or stone are not literally chunks of stone. What we have in such attestations is the application of a metaphor. Scripture, like any lengthy document uses many metaphors, similes and analogies. Such things can be true in different ways.
In the Scriptures we see that Peter is called “the rock” by Jesus (Mt 16:18). Jesus is also called a stone (1 Pt 2:6). And the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones and Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The Book of Revelation describes the Twelve Apostles as foundation stones (Rev 21:14). So there are a number of “stone” references that need not be mutually exclusive.
Jesus is the deepest and surest foundation of the Church. That the Apostles, prophets and, in a special way, Peter are rock is understood in a subordinate sense. That is, they are rock and foundation for the Church on account of the grace and support of Jesus.
|
|
The Protestant to whom you refer fails to see the context and metaphorical sense of the texts and terms. He also fails to see that Jesus, while not abandoning his Church as her true head and foundation, does assign Peter a unique status to be the visible and identifiable rock on which the Church will be built. Peter (and his successors) is the rock, but he does not stand in midair. He is supported by Christ and his grace and affirmed by him as the visible rock and head of the Church. The Protestant approach is to see the Church as invisible. But Jesus did not establish an invisible Church. It is visible and with a visible rock and head: Peter and his successors.
A key point
In for a penny; in for a pound.
The Roman Catholic Church was STARTED full of ERROR and had to be called out by a messenger from GOD to John!!
Just look into the last book in the Bible and SEE what error was in the churches that were started by Peter!
Do you guys REALLY want to continue with the LIE than Rome's church is the one that Jesus 'started'?
Revelation chapters 2&3
Agree, but Paul’s words cannot be used to negate Peter’s, either. They must be harmonized.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
It already has been.
One side just will NOT admit defeat.
Worse bunch of cases of Confirmation Bias I've ever seen.
Campion, please see post 139. Elsie did a much more thorough job than I did of citing Augustine’s teachings re the *confession* being the rock.
Thank you, Elsie.
Sure feels good; doesn't it.
All wrapped up in ancient error's warm blanket of rightness.
That, sir....is one fine exhibition of eisegesis.
Just keep repeating this long enough and it'll magically become fact.
The promise to bind and loose the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven are to the Apostle Peter (Greek NT is in the second person singular).
13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Remember this is the same group He gave 'authority' to cast out demons and heal the sick; not focusing on Peter then at all.
The guy we say is the current successor to Peter is picking up a few deserved rebukes.
I kinda like the idea that -- within the overarching consideration that IHS and faith in him are primary and that the Holy Scriptures are an anchor and canon -- the general run of popes would be, at best, uneven characters, as cantankerous as Paul, as passionately and impulsively oafish as כיפא.
After all, even with our peacock panoply of popes and cardinals and bishops (and our chaste and somber, black-and-white Dominic) it is God alone who sanctifies and directs us. Even if he gives, as we assert, certain gifts and guarantees to those in certain offices and ministries, still it is he upon whom we rely.
After the (as I see it) blessings of JP2 and PapaBenXVI, I suspect it's probably to my benefit to have a pope who gives me the hives almost every time he opens his mouth. It's like when I was driving a trailer full of sheep in a snow storm -- a great boost the the fervor of my prayers.
Which explains the desperate efforts to disqualify the Greek texts and claim that they were originally inspired in either Hebrew or Aramaic, when there is absolutely no credible evidence that they were done so.
Rome has to ignore these contradictory opinions and select only those that support their dogma.
These quotes, and many others from the ECFs, negate the Roman Catholic claim regarding "unanimous consent" among the ECFs.
But you should read some of the lengths to which Roman Catholicism explains away the unanimous non-consent of the ECFs.
And forced to by negative publicity and secular authorities at that.
The wrong people are holding the moral high ground here.
*Holy?*
And the gates of hell will not prvail?
Not so much when the Vatican hosts cocaine fueled gay sex orgies.
The gates of hell have more than prevailed against Catholicism.
1 and 2: Yeah, and in Matthew 18:18, the same binding and loosing power is given in plural form to all the Apostles. And in John 20, the power to forgive and retain sins too. So, no, that doesn’t give Peter any power, unless you claim that the power of the keys is something more than binding and loosing. If so, I’d love to hear what it is.
3: Just because there’s only one Body of Christ doesn’t mean that it is, as you claim, ONLY the organization calling itself Roman Catholic.
4: Thank you for proving my point. The works of the church in Rome are utterly sinful, contradictory to the plain words of Scripture, and horrible. So yeah, goodbye lampstand in Rome; through their evil works, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has proven that they are NOT holy, NOT apostolic, and NOT a church.
5: Eastern Orthodox, and they have a stronger claim than Rome ever did. And like the Bible but UNLIKE Rome, they teach salvation by grace.
But despite your attempts to close out every other candidate, any church that follows the teaching of the Apostles is part of the true Church.
And any so-called church that teaches in contradiction to the Apostles, like Rome does, is a fake church.
Any church that accepts unrepentant sin in its leadership and membership, like Rome does, is a fake church.
6: For that matter, logical fallacy of argument by assertion. You assert that the ekklesia HAS to be visible and HAS to be an organization, but you provide no proof.
I think I can see and understand a lot of what you’re saying.
And despite all the rancor that I have against some of the people on the thread, if you want to be Catholic, be my guest. Despite my very loud objections against what I see as false, there’s still a lot of truth in what Catholicism teaches—it’s just that it almost never comes up because we’re all in agreement about large swaths of doctrine.
I just hope that you continue to depend on Christ for your salvation. Because I don’t want anyone to go to Hell!
Yep. Those derived from the W&H/Nestle/UBS-derived translational school. My opinion, that is, which counts a lot with me. Others are FRee to have theirs, for which I'm glad.
I guess they would consider those guys "poorly catechized". ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.