Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

According to your interpretation.....
If you are a Lutheran then by default, you are saying that this is the "doctrines" that you believe to be true and therefore reject any that contradict them, no?

That is my view also.

When is the Roman church going to interpret Revelation, or didn't the author John provide the RC with any interpretation of it.

1 Thessalonians 3:13 Into the stand-fast of ye, the hearts/kardiaV blameless in together-holiness before the God and Father of us in the Parousia <3952> of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, with all of the holy-ones of Him. [Matt 24/Daniel 12]

Reve 19:11 And I perceived the heaven having be opened and Lo! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful-one and True-one and in justice He is judging and is battling.

http://christianforums.com/t6813701-question-time-jesus-returns-before-or-after-1000yrs.html

 

[sunlover1]

I think someone has been feeding you a bunch of lies. At no point has the Church forbid us to read the Bible. ...

This is taken from a thread that argued about the
Bible WAY back in January of 2007.
A very interesting discussion between myself,
RCC Warrior, RdrIakovos, SWalsh and Tulc.
Some crazy stuff, but a lot of information.


Quote sunlover:
No no no, it's not me that's saying this RccWarrior.

I quoted this from historical documents of your churches.

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition:


Canon 14.
We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having anytranslation of these books.

Is this incorrect information?
Because I'd hate to believe something
that's not true.

Thank you,
sunlover

 

[StTherese]

This is taken from a thread that argued about the
Bible WAY back in January of 2007.
A very interesting discussion between myself,
RCC Warrior, RdrIakovos, SWalsh and Tulc.
Some crazy stuff, but a lot of information.


Quote sunlover:
No no no, it's not me that's saying this RccWarrior.

I quoted this from historical documents of your churches.

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition:


Canon 14.
We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having anytranslation of these books.

Is this incorrect information?
Because I'd hate to believe something
that's not true.

Thank you,
sunlover

Where exactly did you quote this from? What site?

From:http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2006/06/did_the_catholic_church_forbid.html

Did the Catholic Church forbid Christians from Reading the Bible?

Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. - - St. Jerome quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 133.​

It has become an extremely common belief that the Catholic Church prevented Christians from reading the Bible and protestant reformers gave it back to the people. At this point it has become a common perception pointing to the problems of the Catholic Church. The argument goes that the Catholic Church forbid parishioners from reading the Bible, because they knew the Church was not following Scripture. And then, when Gutenberg&#8217;s printing press was invented, suddenly the people could read the Bible &#8211; and Martin Luther led them back to worship as it was supposed to be or as the Bible intended.
Historical Reality and Personal Bibles
Starting with a clear understanding of history is important to clarify the context of this claim. Very few Christians realize that for almost 400 years after the Crucifixion we did not actually have a Bible. The books that the Catholic Church eventually pulled together into the Bible were floating around at the various Churches, but there was much disagreement over which of the books were Scriptural and which were not. Some parishes (or individual churches within the Catholic Church) accepted one book or another, but many did not accept all of Scripture. Hebrews and Revelation, for example, were hotly debated during the time. And some books, like the Gospel of Thomas, which are not Scriptural, were accepted as such.
So finally the Catholic Church compiled the Bible as we know it (Martin Luther later removed some books from protestant Bibles) at the Council of Hippo. So up until that time the Bible did not exist as a single book the way we think of it today.
To further complicate matters there is one other issue: illiteracy. Americans still have trouble understanding that the vast majority of the world is illiterate even today. During the Dark Ages it was even worse, since virtually no one could read (Catholic monks in monasteries saved culture and writing in an amazing way). So even if the Catholic Church had personally given a Bible to every Christian, it would have been fruitless (and still would be today). The people learned about God through their parish priest and worshipped Him through Mass.
And yet, the Catholic Church could not have given a Bible to every Christian. Why? Because the printing press had not been invented! Until Johann Gutenberg&#8217;s wonderful invention in 1456 AD, Bibles were copied by hand. (Remember, Gutenberg was a good Catholic and the Church approved of and encouraged his printing of Bibles.) Before the printing press copying the Bible was the work of Catholic monks in monasteries who actually took a pen and paper and copied books of the Bible to create additional copies.
But the question still remains: Did the Catholic Church forbid Christians from reading the Bible?
What the Catholic Church did do
The actions the Church actually took are the most indicative of their frame of mind. Instead of hiding away the Bible &#8211; or making changes to it during the Dark Ages when no one would have known &#8211; the Church did something different. They chained Bibles down in individual Catholic parishes.

At first, this sounds barbaric: they were chaining down God&#8217;s Word to keep people from it. However it was quite the opposite. The Church wanted Christians to have access to the Bible, but they were not able to provide personal copies of the Bible to parishioners (the ultra-rich were able to get copies). So they put a copy of the Bible in each church and made it publicly available. But they did have to chain it down to keep it from being stolen (it took copious amounts of time to create a single Bible).

Kept in the parish church, that Bible [ed: the one chained down that cost as much as $10,000 in today&#8217;s currency] was made available to lay Catholics by chaining it to the table on which it was placed, just as telephone books today are kept available for the public by chaining them to telephone booths. Does the phone company chain the Yellow Pages so that no one can use them? Quite the opposite &#8211; so that the maximum number of people can have access to them. It was the same with the Bible.​

- - Karl Keating What Catholics Really Believe​

The Church also did something perhaps more important: it translated the Bible into art. This sounds a little silly, but it is not. When the people cannot read, the answer is to create art that explains the Bible. Not just paintings from famous artists (which the Church cannot take credit for), but stained glass art in churches that depict scenes from the Bible. This was a way to preach the Gospel even to the illiterate. They could understand what was happening in the scenes since they were hearing the Bible from the pulpit (the Catholic mass goes through every word of Scripture in a three-year time frame).

They may have prevented the laity for a time from obtaining personal copies at an attempt to prevent an increase in heresies that were already rampant at that time, but they did not prevent them from reading them....also as stated in this quote, at mass all the scriptures are covered during the liturgy over a span of 3 years. I dont' think this is keeping the scriptures from the people, but supplying them with the truth of the scriptures and protecting them from heresy.

 

[namericanboy]

Personally, I think if people would read history apart from Romes sanitized versions, they would realize that Rome strayed from the NT church..Same with "catholic" being used later on they just assume it's their "Roman Catholic" church...I have noticed many cases where RC's have snippits of ecf's and when more of the document shows up it casts a different light then the snippet did...Who knows , maybe more hidden news of Romes past coming out in the future will have more coming out of her..

 

[sunlover1]

Where exactly did you quote this from? What site?

It's on several, here's one:
www.1911encyclopedia.org

From:http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2006/06/did_the_catholic_church_forbid.html

That article would most likely be a bit biased since
it's a catholic website that posted it.

They may have prevented the laity for a time from obtaining personal copies at an attempt to prevent an increase in heresies that were already rampant at that time, but they did not prevent them from reading them....

the Bible was the principal source of their opinions;
therefore, to prevent its perusal by the people,
the Council passed the following decree —
"We prohibit the books of the Old and New Testament to the laity;
unless, perhaps, they may desire to have the Psalter,
or Breviary, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary;
but we expressly forbid their having the other parts of the Bible
translated into the vulgar tongue."
The scriptures had long been withheld from the laity,
but this is the first direct prohibition that we meet with.

... It would be difficult to conceive of wickedness more daring: to withhold the word of life,
to suffer the people to perish, and to make the possession of it a capital crime,
is surely the height of diabolical enmity to Christ and precious souls.
http://www.stempublishing.com/history/MILLER26.html

also as stated in this quote, at mass all the scriptures are covered during the liturgy over a span of 3 years. I dont' think this is keeping the scriptures from the people, but supplying them with the truth of the scriptures and protecting them from heresy

From the heresy of reading and studying Scripture?

God said to study and show yourself approved,
a workman, rightly dividing the Word of truth.

Cant do that if you cant study it.

We prohibit the books of the Old and New Testament to the laity...

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Do you have anything to back that up? What scholars specifically? and what exactly made those books un-Christian?

St. Jerome also agreed with Luther (or I rather should say it was the other way around.) Some of the books did not go against scripture already in place, some did. Luther, however, to his credit, did not remove them from his German bible. He simply translated them with the caveat that they were not to be considered as part of the Word of God. Even now, our pastors contend that they are not evil or bad for us to read, but that they are not the inspired word of God.

The Catholic Church, however, declared that anyone who did not believe the authority of the apocrypha were condemned. Nice.

According to your interpretation.....
If you are a Lutheran then by default, you are saying that this is the "doctrines" that you believe to be true and therefore reject any that contradict them, no?

But I do not reject the people who hold them, nor do I believe they are less of a Christian because they hold them. Nor do I even think THEY are necessarily wrong for holding to them. You keep trying to put words in my mouth, so let me be clear:

Lutherans aren't the only ones going to Heaven.

What makes Luther more right than the Pope? And actually popes do not make up new dogmas...they uphold dogmas that have been taught since the beginning. Usually the only time a "declaration" is made about a specific dogma is when there are those who are teaching false doctrines in regards to them and it is necessary to state what the Church teaches about a given subject so that we don't go around teaching heresies.
The pope makes no such claim that submission to him is the way to heaven. We submit to Christ by upholding and living out the truth that He has revealed to the Church.

Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Luther became his own "corrupt" pope in that he felt that his ideas about how the Church should be and what they should teach should be how he felt they should be. He was angry with certain bishops that were misrepresenting the Church and misusing doctrines. His anger lead to revenge and hatred which lead him to turn to false teachings and ideas to ease his mind so that he felt better about worshipping God. That doesn't mean what he did was right or that his conclusions were true.
If the brakes go bad on your car, do you get angry and start ripping it apart and building yourself another one taking off the car the pieces you feel are worth keeping? Or do you take it to the shop to have the brakes fixed so that your car can function as it should?

You really should study Luther more. Luther was devastated that he could not initiate change from within the church. He never wanted to leave - he DIDN'T leave, he was excommunicated and then he had to flee for his life because the pope wanted him dead. He didn't have anger, only a thirst for the truth and a way for the truth to be revealed to EVERYONE, not just an elite few.

And again, it was never about Luther did, he always put the focus on God. No one had to submit to him.

Well, he made himself his own pope. He decided to take it upon himself to make up his own doctrines and interpretations of the scriptures....actually the popes don't even do that...they uphold already revealed truths and pass on the interpretations, traditions, and teachings that have been passed down from the apostles.

Where did the apostles speak about praying to Mary? Where did the apostles speak about indulgences? I could go on and on, but I risk being called anti-Catholic and being reported.

I think someone has been feeding you a bunch of lies. At no point has the Church forbid us to read the Bible. At no point have they kept those who are in full communion with the Church from receiving communion...

Since you would no doubt claim that any reference I found to the contrary regarding communion would be biased, I will simply point to the fact that many Catholic churches today only let the laity have the bread and not the wine. And Jan Hus was excommunicated and killed for his attempts to get the Church to administer both the bread and the wine.

So yes, communion was withheld in many ways, and still is today.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

That always bring to mind the "Red Heifer" spoken of in the Bible.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/ashes/ashes1.htm

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ASHES OF AN HEIFER sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. 9:13-14).

Numbers 19 is a most unusual chapter in the Old Testament. All the offerings in the Bible are bullocks and rams, but here there is an exception - a heifer, a female cow whose never given birth. All the offerings in the Old Testament are slaughtered and offered to God, but this offering of the red heifer, though killed and burned, is very different from the rest. While all others are offered to God to meet current claims - that is, the sin-offering, the burnt offering, or the peace offering according to the need of the day - the red heifer alone was not for the present need. It was offered to meet future needs. The ordinance of the red heifer stands alone. While other sacrifices are often brought before us, this recorded in no other part of Israel's history.

 

[StTherese]

St. Jerome also agreed with Luther (or I rather should say it was the other way around.) Some of the books did not go against scripture already in place, some did. Luther, however, to his credit, did not remove them from his German bible. He simply translated them with the caveat that they were not to be considered as part of the Word of God. Even now, our pastors contend that they are not evil or bad for us to read, but that they are not the inspired word of God.

So Luther had the authority to decide which sciptures were inspired and which ones were not? So I could do the same thing? If I disagree wtih a book of the Bible, I can just say it is not inspired???

The Catholic Church, however, declared that anyone who did not believe the authority of the apocrypha were condemned. Nice.

The books he removed were not the apocrypha...they are the deuterocannonical books, which WERE inspired by God.

But I do not reject the people who hold them, nor do I believe they are less of a Christian because they hold them. Nor do I even think THEY are necessarily wrong for holding to them. You keep trying to put words in my mouth, so let me be clear:
Lutherans aren't the only ones going to Heaven.

And Catholics do not believe that we are the only ones going to heaven. There are those striving to do the will of God without even knowing it or without ever having heard the name of Jesus. When we search and strive for truth and goodness, it is God in whom we are searching. No salvation outside the Church does not mean all practicing Catholics...you should read what the Church actually teaches about this.

Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This was written to Catholics (since there were no "protestants" until later). It was not written to those who did not profess the Catholic faith...but to those who claimed to be Catholic yet denied the supremacy of the Pope.

You really should study Luther more. Luther was devastated that he could not initiate change from within the church. He never wanted to leave - he DIDN'T leave, he was excommunicated and then he had to flee for his life because the pope wanted him dead. He didn't have anger, only a thirst for the truth and a way for the truth to be revealed to EVERYONE, not just an elite few.

He was excommunicated for denying the truths of the Catholic Church...one can not be excommunicated unless they have obviously already excommunicated themselves from the Church. To be in communion denotes unity...division breaks the communion.

And again, it was never about Luther did, he always put the focus on God. No one had to submit to him.

Luther put the focus on attacking the Church. What he did was out of anger and selfishness, not love. Without love, the focus is definitely not on God.

Where did the apostles speak about praying to Mary? Where did the apostles speak about indulgences? I could go on and on, but I risk being called anti-Catholic and being reported.

Asking questions about Catholic doctrine does not mean you are anti-Catholic...
Maybe you should read what the CC teaches about those specific doctrines and not some twisted version from someone who claims to know what the CC teaches.

Since you would no doubt claim that any reference I found to the contrary regarding communion would be biased, I will simply point to the fact that many Catholic churches today only let the laity have the bread and not the wine. And Jan Hus was excommunicated and killed for his attempts to get the Church to administer both the bread and the wine.

So yes, communion was withheld in many ways, and still is today.

The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus is present equally in both species of the bread and wine. To only receive one species does not take away from His Presence. There is no reason why one should have to receive both since He is equally present in both. To claim that this is not true and that we should receive both to receive Him totally is heretical. It is a lie.

Communion is only withheld from those who are not in full communion with the Church. If one commits a serious sin willfully and with full knowledge of it, they have separated themselves from Christ and the Church. They must repent, confess their sin, and receive Christ's forgiveness and be received back into communion with the Church. If someone holds a false belief and lives this out in contrast with what the Church teaches...such as the belief that contraception is ok...they have separated themselves from the Church in that their beliefs and lifestyle contradict the teachings of the Church. Repentance and forgiveness will enable them to be received back into full communion with the Church.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Peter Is Not The Rock....

Protestants speak on The Rock:

ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].




JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].




CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].




J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].




R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).




HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].




DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

source:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That's some great Catholic rhetoric there. I wonder if I could find some of this stuff word-for-word on Catholic sites.

I feel sorry for you guys. Really.

So Luther had the authority to decide which sciptures were inspired and which ones were not? So I could do the same thing? If I disagree wtih a book of the Bible, I can just say it is not inspired???


The books he removed were not the apocrypha...they are the deuterocannonical books, which WERE inspired by God.


And Catholics do not believe that we are the only ones going to heaven. There are those striving to do the will of God without even knowing it or without ever having heard the name of Jesus. When we search and strive for truth and goodness, it is God in whom we are searching. No salvation outside the Church does not mean all practicing Catholics...you should read what the Church actually teaches about this.


This was written to Catholics (since there were no "protestants" until later). It was not written to those who did not profess the Catholic faith...but to those who claimed to be Catholic yet denied the supremacy of the Pope.


He was excommunicated for denying the truths of the Catholic Church...one can not be excommunicated unless they have obviously already excommunicated themselves from the Church. To be in communion denotes unity...division breaks the communion.

Luther put the focus on attacking the Church. What he did was out of anger and selfishness, not love. Without love, the focus is definitely not on God.

Asking questions about Catholic doctrine does not mean you are anti-Catholic...
Maybe you should read what the CC teaches about those specific doctrines and not some twisted version from someone who claims to know what the CC teaches.


The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus is present equally in both species of the bread and wine. To only receive one species does not take away from His Presence. There is no reason why one should have to receive both since He is equally present in both. To claim that this is not true and that we should receive both to receive Him totally is heretical. It is a lie.

Communion is only withheld from those who are not in full communion with the Church. If one commits a serious sin willfully and with full knowledge of it, they have separated themselves from Christ and the Church. They must repent, confess their sin, and receive Christ's forgiveness and be received back into communion with the Church. If someone holds a false belief and lives this out in contrast with what the Church teaches...such as the belief that contraception is ok...they have separated themselves from the Church in that their beliefs and lifestyle contradict the teachings of the Church. Repentance and forgiveness will enable them to be received back into full communion with the Church.

 

[holdon]

Protestants speak on The Rock:

ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].




JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].




CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].




J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].




R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).




HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].




DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

source:
[URL="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp[/URL]

Hey at least we know that Protestants are not infallible. (if ever there was a doubt, here you have the proof)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

So the church came up with the AMILL doctrine to buttress the "Rapture" doctrine? Looks like one false doctrine concocted to cover up another false doctrine. Thoughts?

http://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html

According to Amillennialism, the millennium of Revelation 20:1–6 is being fulfilled spiritually in the present age before the return of Jesus Christ. Thus, the millennium or kingdom of Christ is in existence now. Amillennialists affirm that the millennium began with the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ and will be consummated when Jesus returns again to establish the Eternal Kingdom that is discussed in Revelation 21–22.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/subcats.asp?id=9|21

Evaluating Premillennialism: Part II - Christ’s Return and the Rapture by Cornelis P. Venema

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture.

 

[ThomasDa]

Quote:
DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy"

The "confession" is not the rock. "Peter" is not the rock. Jesus Christ IS the "ROCK."
Jesus is the "Rock" that He built His Church on. Jesus is the "Chief Corner Stone."

 

[HisKid1973]

I always liked these verses:

18 For through Him(Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Trento You want me to believe that Jerome a scholar in Greek and Aramaic who translated the Bible from its original text got his translation wrong.

"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:

.Greetings. Was that before the whole Canon got canonized?
And I no more would rely on Jerome's translation than I would any RC translation

Genesis 6:13 And Elohiym is saying to Noah "end of All Flesh he come before Me, that she is full the Land wrong/violence from presences of them and behold Me! ruining/07843 shachath them the Land. . [Revelation 11:18]

Reve 11:18 and the nations are angered and came the wrath of you, and the time/season of the dead ones to be judged, and to give the wages to the slaves/bondservants of you, the prophets, and to the saints, and to the ones fearing the name of you, the small ones and the great ones, and to blight/diafqeirai <1311> (5658) the ones blighting/diafqeirontaV <1311> (5723) the Land. [Genesis 6:11-13]

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

As some of the earlier posts here showed, those Early Church Fathers you have not got time for rather lean towards the view that whilst St. Peter is accorded a primacy of honour, there is nothing in the Petrine verses which confers an authority which is transferable to anyone, let along a bishop of Rome.

If a special office was conferred upon St. Peter, then how odd he never mentions it in his own letters of advice and admonition. The first epistle of Peter begins: 'Peter, an apostle of the Lord, to the strangers gathered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia . . .' (1 Peter 1:1). How does he address his fellows: 'The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ . . .' (1 Peter 5:1). His second Epistle begins the same way, without superiority or consciousness that he is the head of the Church. He ranks himself as one of many. 'Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them who have attained similar precious faith . . .' (2 Peter 1: 1). We see this same tone in the second epistle: 'This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in which to stir up your remembrance, that you might be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior . . . ? (2Peter 3:1-2). The phrases: 'an apostle', 'I also am an elder, 'us apostles?, 'who am also an elder', clearly show that Peter was not claiming superior authority over others. In 1 Peter 2:4-8, he writes:

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. For this is contained in Scripture: ‘Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed.’ This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.

Not a mention here that St. Peter sees himself as the 'stone' or 'rock'. This is line with what the blessed saint says in 1 Peter 5:1-4.

So even St. Peter says he is only an 'elder' among 'elders', and confesses Christ to be the rock on which the Church is founded.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

As some of the earlier posts here showed, those Early Church Fathers you have not got time for rather lean towards the view that whilst St. Peter is accorded a primacy of honour, there is nothing in the Petrine verses which confers an authority which is transferable to anyone, let along a bishop of Rome.

Greetings Anglian. Nice post and I agree though I believe the RCs will argue something else. I can see the Rock also as that of the faith of Abraham whereas the Judeans look to the Law of Moses, which I also view in Luke 16 and Revelation. Thoughts?

Matthew 3:9 "And think not to say within yourselves, 'a father we are having, the Abraham'. For I am saying to ye, that is able, the God, out of the stones/liqwn <3037>, these, to rouse offspring to the Abraham".

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to-me! and send Lazarus!, that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--that I am being pained/odunwmai <3600> (5743) in the flame, this.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Btw, I still can't get my search function to operate as I have an outdated link I would like to update.
Can someone search this link for me and put up the correct one? Thanks.

http://christianforums.com/t6860483&page=51
You Can't Get Past this Rock

http://christianforums.com/t5523201&page=10
Post #140

YOU WIN!

The weight of that rock is crushing!

Post 243
YOU WIN!

The weight of that rock is crushing!

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

Of course, from the RCC point of view, they are right; they certainly developed that doctrine, and could point to passages in the ECFs in support.

But the question is when the Petrine claims were widely accepted by the Church? The other questions are: where is the evidence that an office was created; and where is the evidence that it could be passed on to the bishops of Rome?

As earlier posters showed, when one takes the usual RCC quotations from the ECFs, they look like they support the Petrine claims, but on examination one sees that most of the earlier ECFs say that it was St. Peter's faith on which the Church was founded. So, whilst they attribute a primacy of honour to St. Peter, this is not necessarily evidence of a primacy of authority.

In addition to the want of evidence from St. Peter's own epistles (and you would think that when writing to admonish and teach others, he might just have mentioned his unique position), and the ambiguity of the ECFs on the question of authority, two other arguments come into play.

The first is that no bishop of Rome convened or attended any of the early Church Councils; no pronouncement of the bishop of Rome ended the Arian controversy; indeed, no bishop of Rome made any statement, infallible or otherwise to suggest he had such authority. Given the threat Arianism posed, this seems a little odd. If one had authority from St. Peter, would one not have said so at such a time?

Secondly, if there was an office created that St. Peter could pass on, why Rome? Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.) has Linus as the first bishop of Rome, with Sts. Peter and Paul as the founders of the Church. The evidence that St. Peter was the sole founder of the Roman Church, or even its bishop, is sketchy, to say the least. There is far better evidence that Peter was bishop of Antioch. So if an office was created, surely it should have been in the line of succession to Antioch? No bishop of Antioch has ever made such a claim - yet they are the successors of St. Peter.

The RCC is on much better ground when some of its scholars claim that, like the Trinity, the notion that St. Peter is the rock can be seen to be inherent in Scripture, and that from, say the time of Leo the Great, is made much more coherent and explicit as a doctrine. It is the attempt to claim that the Petrine authority (as opposed to a primacy of honour) was accepted by all from a very early stage which is unconvincing.

The Orthodox have, after all, been around for as long as the Catholics, and they have never accepted the claim to a supremacy of authority. Those Catholics who want to cite St. John Chrysostom would be well advised to look back to some of the earlier posts where their usual quotations were contextualised and shown to be an acknowledgement of papal primacy in terms of honour and prestige. It is the confusion of this, with authority, which tends to muddy the water.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[ticker]

Peter Is Not The Rock!

Man Lands on Moon!

...any other news flashes?