• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Peter Is Not The Rock!

Status
Not open for further replies.

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,800
1,310
✟476,540.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Why is it that you seperate CHRIST-ians into Protestants/Orthodox and Roman Catholic :confused:
Sorry, but trying to place that label on me won't fly either. I am trying to make sure that we address this issue for the societal problem that it is instead of placing a label incorrectly on any one group. MuidSaoirse is the person who introduced the topic into this thread and separated CHRIST-ians by labeling it as a Catholic problem. You did the exact same thing in another thread a few days ago (and then accused me of taking the thread off topic when I responded). You separated us when you opted to quote only the numbers by Catholic clergy and ignore those of Protestants.

Frankly, it's a topic I'm quite tired of. I won't bring it up. But I won't let it slide when people opt to bring it up and place it at the feet of Catholics anymore. Not because I don't think it belongs there. But it belongs to all of us. No doubt about that. And when any group believes they are immune, the risk to the children in their charge automatically goes up. It's a problem we all own and share. So you guys stop separating Christians in this regard, and I won't have anything to say.

And start putting the focus on the kids that need protecting and the role we all have in doing that, which is where the focus belongs. Not used as a petty weapon to drive a wedge between different Christian groups.
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Why is it that you seperate CHRIST-ians into Protestants/Orthodox and Roman Catholic....

Interesting question, from someone who left the true faith to embrace false doctrine. There were a few thousand of you about 500 years ago, and thats why Christianity got divided. We didn't divided it: The people who broke away from the Church divided it.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.


parts of this post adapted from
http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Interesting question, from someone who left the true faith to embrace false doctrine. There were a few thousand of you about 500 years ago, and thats why Christianity got divided. We didn't divided it: The people who broke away from the Church divided it.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.


parts of this post adapted from
[URL="http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp[/URL]

Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus Why is it that you seperate CHRIST-ians into Protestants/Orthodox and Roman Catholic....
Interesting question, from someone who left the true faith to embrace false doctrine. There were a few thousand of you about 500 years ago, and thats why Christianity got divided. We didn't divided it: The people who broke away from the Church divided it.
:D I haven't broke away from JESUS yet, but when I do, thou shalt be the first to know.

Now, can we return to Peter and pope/papacy :cool:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7213672&page=44
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Gala 1:68 But even if-ever we, or a messenger out of heaven, should be well-messaging/eu-aggelizhtai <2097> (5735) to ye beside which we well-messagizing/eu-hggelisameqa <2097> (5668) to ye, anathema/anaqema <331> let him be.
9 As we have declared before and at present again, I am saying if any is well-messagizing beside which ye beside got, anathema/anaqema <331> let him be.

Reve 22:3 and every anathema/kat-anaqema <2652> not shall be still. And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lamb-kin/Word in Her shall be, and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟49,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The true church does not exist in how long someone has been around but exists on truth.

if the "true church" started anytime after 33 AD, then it was not started by Christ, and so not the true church. I don't want to be in a church that people made 500 or 200 or 50 years ago, and where they teach their own understanding of Scripture.. but in the one that Christ started and said it would be around till His Second Coming, lead by the Holy Spirit. :)
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟49,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Interesting question, from someone who left the true faith to embrace false doctrine. There were a few thousand of you about 500 years ago, and thats why Christianity got divided. We didn't divided it: The people who broke away from the Church divided it.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.


parts of this post adapted from
[URL="http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp[/URL]

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.
Forgive me...
Sorry bro. No offense intended. I love my EO brothers.


The true church does not exist in how long someone has been around but exists on truth.

Yup. And the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of Christian truth.

Thanks for playing.

Pope_Benedict_XVI.jpg
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yup. And the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of Christian truth.
Thanks for playing.
Okie Dokie :)

Luke 11:28 He yet said "indeed/rather/menounge <3304> happy/blessed/makarioi <3107> those hearing the Word of the God and keeping/guarding/fulassonteV <5442> (5723) it.

Reve 14:13 And I hear sound out of the heaven saying: Write thee! Happy/makarioi <3107> the dead ones, the ones in Lord dying from at present. Yea is saying the spirit, that they shall be resting out of the toils of them. For the works of them is following with them
 
Upvote 0

beamishboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2008
5,475
255
30
✟6,878.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
The papacy was NON existent for the first few hundred years of Christianity...
This a proof proven over and over and over and over again...

Howdy folksies!!!

Simon, as always, is absolutely right. In those days, the Pope (or Papa, as he was called affectionately) was no more than the bishop of a church with no jurisdiction over others.


 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟27,453.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Howdy folksies!!!

Simon, as always, is absolutely right. In those days, the Pope (or Papa, as he was called affectionately) was no more than the bishop of a church with no jurisdiction over others.
Hey Beam,
So glad to see you back hope your break was spirit filled and your studies went well...:thumbsup:

Yes we can agree with Schaff, Shelley and even some Roman theologians that ...
"the concept of papal rule of the whole church was established by slow and painful stages. Leo is a major figure in that process because he provides for the first time the biblical and theological bases of the papal claim."
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry bro. No offense intended. I love my EO brothers.

I'm not going to derail this thread, but if you don't mind, let me ask a few simple questions.

Did in fact "The Church of Antioch" (that's the Church I belong to) ever come under, "The Church of Rome"?

What does one do with all the other Bishops that we have all been following if there was only one, that is to say, the Bishop of Rome?

Why did the Apostles and Bishops gather in councils to have meetings if "one" was left in charge?

Why does the Bible state that all the Apostles will sit on thrones as our judges in the eternal realm if there is only one to answer to?

You see my problem with what you are saying?

All Bishops are equal in council, and the only way we know that The Holy Spirit has spoken is if the entire Church (laity included) agree that what has been declared by a council is what all Christians everywhere have believed from the beginning.

IMHO ~ The Church of Rome fails to answer these questions, and chooses to focus on it's own Apostolic Chair as being the only chair.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The papacy was NON existent for the first few hundred years of Christianity...
This a proof proven over and over and over and over again...

That is an untrue statement. The first Christians speak out in opposition to what you have posted:

Irenaeus:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian:
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


Cyprian of Carthage:
"The Lord says to Peter: &#8216;I say to you,&#8217; he says, &#8216;that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... &#8217; [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him&#8212;when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).


Eusebius of Caesarea:
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter&#8217;s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9&#8211;10 [A.D. 312]).


Optatus:
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head&#8212;that is why he is also called Cephas [&#8216;Rock&#8217;]&#8212;of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).



Jerome:
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter&#8217;s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says &#8216;With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,&#8217; the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine:
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, &#8216;Upon this rock I will build my Church&#8217; . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
.

I believe the subject of this thread is whether or not the "Rock" in Matt .16 refers to Peter. The answer is, IT DOES, as these protestant ministers point out:


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).
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟27,453.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is an untrue statement. The first Christians speak out in opposition to what you have posted:

Irenaeus:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian:
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


Cyprian of Carthage:
"The Lord says to Peter: &#8216;I say to you,&#8217; he says, &#8216;that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... &#8217; [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him&#8212;when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
I deleted all the 4th century and beyond...And of these there is nothing that indicates Rome has any sort of "universal authority" nor that anything was handed directly from Peter himself alone...
 
Upvote 0

beamishboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2008
5,475
255
30
✟6,878.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Hey Beam,
So glad to see you back hope your break was spirit filled and your studies went well...:thumbsup:

Yes we can agree with Schaff, Shelley and even some Roman theologians that ...
"the concept of papal rule of the whole church was established by slow and painful stages. Leo is a major figure in that process because he provides for the first time the biblical and theological bases of the papal claim."

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the welcome. Your novice here went through extensive studies but my shortcoming is my memory. I don't think I can remember what I've studied and quote them and use them the way you can. But the beamishboy is still growing. Biologically, I only have a few more years to say that cos growth stops at 17 or 18. Hehe.
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
.

I believe the subject of this thread is whether or not the "Rock" in Matt .16 refers to Peter. The answer is, IT DOES, as these protestant ministers point out:


ALBERT BARNES (NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: &#8216;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&#8217; Notes on the New Testament, 170].



JOHN BROADUS ( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that &#8216;upon this rock&#8217; 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&#8217;s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].



CRAIG L. BLOMBERG ( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
"The expression &#8216;this rock&#8217; almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following &#8216;the Christ&#8217; in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter&#8217;s name (Petros) and the word &#8216;rock&#8217; (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 &#8216;this rock&#8217; Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter&#8217;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&#8217; declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter&#8217;s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter&#8217;s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church&#8217;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 &#8216;rock&#8217; 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 (&#8216;Peter&#8217;) to petra is that petra was the normal word for &#8216;rock.&#8217; . . . 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 &#8216;on this rock [petra]&#8217; indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student&#8217;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).
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I believe the subject of this thread is whether or not the "Rock" in Matt .16 refers to Peter. The answer is, IT DOES, as these protestant ministers point out:
Greetings. I do not take heed too much to either RC, Orthodox or Protestant Ministers interpretation of the word. I am sure that the Orthodox will bring up evidence from either the early Orthodox or evern Protestant ministers that will say the opposite.
In either case, we are all Ministers of Fire :thumbsup:

Hebrews 1:7 And toward indeed to the messengers he is saying 'Who is making His messengers spirits and the ministers/leitourgouV <3011> of Him of fire/puroV <4442> a flame/floga <5395>' [Psalm 104:4]

Reve 11:5 and if any them willing to injure, fire/pur <4442> is going out of the mouth of them and is devouring the enemies of them. And if any should be willing them to injure, thusly is binding him to be killed.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.