Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SittinYonder
Nope sorry. The rock was Peter's faith, not Peter. Of course that's sort of why I'm not Catholic. As Matthew Henry said so well
. Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated to rock is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him
I look to the Word, not a man with a silly hat. I mean it's a cool hat and all but it doesn't mean a thing to me. And believe it or not, I'm still going to Heaven because of my faith in Christ
177 posted on 04/05/2007 1:27:13 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]


To: billbears; eyespysomething
I look to the Word

No ... You're looking to Matthew Henry.

History proves me right. I'm not claiming that Matthew 16:18 suggests that the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true church; I'm not suggesting that the papacy has any claim to being the link between man and God because it bases legitimacy of itself on Peter being the first Pope.

However, Christ said in Matthew 16:18 that he would build his church with Peter as its foundation. Transferring that to mean Peter's faith is, IMO, a splitting of hairs. History shows that Peter was the foundation of the Christian church, regardless of which hares you're splitting.

I also didn't make any references, implied or otherwise, about where you would be spending eternity.

My point remains: if indeed South Park does more to advance conservative values than anything else on television, then we should all kill our televisions.

South Park is juvenile fart jokes and offends purely for the sake of offending. Or, as in the case of last night's episode, for the sake of stroking Trey Stone and Matt Parker's egos.

179 posted on 04/05/2007 1:58:18 PM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic þæt gehate, þæt ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille furðor gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson