Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome
Ignatius ^ | not given | Stephen K. Ray

Posted on 04/18/2010 6:47:04 PM PDT by Salvation

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray | From Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church

There is little in the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the
apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit's work in the primitive Church.

History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely, the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their cumulative feet.

Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again--for themselves. And what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: "To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant." [1] As the Protestant churches continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and tradition of the primitive Church--the very Church bequeathed to us by the apostles.

Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is entitled Peter and the Rock and asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, "The contemporary Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church doctors." To ascertain whether or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But along with what the Fathers say, we need to hear their silence as well.

While reading Webster's book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church's teaching on the Papacy, that there are no citations "revealed" in his book in which a Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes! We may find differing interpretations of Peter's primacy, which is what we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.

I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.

The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor's authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a decree of Stephen's on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate, or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said, "No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?" If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound.

As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New Testament was, or which books it contained--a discussion, by the way, that raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther--in any way prove that somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that there were "apostolic" books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority was attached to Peter and his See in Rome.

Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the prophets [3] and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father. [4] The apostles themselves were abused and rejected. [5] Should it surprise us that many in our present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic Church and "assembled in unauthorized meetings". [6] Rejecting the Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day.

Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own--asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially "Protestant" in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic?

Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study. 

Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account.

In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the metaphors used--foundations, builders, stones, and so on--are as varied as the gem's surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church), understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I provide an extended quotation from Salmon's book to lay the foundation (pun intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and the foundation of the Church.
It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):--"Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14) :--"The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, "for one is our Father which is in heaven." And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter's also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone. [7]

Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome. We divide the study in this way:

1. The Life and Ministry of Peter
A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament?

B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop, and die a martyr's death in the city of Rome?
2. The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church
A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest non-canonical writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.

B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced throughout the first five centuries.
Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written teachings per se, but by the actions of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are hostile to the Catholic Church's teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to "proof-text", by which they point out things that seem to support their contentions and ignore everything that does not.

Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially anti-sacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God's economy, however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die" (Ex 20:19). Take another example--Paul. God could very well have "saved" him directly, but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he "was not running in vain", even though he had received revelations and had even been taken up to the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). No Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is difficult to understand the fullness of the faith. [8]

It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every Father's writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation espoused by the opposition. Much can be said about each of these topics and detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography.

In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition. Now let us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.


[1] John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 50.

[2] E-mail from William Webster dated August 16, 1997.

[3] Mt 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

[4] Jn 1:10-11: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not."

[5] Paul says in 2 Timothy 1: 15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phygelus and Hermogenes." The Apostle John writes in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

[6] "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985], 1:415 [hereafter ANF]).

[7] George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), 338-39.

[8] The objection will arise, "But we have only 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'" (1 Tim 2:5). To this the Catholic offers a hearty Amen! Yet we see, not four verses earlier, Paul commanding Timothy to pray for all men--to intercede (from the Latin intercedere, to intervene or go between, to mediate). Yes, Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, for such a unique covenant takes a unique mediator (Heb 8:6). But do we assume that, because Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, there is no longer any mediation in the Church? Prayer is mediation. We are mediating God's message to a sinful world when we preach the gospel. No finite human being can mediate an eternal covenant between God and man, but a pastor can certainly mediate God's word, and a simple soul can certainly intercede for the mighty. Mediation is alive and well as we enter into the New Covenant and participate in the mediating work of Christ.

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; petrineprimacy; popes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-128 next last
Stephen K. Ray was raised in a devout, loving Baptist family. His father was a deacon and Bible teacher and Stephen was very involved in the Baptist Church as a teacher of Biblical studies and lectured on a wide range of topics. Steve and his wife Janet entered the Catholic Church in 1994. In addition to running a family business, Steve spends time researching, writing, and teaching about the Catholic Faith. He is the author of Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, and St. John's Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary. He is currently producing a 10-video series for Ignatius Press called The Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation From Abraham to Augustine, filmed on location in the Holy Land. His website is

1 posted on 04/18/2010 6:47:04 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation

thanks Salvation!

2 posted on 04/18/2010 6:50:27 PM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...

**The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred.**

Comments, anyone?

3 posted on 04/18/2010 6:50:58 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

Most welcome!

4 posted on 04/18/2010 6:53:35 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome
Heart of the Church (St. Peter in Words and Stone)
A Saint for the Rest of Us
On This Rock

St. Peter and Rome
Did the Apostle Peter Ever Visit Rome?
Occasionally Naive and Fearful, Yet Honest and Capable of Repentance (Profile of St. Peter)
Saint Peter As Seen by His Successor (extraordinary document from B16 on his preaching and papacy)
Peter, Witness of the Resurrection (Papal preparations for Easter 2006)
The Fraternal Society of St. Peter on EWTN
Saint Peter and the Vatican, the Legacy of the Popes
Saint Peter and The Vatican - Legacy of the Popes

5 posted on 04/18/2010 6:56:46 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Due to the exigencies and contingencies precipitated by the climatic failure of roughly 531-544 (Mt. Hekla, among other things, blew up big time and spewed fluorine gas everywhere it could), the Irish church ended up fairly isolated from Rome for a very long time.

Eventually as the Irish began re~Christianizing Europe from the West, and Rome began re-Christianizing Europe from the South, there was a conflict.

Some imagine that Rome won. I think it's worth a thorough examination to see if that was really true ~ once that's completely established or discredited, then we might get into this business of a Catholic/Protestant conflict ~ which isn't as big as Catholics imagine it to be.

6 posted on 04/18/2010 7:02:46 PM PDT by muawiyah ("Git Out The Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>>~ which isn’t as big as Catholics imagine it to be. <<

Yeah, we’re always told that on FR Religion forum before we are called a multitude of names.

7 posted on 04/18/2010 7:08:17 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Names are just names. Can you imagine what it was like way back in the day when Rene d'Anjou woke up and discovered his grandsons had precipitated THE RELIGIOUS WARS?

Like, my goodness ~ fellow had close blood relatives on BOTH sides ~ killing each other even!

Names are good ~ they let people vent ~ and they are much better than killings.

8 posted on 04/18/2010 7:12:18 PM PDT by muawiyah ("Git Out The Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>>Names are good<<

Says the one not being called names.
Seriously, name calling is not for adults.

9 posted on 04/18/2010 7:15:46 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; netmilsmom

Oh, right, I get it. We Catholic FReepers should be grateful that the anti-Catholic bigot FReepers are just calling us names, instead of killing us.


10 posted on 04/18/2010 7:24:03 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
And vice versa.

The "Religious Wars" (owned, operated, organized and started by my relatives in Late Medieval France) ended with the Edict of Nantes which established ~ for probably the first time in human history ~ with a mandate for religious toleration.

They decided it was better to call each other names than to burn out towns, cities, farm fields, orchards, shipyards, and all sorts of things.

There followed a fairly decent period of time. Then came the Thirty Years War. It had a religious element in it. That ended with the Peace of Westphalia.

The modern "nation state" arose out of the standards established in that series of treaties. At the same time both Protestants and Catholics were strongly encouraged by all the parties and powers in Europe to buck up and take it like a man when somebody called names ~ and that's been pretty much the way it's been ever since.

I think it's a great idea, and I'm sure that a few weeks of the alternative you'd agree too!

BTW, the Orthodox didn't sign on not having been part of the altercation! And neither did the Moslems. This is instructive ~ our worst ideological conflicts since the end of WWII have involved the Russians (Orthodox) and now Islamofascism (certainly Moslem influenced).

Neither party in those conflicts pursued resolution after the manner imagined in the Peace of Westphalia.

Probably time to get those people signed on.

11 posted on 04/18/2010 7:39:07 PM PDT by muawiyah ("Git Out The Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
NOTE: I don't get called names?

Hmmm. Let me see if I can get the rules changed eh!

12 posted on 04/18/2010 7:41:53 PM PDT by muawiyah ("Git Out The Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; netmilsmom; Judith Anne

**I don’t get called names?**

Then you haven’t been on FR for very long.

13 posted on 04/18/2010 7:49:39 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Seems to me that Paul didn’t entirely respect Peter’s views.

May we find our lineage in Christ, not Peter. May we find our home in heaven, not Rome. May we promote Jesus, and not our particular denomination.

Yes, Roman Catholicism is one of the branches of faith whose root finds itself in Christ. Personally, I am grateful for the “remnant” that has continued through the root of Christ, separate from the heresies that emerged over centuries in the dominant denomination.

Again, I please with all who find their home in Rome: Let us promote Christ. May He increase, and our denominational preferences decrease. Let us think how we can spur one another on to deeper faith in Christ, rather than look for ways to slam the way others follow Him.

If you are a Christ-follower, you will meet me in heaven. He has welcomed me as a member of His family; please, consider me a full member of the family of God as well, a full participant in His church: the full body of those who follow Him. Don’t demean my faith in Jesus because I’m not a member of your particular denomination, your particular branch from the root of Jesus.

14 posted on 04/18/2010 7:57:07 PM PDT by Theo (May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Judith Anne; Salvation; NYer

>>NOTE: I don’t get called names?<<

Are you Catholic or LDS?
Those are the FReepers I see getting it.

Honestly, in this day and age, with the huge battle we have raging against us, I find it childish and unproductive.

15 posted on 04/18/2010 7:59:23 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The truth is that there is nothing in the Scriptures that support the monarchical episcopacy of the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, you cannot find anything in the Apostolic fathers that even mentions the papacy. Even the Scriptural passages used talks about the church being built upon the foundation of the apostles, not apostle. All the apostles shared equally in the Holy Ministry of Christ, not just Peter. In Acts, Peter has to defend himself in the Council of Jerusalem, and he is even rebuked by Paul at Galatia. There is nothing in the Scriptures or the early church that supports papal claims.
16 posted on 04/18/2010 8:01:47 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Judith Anne

How about 2010?
Let’s let bygones be bygones and talk about today on FR.

I just got off a doozy of a thread where some FReeper called me every name in the book because I didn’t agree with her that Jesus was the same person as an infant as He was when He was on the cross and that calling ones mother “woman” can be a sign of respect (as we Poles call our mothers Baba).

She even told me that Baba means crone. Nice.

17 posted on 04/18/2010 8:03:40 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Ring a bell? Matthew 16:18?

18 posted on 04/18/2010 8:06:33 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Maybe you didn’t read the article above?

**The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—”Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.” And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14) :—”The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” **

19 posted on 04/18/2010 8:11:02 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Theo
I agree.

Thank you

20 posted on 04/18/2010 8:12:51 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-128 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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