Posted on 06/02/2018 6:34:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: A Protestant told me recently that Peter can’t be the rock since Jesus is described as the rock and cornerstone of the Church, and he showed me a couple of places where Jesus is described as the cornerstone and even a stumbling block to unbelievers. Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C.
Answer: Of course Jesus, Peter and others who are called “rock” or stone are not literally chunks of stone. What we have in such attestations is the application of a metaphor. Scripture, like any lengthy document uses many metaphors, similes and analogies. Such things can be true in different ways.
In the Scriptures we see that Peter is called “the rock” by Jesus (Mt 16:18). Jesus is also called a stone (1 Pt 2:6). And the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones and Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The Book of Revelation describes the Twelve Apostles as foundation stones (Rev 21:14). So there are a number of “stone” references that need not be mutually exclusive.
Jesus is the deepest and surest foundation of the Church. That the Apostles, prophets and, in a special way, Peter are rock is understood in a subordinate sense. That is, they are rock and foundation for the Church on account of the grace and support of Jesus.
|
|
The Protestant to whom you refer fails to see the context and metaphorical sense of the texts and terms. He also fails to see that Jesus, while not abandoning his Church as her true head and foundation, does assign Peter a unique status to be the visible and identifiable rock on which the Church will be built. Peter (and his successors) is the rock, but he does not stand in midair. He is supported by Christ and his grace and affirmed by him as the visible rock and head of the Church. The Protestant approach is to see the Church as invisible. But Jesus did not establish an invisible Church. It is visible and with a visible rock and head: Peter and his successors.
That might mess up the apple cart if they were to acknowledge that.
To be a member of the REAL Church Jesus established one confesses Jesus is The One Whom God sent for our redemption. Too often Catholics conflate the REAL Church with their institutional church, as a means to empower their ORG (rhymes with Borg).
Dude....you a priest?
Apostle Paul: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
90% of the FRomans on this thread: NO NO NO NO NO YOU HERETIC! YOU GOTTA BE ROMAN CATHOLIC! YOU GOTTA BE ROMAN CATHOLIC TO BE SAVED! WE WERE FIRST, YOU HERETIC! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Yeah; you guys keep repeating it; but it just as false today as it was in Day One.
***
Paul sez: “[b]ecause, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Rome sez: “YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR CHURCH AND DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO REEEEEEEEEEEE.”
And this from the ‘church’ that claims that it’s Apostolic.
Just read the book your chosen religious organization assembled SO long ago.
Quit being misled with the writings it WISHED it had included later.
While I can’t read the minds of Catholics or anyone else...
1: It’s very hard to swallow one’s pride sometimes.
2: Indoctrination/teaching from a young age is difficult to overcome too.
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
In the language Jesus spoke it would have been.
And I also say to you that you are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Since it was written in Greek it was changed to petros but that mistake has been fixed as it is now in English and Jesus plainly said rock, Peter is the rock in English amd also in Aramaic.
Why did the Holy Spirit select Greek as the language in which to preserve and communicate the NT?
Or is it your position that the Holy Spirit would have preferred to use Aramaic but was somehow prevented from doing so?
Peter himself refers to Jesus as the Rock on which the church is built.
And he calls believers living stones and a holy priesthood, again, not putting himself in any special position of authority.
It doesn’t matter whether it was Aramaic or Greek; Peter himself contradicts the Roman Catholic idea that Jesus is making him a special rock.
I understand what you’re saying and I 100% agree. However, there remains the issue of Providence. I.e.: the ability of God to direct circumstances, versus God as a helpless or disinterested bystander who allows things to happen willy nilly.
Clearly the Bible teaches that God is in control. This doesn’t mean that He overrides the gift of freewill that He bestowed when He made man in His image. But it does mean that He causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose.
Since this promise is true, it can be stated with complete and utter certitude that the selection of Greek for the transmission of the divinely inspired NT mss was NOT happenstance. Rather, Greek was the language purposefully and specifically chosen by God. That is the only position consistent with God’s Providence and God’s promises.
As noted upthread, there is an obvious reason for God’s selection. Namely, the fact that Greek is one of—if not THE—most precise languages in existence. By using this language, God minimized murkiness and ambiguity. As anyone who has studied Greek knows, the language embodies a veritable genius for clarity and precision. It is not an overstatement to posit that one factor in “the fullness of time,” was exactly the widespread use of the Greek language. It was and is singularly ideal for clearly communicating the sometimes complex and difficult teachings of the Nt.
Nt = NT
In support of your statement that Jesus did not found an organization, here is the passage in which He specifies the nature of worship under the New Covenant [i.e.: it’s not location/organization-centered but spirit-and-truth-centered]:
John 4:
19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
No one is dismissing the calling of Saul, who is also called Paul. As it is written in Acts 9:15 about Saul, “But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.’”
Well, it sure seems Romam Catholicism does. If God can call Paul, who was not one of the original disciples and not part of “apostolic succession”, why can He not call men to serve today?
If that was what Jesus really meant to say, then why wasn't it worded, "And I also say to you that you are Cephas, and on this Cephas you I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."???
I suppose someone could experience what Saul did, but I have never heard of anyone after Saul who was knocked to the ground, blinded, and heard the voice of Jesus.
You’re avoiding the question.
This may interest you (Re the number of documented pedo priests—8,000 iirc):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3660307/posts?page=600#600
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.