Peter as rock

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.

Elsie: Mighty broad tar brush you're using here. (Post #140)

imardmd1: Yep. Those derived from the W&H/Nestle/UBS-derived translational school. My opinion, that is, which counts a lot with me. Others are FRee to have theirs, for which I'm glad. (Post #159)

Elsie: And just which ones ARE these? (Post #173)

All of them. Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, Today's English Version (paraphrase), New English Bible, Living Bible (and its other guises), English Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, etc., etc., etc.

If you are going to claim that the dog ate your homework; at LEAST point out which dog it was!

I don't think you're quite that ignorant. I just presume you're trying to establish a haughty platform from which to cast your aspersions. It's not gaining greater respect from me to you, my FRiend. (Though actually, it is not essential that you respect me, for I have enough of my own.)

But, apologizing for my tardiness in replying, here are my authorities, somewhat "dog-eared" from long, deep, continuous, and respectful use by great Bible commentators for the last five hundred years and more:

(1) the Masoretic Text of the "Old Testament" (the First Covenant or Will, the revelation of how God dealt with humankind until the moment Jesus said on the Cross, 'It stands fulfilled'), as summarized in Wikipedia:

"Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, having collated a vast number of manuscripts, systematized his material and arranged the Masorah in the second Bomberg edition of the Bible (Venice, 1524–25). Besides introducing the Masorah into the margin, he compiled at the close of his Bible a concordance of the Masoretic glosses for which he could not find room in a marginal form, and added an elaborate introduction – the first treatise on the Masorah ever produced. In spite of its numerous errors, this work has been considered by some as the "Textus Receptus" of the Masorah[9] (Würthwein 1995:39), and was used for the English translation of the Old Testament for the King James Version."

and

(2) the Byzantine/Majority Textform of the canonical "New Testament" as represented by the carefully chosen manuscripts chosen by Desiderius Erasmus (rejecting the obscure Vatican text), compiled and published by him, and to which the title "Received Text" (Latinized as 'Textus Receptus') was popularly applied by the assenting scholars of the sixteenth century. This textform has also been researched and presented to the public by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (who are no fans of the Westcott/Hort adherents) and simply published as "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text" (effectively critiqued by Daniel B.Wallace. Another form of it is the volume presented by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont, titled "The Greek New Testament For Beginning Readers: Byzantine Textform" which was, with the TR, used for translating "The Gospels: A Precise Translation" by Fred Wittman, freely available by applying for it online. I have copies of both, as well as the TR issue by Trinitarian Bible Society.

The next most important authority is:

(3) Holy Bible (Containing The Old and New Testaments) in the King James Version, revised/translated by a superior panel of Crown-commissioned scholars appointed by James I Stuart, King of England, to produce a volume authorized across the British Commonwealth as the single approved version for use by the Church of England for its implementation to all English-speaking peoples.

These are my authorities by which my critiques of other versions are compared. I think they can hold their own against any of the supposedly "better" late-coming Alexandrinian-based contenders for the crown of truth that pit themselves against the majority of Jewish scribes and Byzantine/Reformation churches through whom the inspired Holy Scriptures have been preserved and accurately translated in the literal equivalent sense.

No, don't change the footing. The TEV ("Good News for Modern Man") tells enough of the Gospel lucidly that people can be saved by reading it. So can I, but I am not the Bible. So forget about that line of undermining the authority of the traditional texts.

It's the finer points of whether a version can be trusted throughout that causes comparisons to come to one's attention. It is a fact that Erasmus can be considered the true father of the Reformation, because his Greek text, together with the rendered Masoretic text, translated into the vernacular languages, brought about the downfall of the Vulgate as being trustworthy for the salvation and guidance of regenerated disciples.

How about it if you get a copy of "If The Foundations Be Destroyed" by (Pastor) Charles "Chick" Salliby that compares the KJV and the NIV side by side, before you go much further in your endorsement of the Alexandrininan-based versions. I believe Salliby is a Wesleyan/Arminian (you-can-lose-your-salvation) minister. Here is the voice of one of his readers, commenting on the Amazon ad page:

Great book, but you have to read it in sections, it is hard to digest in one sitting. It has a lot of good information and it gives you the truth of what is being done to the Christian Bible. If you change God's word, then you change the message, and if the message is changed then it is a different gospel, a different Jesus and different spirit as the Apostle Paul teaches in; 2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." Satan is a liar! Be careful what you read and double check the publisher's, Author's and if it hits your spirit wrong, then PAY ATTENTION TO THAT. Peace to all who love the Lord!"

Another more general treatment of the Byzantine versus the synthetic "critical" text might be "Touch Not The Unclean Thing" by David Sorenson, dealing with preservation versus "scholarship" in selecting the Greek texts from which to grow spiritually.

Whether you agree with him or not, you ought at least to give this volume a moment of your attention. Here is what one reader says:

Why are there so many Bible translations? Are they really any different? Why does the King James Version (KJV) use so many archaic words? Why are some verses so different from translation to translation? Can we really know what God said so long ago? Is the Bible we use the same one the Early Church used? How did it reach us today? Was King James a moral man?
These are just a few of the many questions David Sorenson methodically answers in this excellent book. First, he explains the issue and its importance. Why is there a debate over which Bible to use? Does it matter which Bible we use?
Then He explains the three major factions around the translation issue. He briefly debunks the KJV Only position; leaving the majority of the book to deal with the remaining two positions: the Critical Text and the Received Text position.
Don’t get scared off by the technical terms. He spends a good amount of time defining all of the specialized terms. They really aren’t hard. They even make sense after you’re used to them.
The next chunk of the book is a detailed history of both the KJV and the other translations. That was eye opening. Did you know that Luther, Tyndale weren’t the first to translate the Bible into the common language? It’s amazing to watch as, through the centuries, God protected His Word enabling us to have it as a sure foundation for our salvation. Sorenson also introduces us to many of the men who labored so hard to bring the Bible to us in English, Erasmus, King James, Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Lancelot Andrews, and so many more.
No book is perfect, and I would have to say that the part of the book I question is Sorenson’s inclusion in the history section of this book a rather speculative discussion of Westcott and Hort’s beliefs. Yes, it is important to know what they believed, but if there is not very definite proof it should not be included.
How does all this history affect us now? Can it affect the way we know God? Can it affect our doctrine? Is it important? The answer that Sorenson has reached is. YES! It does. It is.
This book helped strengthen my trust in the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. It removed the confusion that surrounds this issue. He strongly exhorts us to ‘earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints’. That in the author’s opinion included standing firm for the inerrancy of Word of God. Not just what the scholars have cobbled together today, but for the entire Bible as read by generations of Christians."

If you're not a Thessalonian in mindset, these might be at least a little intriguing, especially if you want to teach others what it means to grow in Christian maturity and favor with God and man.

the old 'because it's ALWAYS been done this way' argument.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9 AV).

If you're starting off on the right foot, that's what preservation is all about, Els. The ones who proclaim something new are likely to be liars, my FRiend. The Greek text presented by Westcott and Hort (his protoge), synthesized out of three basic Alexandrian codices that were not only corrupted, but not even in agreement with each other, was never before seen by mankind before 1891 from the offices of Bishop of Durham. Who was also, by the way, the first president of the British Christian Social Union party, the main author of the "social gospel" that has so tainted the modern denominations. A true innovator. Cutting and snipping the Greek for his own fame and acknowledgment? The argument I gave is not fallacious.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Ps. 12:6-7 AV).

Jesus ordered the disciples and all the subsequent followers:

"Teaching them to observe^G5083 all things whatsoever I have commanded you: . . ." (Mat 28:20a AV).
-------

Strongs Number G5083

τηρέω
tēreō
Thayer Definition:
1) to attend to carefully, take care of
. . 1a) to guard
. . 1b) metaphorically to keep, one in the state in which he is
. . 1c) to observe
. . 1d) to reserve: to undergo something
--------

This essentially means to keep from change, generation to generation, until He comes.

Are you REALLY trying to tell me (and any others still in this thread) that NONE of the HORRIBLE translations you've mentioned canNOT get a fella saved and on his/her way to Heaven?

Those are your words, pal, and not mine. They persist in calling me a liar by manufacturing a motive you want others to read from my posts. Actually, it's your methodology that perplexes others. But not me.

======

"As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife" (Prov. 26:18-21)

I'm considering the idea that at the base, you do not really like or respect people here very much, Els, or you wouldn't be continually trying to wound them and stir up strife just for the "fun" of it, to get a smirk from the observer.

In the end, it's not a pretty thing, Els, is it?

It is the churches visible that are the Kingdom of Heaven, that are wheart and tares, that are bad fish and good fish, in whose brances the ravens roost and pick the seeds of the sown gospel that no others may benefit of that seed, monstrous freaks that have multitudes of energy-sucking leaves, but no fruit.

Jesus' Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, is not of this world, to us invisible, but not to God, or the angels (bad or good), the friends of the Bride, and the regenerated saints alone who have passed into Glory and the presence of the Prince; the panegyric festive assembly which is the church gathering in heaven whose Head is the First-begotten from the Dead, and whose members are written in the Lamb's Book of Life: That is the invisible church of saved souls only, not of others who may even be hoping for it, but not throughly and wholly committed to the Messiah by faith alone, through God's grace alone, made accepted in The Beloved. No "church" on earth is of that class, although it may have constituents who are the possession of The Lord.

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.