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.
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
I believe you need to get out of the dictionary and just read what the Bible says because what you say that it says is not the truth.
If you believed any thing Jesus said you would not have any need to try to come up with every definition in the book.
As i have said before i am not saying that Peter was the rock that Jesus was going to build his Church on, i am just saying that Jesus did call peter a rock.
John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Greek translates it to stone, exactly the same meaning so please quit calling Jesus a liar.
Immediately after the Good Confession Jesus called Peter, ‘Petros,’ and the confession itself—i.e.: the foundation upon which the church is built—’petra.’ That is a fact.
Hat a petty minded thing to think and accuse others of.
Our criteria for believing something is whether it not it is found in or can be strongly supported with, Scripture.
It’s not our fault that most of Catholic teaching doesn’t fall into that category.
Making both petra and petros translate into the same thing and then building a doctrine on that weak translation, is what makes God a liar.
Christ is the PETRA on which the church is built. Paul identified Him as such.
Paul did NOT say that the church was built on PETROS which he very easily could have if he meant the church was built on Peter.
The Greek words are distinct and mean different things and were chosen for that reason.
It’s really revealing, the depths of deception, that enable someone to deny what Scriptiure says to hang on to and defend a cherished doctrine.
Doctrine should be compared to Scripture and adjusted to Scripture if necessary. Comparing Scripture to doctrine and adjusting Scripture to the doctrine shows that deception has already occurred.
Do you recall the long, fiercely pitched battle you waged against Scripture bc Greek differentiates between cousins and brothers? The inspired Word of God clearly, unquestionably refers to Jesus’ *brothers,* - NOT His ‘cousins.’
Your battle is not with fellow believers. Your battle is with God. It was He, and not any mere mortal, who selected the language in which to reveal His Word.
Think long and hard, please, before you continue this battle against God. Rather, pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you into wisdom and insight. You will be eternally grateful if you do.
Jesus never said to Peter *Upon YOU I will build my church.*
Nor did He say to the other disciples *Upon HIM I will build my church.*
The church is build of living stones (us) of which Peter, for example, is a small stone of, as are the rest of us.
It’s actual blasphemy, imo. The idea that Peter is the foundation, and the chief corner stone—Jesus—rests upon Peter, gives a sinful man precedence over God. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The church is built upon divinely revealed truth: that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. No less a foundation is sufficient.
And all the efforts we see by Catholics to dismiss, disregard, downplay or in any other way invalidate the integrity of Scripture by making their church the owner of it and responsible for it, do just that.
They try to make and convince us that Scripture is subservient to their church and its interpretation.
They elevate their religion in authority above and beyond what is written.
.
Obvious problems with the “Peter the Rock” foolishness begins with the fact that Yeshua did not state that he was founding a “church,” he said that he would “Build” (expand) his already existing Kehillah (congregation).
There is no “NT Church” mentioned anywhere in the scriptures.
.
.
>> “I like to immediately cut through all other stuff, and simply ask people, what is your plan of salvation?” <<
Yehova’s “Plan of Salvation” remains his Covenant that he renewed in his Son’s sinless blood that poured out at the cross and flowed down through the crack in the rock onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant, in the grotto below, where Jeremiah had placed it.
All of the confusion comes from bad reading, and wicked desires of sinful men to avoid his eternal covenant.
.
He did not *renew* any covenant.
He established a NEW one.
His own words.
Luke 22:17-21 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.
Hebrews 7:11-19 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,
“You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 8:1-13 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.
For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 9:11-16 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
Nor do we need to obey the Law.
Here is the apostles decision, guided by the Holy Spirit about the need to obey the Law.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
You are twisting the word!
There is no “new covenant.”
There is only the renewed covenant as Jeremiah prophesied.
The “new” is the old prefected in Yeshua’s blood.
It is only with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. There is no church mentioned anywhere in the scriptures.
None of the references you posted agrees with your assertion.
You can continue to deny the clear plain meaning of Scripture all you want.
I did not “twist” anything.
All I did was post the Scripture, there was no *interpretation* involved at all.
If you don’t like it, your issue is with God and the Holy Spirit who inspired it.
I’m not so sure about that, You nay have gotten too specific too soon. That is, is this entity even an animal, let alone an elephant.
I believe in Messiah Jesus as Lord and Master, not in Simon called Peter nor his supposed wanna-be "successors."
Michael Rood has poisoned you mind, ES.
The end of Jewish authority and responsibility to proclaim God's love and righteousness was about to be fulfilled with the death of Jesus upon the Cross. Jesus instituted HIS New Covenant the night before His crucifixion. The New Covenant was not based upon comprehending the righteousness of Holy God (if you could live up to the full commandments you would be living righteousness as godly nature), it was to be the proclamation of God's Grace toward us who cannot meet His righteousness standard.
The Grace of God has always been God's plan A. He has no plan B. IF someone strove to live by the commandments of the law, God measured that sincerety so He could impart His Grace. His Grace in the New Covenant is not achieved by striving to do the works of the law, and His Grace never came to an unregenerate soul by doing the works of the law, that's why the sacrifices wwere used, to 'carry away from the camp the sins of the people' as a foretaste of what Jesus would do for us on the Cross. In doing the ritual, they were doing what Abraham did, they were believing God. BUT ...
The law was a school master, to cause one to seek the mercy of God because the law could not be lived to the righteousness standard God requires to enter into His Holy Presence. SO ...
God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh (but having no sin). AND ...
The righteousness standard is imparted to those who believe Jesus is The Christ and that God has sent Him to be our Savior, rescuing us from our sinful state. THIS is the Grace of God in Christ. No man or woman will be in Heaven except they are born from above by 'faithing' (action word) in Jesus as Lord and Savior. That is the new covenant Jesus instituted on the night before the Cross. During this New Covenant, the simple act of human will, to believe God has sent Jesus for our rescue from our sinful flesh nature activates The Grace of God in Christ ro each believer. BECAUSE ...
We do the same thing which imparted righteousness to Abraham ... we believe God. Abraham lived before the law was given. We live after the law was fulfilled in Jesus. THUS ...
When Jesus fulfilled the law, there was then need for a new covenant, based on the simplest of acts of human will, to believe God sent Jesus for our Salvation. No works of the law needed, since Jesus fulfilled those. The New Covenant was sealed by the blood of Christ, righteous blood which was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat fulfilling the law of righteousness we cannot live to, in the totality God requires. So by God's Grace in Christ, this righteousness is imparted to us when we believe, simply believe and let Him renew us thereafter. Of course, some will not let Him do it. They will have their 'works' thereafter burned away at the Bema Seat in Heaven.
It is written, 'Many are called but few are chosen.' So to be chosen we must let Him do it, save us. For it is also written: 'Faithful is He that calleth you, for HE will also do it'.
Meant to ping you
And thanks for sharing this thought:
When Jesus fulfilled the law, there was then need for a new covenant, based on the simplest of acts of human will, to believe God sent Jesus for our Salvation.
By it, God provides the knowledge of how He is going to continue dealing with mankind in the absence of the earthly blood sacrifice that cannot take away sin, but only covers it with the sign of a death that occurred as the cost of committing sin.
Salvation has never been a matter of outward actions but a matter of the heart.
The Pharisees kept the Law and yet Jesus continually condemned them.
And he set the bar even higher than Law keeping in Matthew 5-7. He addressed the heart, which is where sin comes from in the first place.
Even today, He looks for men and women after His own heart.
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.