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.
Then why do Catholics use the title *Father* to address their priests?
1 Cor 4
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Paul is encouraging them to call him father.
So the words of Jesus are not preeminent over anything else in Scripture for Catholics, after all, eh?
So the words of Jesus are not preeminent over anything else in Scripture for Catholics, after all, eh?
And obviously not for you either but you just don`t get it do you, ah should i address you as doctor or reverend?
The Spirit of Christ inspired the recording of what the Lord said in Greek, with it greater ranges of expression, and provided more and expanded revelation thereby. And as a study of duplicate accounts evidences, sometimes the Spirit of Christ rephrased or expanded (or contracted) on what the Lord said, in giving a more comprehensive revelation.
Therefore we must go by the Greek. Meanwhile, what the Lord said is not all that matters, but what He meant, and there would be no debate if what He said was not taken to mean that Peter was the first of a line of infallible popes reigning over the church, to whose sppsd successors we are all supposed to look to (until their sppsdly Divinely guided church elects on they do not like.
But as stated, a study of the words for rock and stone in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), shows that this Rock was the subject of Peter's confession, not Peter himself, his humble street-level leadership notwithstanding.
Exactly what do you think I don’t get?
Besides, turning it around and attacking me is NOT an answer to the question.
It’s an evasion of answering the question, which you didn’t and it’s there for all to see.
But we don’t KNOW what He said “in His own language” as there is no record of it.
All that people who appeal to that have is what they THINK He probably might have said in His own language.
Or more likely what they wish He would have said.
The Holy Spirit inspired and preserved the Scripture in Greek.
Now, unless you want to try to claim that how He inspired Scripture was in error, there just aren’t many other options.
But that’s not a path that I would even want to consider taking.
But we don’t KNOW what He said “in His own language” as there is no record of it.
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,
It is agreed by most all scholars that Jesus spoke Aramaic, Cephas in Aramaic is the same as the English word rock.
He has already proven to be correct, years later even Paul referred to Simon as Cephas about five times so it must have been a well known event.
You need to take your phoney strawman anti catholic arguments to the trash where they belong and get back into the kitchen where you belong.
Besides, turning it around and attacking me is NOT an answer to the question.
You claim to believe in scripture which i also believe in Sola scripture or what ever the Reverend so and so bastards call it but then you try to twist it around to mean nothing.
When you can not win an argument with truth you start going all around it with scripture that has nothing to do with it or you start trying to change the subject.
So i am sorry that i get agitated but you people are no different than the scribes and Pharisees who Jesus said were the sons of their father the devil.
Jesus said we must come to him as a child, would a child try to refute every thing he said?
Read my post 468.
Is an opinion, not a fact.
You still have not answered as to why Catholics use the term *father* or, for that matter, why the church so blatantly disobeys Jesus in assigning that title to their priests and requires its use.
Still waiting for an answer.
Where does Paul encourage them to call him father?? You’re reading your Roman Catholic bias into the text. That’s a poor way to understand the Word.
Proving once again that it is the Roman Catholic, though not always but usually in the majority, who is the first to resort to the personal attack and/or profanity when the argument goes against them. It's a clear sign the RC has lost the argument.
I hope the post is not flagged or removed so all the world can see the mindset of the Roman Catholic on display.
As a Roman Catholic you are not allowed an opinion in these matters. You have to rely only upon the official teachings of your denomination.
1 Cor 4 14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Paul is encouraging them to call him father.
Does Paul refer to himself as "Father Paul" anywhere in the New Testament?
Does he tell them to call him Father in the New Testament?
Paul?
HE wasn't the first pope: papa!!
Joshua 4:1-11
Not quite. The Book says the names were ON the stones.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
So; just who WAS the 12th Apostle?
Matthias or Paul??
Not quite. The Book says the names were ON the stones.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
So; just who WAS the 12th Apostle?
Matthias or Paul??
Does he tell them to call him Father in the New Testament?
I have begotten you through the gospel.
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.