Blog : Church was built on Peter the Rock.

forgot login?
Languages
Help

Bringing people together in love and faith

Blogs > Cathoholic > My Blog > Church was built on Peter the Rock.

Church was built on Peter the Rock.

Cathoholic

6/21/2008 9:35 am

Many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are under the false assumption that Jesus built the Church on Peters "confession of faith" Not on Peter himself. I now will do my best on this post to explain how the one true Church was built on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. Christ of course is the builder of the Church, and he is the wise man who built his house on a rock.(Peter).

The non-Catholic interpretation is that Jesus was not referring to Peter but to Peters confession. It always baffles me when people tell me this
because as we are about to see, there is nothing in this verse that even hints that Jesus will build his Church on Peters confession of faith.

The scriptures are so clear on this that I see this as one of the few times there should not even be any argument over what it means.

To understand this will take patience on part of the reader, because these explanations cannot be dumbed down because of the significance of this truth.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock."

So for this point we learn one very important thing, Peters very name means rock. There is no question that Peters name means rock. Protestants try to argue that Jesus changed his name to "a small stone".

Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble.

Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock.

To make this easier to understand for those who are not familiar with this distinction, the New Testament was written in the greek language. However, Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. So when he used the word rock he was speaking in a language that used a word that meant big rock. Not little
rock as many on the BC thread try to imply with poor sources from the internet.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, (meaning those 2 words were used interchangebly all the time) so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Now, I realize that is quite a bit of information to follow. Take your time reading this slowly and carefully think about this. It actually took me quite a bit of time to understand these concepts so if you got this the first time around, your much smarter then I was. (grammer was never my strong point in school anyway!)

Now, if you look at the verse closely it says "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"

Some Christians actually try to argue that Christ is referring to himself as the rock in this sentence. But that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Think about this for a minute please, Jesus actually says this: "You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock I shall build my Church!"

It's clear Jesus is speaking directly to Peter. He would not word things in a way that would have confused us as to what he actually was trying to say.

If Jesus wanted to point out that he is referring to himself, he would have worded it like this: "You are Peter, and upon myself I shall build my Church!"

Thats what most Protestants are trying to make this verse say. Which it clearly doesn't. But thats how there actually interpreting it.

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

So lets run by this again ok?

Jesus identifies who PETER is. The same way Peter identifies who Christ is.

One guy says "Your the Christ!'

And Jesus says "Your the rock"

Isn't that amazing? It makes perfect sense that theirs a point where Peters confession of faith ends. Then Christs confession that Peter is rock on whom he will build the Church begins.

So once again lets sum up the things the Catholic Church teaches about this verse.

#1 Christ is not referring to Peters confession of faith, there is no mistaken this from grammatical reasoning that Jesus is talking to Peter, not talking about himself as non-Catholics claim.

#2 The argument that Peter was a "small stone" is a complete and unreliable argument for the simple fact that Jesus does earlier in the Bible refer Simon as Rock. Not little rock when he uses the word Kepha. (If Peter was a small rock the Bible would use the word Evna but it doesn't)

Lastly, I wish to make the point that Christ is also the Rock. That just because Peter is the Rock does not mean Christ (God) cannot be the rock of our faith. Christ is the very rock of our faith. However, the earthly Church had an actual foundation, that foundation was Peter and the Apostles on whom Jesus built the Church.

Jesus did not build a Church based on Peters confession of faith. He built a Church on actual living people.

Thank you for your time. For those who always thought Peters name meant a small stone, and who always thought that Jesus was referring to himself, I hope you found this explanation helpful in understanding why Catholics don't support the Protestant interpretation.

Moving forward, many Christians today have never heard the writings of the early Church Fathers. I highly recommend all Christians have a chance to read about what the early Church taught and how they were interpreting scripture.

Remember, they lived very close and some actual lived during the time of the Apostles. These men were not the least bit confused that Jesus built the Church on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles.

Now thats something worth thinking about isn't it?

Take care and God bless you all.

Hidden_Treasure

Ask me for a photo

6/21/2008 10:28 am

Jesus answered Peter, saying, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven."

The truth which Peter had confessed is the foundation of the believer's faith. It is that which Christ Himself has declared to be eternal life. But the possession of this knowledge was no ground for self-glorification. Through no wisdom or goodness of his own had it been revealed to Peter. Never can humanity, of itself, attain to a knowledge of the divine. "It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?" Job 11:8. Only the spirit of adoption can reveal to us the deep things of God, which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man." "God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." 1 Cor. 2:9, 10. "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him;" and the fact that Peter discerned the glory of Christ was an evidence that he had been "taught of God." Ps. 25:14; John 6:45. Ah, indeed, "blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee."

Jesus continued: "I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The word Peter signifies a stone,--a rolling stone. Peter was not the rock upon which the church was founded. The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord with cursing and swearing. The church was built upon One against whom the gates of hell could not prevail.

Centuries before the Saviour's advent Moses had pointed to the Rock of Israel's salvation. The psalmist had sung of "the Rock of my strength." Isaiah had written, "Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation." Deut. 32:4; Ps. 62; Isa. 28:16. Peter himself, writing by inspiration, applies this prophecy to Jesus. He says, "If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house." 1 Peter 2:3-5, R. V.

"Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. "Upon this rock," said Jesus, "I will build My church." In the presence of God, and all the heavenly intelligences, in the presence of the unseen army of hell, Christ founded His church upon the living Rock. That Rock is Himself,--His own body, for us broken and bruised. Against the church built upon this foundation, the gates of hell shall not prevail.

How feeble the church appeared when Christ spoke these words! There was only a handful of believers, against whom all the power of demons and evil men would be directed; yet the followers of Christ were not to fear. Built upon the Rock of their strength, they could not be overthrown.

For six thousand years, faith has builded upon Christ. For six thousand years the floods and tempests of satanic wrath have beaten upon the Rock of our salvation; but it stands unmoved.

Peter had expressed the truth which is the foundation of the church's faith, and Jesus now honored him as the representative of the whole body of believers. He said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"The keys of the kingdom of heaven" are the words of Christ. All the words of Holy Scripture are His, and are here included. These words have power to open and to shut heaven. They declare the conditions upon which men are received or rejected. Thus the work of those who preach God's word is a savor of life unto life or of death unto death. Theirs is a mission weighted with eternal results.

The Saviour did not commit the work of the gospel to Peter individually. At a later time, repeating the words that were spoken to Peter, He applied them directly to the church. And the same in substance was spoken also to the twelve as representatives of the body of believers. If Jesus had delegated any special authority to one of the disciples above the others, we should not find them so often contending as to who should be the greatest. They would have submitted to the wish of their Master, and honored the one whom He had chosen.

Instead of appointing one to be their head, Christ said to the disciples, "Be not ye called Rabbi;" "neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." Matt. 23:8, 10.

"The head of every man is Christ." God, who put all things under the Saviour's feet, "gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22, 23. The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. The Saviour declares, "All ye are brethren." All are exposed to temptation, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency. "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." The Lord "is the Rock, His work is perfect." "Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him." Jer. 17:5; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 2:12.

Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments. --Jesus.

Cathoholic

543 posts

6/21/2008 10:45 am

Quoting Hidden_Treasure:

As I Have stated before, Christ is also referred to as being the Rock. They both share this title. Just because Jesus has this distinction does not mean he cannot confer this distinction on Peter also. This signifies the unity with which Jesus desired the Church to be one.

The Catholic Church does not deny Christ is the head of the Church. However, it also recognizes that the Church is given actual authority handed down through Apostolic succession.

While it is true that no servant is greater then another, all are equal, it is not true that Jesus did not give more responsibility to one disciple then another. Peter is delegated special authority by God, but that does not by that definition make him a better person then anybody else.

Christ is the head of the Church, but notice that the Bible does talk about how we must obey our spiritual leaders. Obedience to the leaders in the form of the college of Bishops (The Apostles) is by that extension obedience to Jesus Christ.

Yes it's true, the Savior did not commit the work of the Gospel to Peter only, he did commit the work of the Gospel to the Church as a whole. But the "Keys to the Kingdom" the symbol of authority is conferred FIRST to Peter. He says I give YOU Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. There is no doubt that Peter is first to be given actual binding authority. The Apostles of course, later have been given this authority through Christ, but notice that Peter was special and is given it first.

If the Church was not to be dependent on faithful men, or governed by men guided by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles would not have bothered forming congregations which they themselves oversaw.

The Rock of Israels salvation is God. That is very true. The Catholic Church understands Christ is also referred to as rock.

"If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house." 1 Peter 2:3-5, R. V.

Notice how you qouted this statement? Peter talks about the others are "living stones" that are built up a spiritual house.

Isn't that funny how Peters name means stone? And Christ himself tells Peter he is the rock on whom the Church would be built?

The very verse you cite here is even more damning proof that the foundation of the Church would be built on "living stones". These living stones are being built on, in the same way that Christ began building the Church on Peter.

So you can see, that clearly there is a correlation between what I have said about the Church being built on Peter the Rock (according to Christ our Lord) and the correlation to Peter stating that the Church continues to be built on "living stones" much in the same way that Christ did with him.

Also, I hope you did actually read carefully what I posted rather then simply being close minded to the possibility altogether.

Cathoholic

543 posts

6/21/2008 10:49 am

This concludes what I have been saying, that the Church was built on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. Not on Peters confession that Jesus is the savior. Christ is the wise man who built his house on a rock. Although Christ is the rock of our faith, the physical foundation of the Church began with Peter and the other Apostles. Jesus is talking to Peter when he says on Peter he shall build the Church. He was not referring to himself in that statement, he speaks clearly and there is no mis understanding it.

ProphetBob

Ask me for a photo

379 posts

6/21/2008 11:54 am

Matt. 16:17
Jesus tells Peter he is blessed in knowing that the foundation of the church has nothing to do with "flesh and blood"; then you try to tells us it is founded on the flesh and blood of the man Peter.

The flesh profits nothing. That includes Peter's flesh.

I am an ambassador for the Risen Lord Jesus Christ, washed in His blood.

Noah235

975 posts

6/21/2008 1:01 pm

Since my name is Peter I have a personal interest in this topic whenever it arises. Let me say first of all that I mistrust any argument based on a long convoluted explanation such as Cathoholic has offered here. I believe that God meant the Bible to be understood by ordinary people so we OUGHT to be suspicious in such circumstances. I am also at a loss to understand how anybody can actually claim to know what were the Aramaic words used by Jesus, as we only have the New Testament in Greek to start with.

Furthermore I don't really think it matters how big a rock Jesus was calling Peter. I believe Jesus was simply doing what he often did, playing on words, when he gave Simon the name Peter. One of the meanings of the name "Simon" is 'reputation' and I think he was saying that Simon would become someone who really was reliable and 'solid as a rock' rather than just someone who had that reputation. I mustn't make too much of that because I would then be guilty of using a fine linguistic argument to make my point, which I have just said is something I am always suspicious of!

So I had better get onto my main point.

Peter himself told us that we {the church} "are being built into a spiritual house" {1 Peter 2v5} and then quotes Isaiah who refers to "a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation" {Isaiah 28v16}. I don't know anything about building but I have read that a cornerstone was the stone which was laid first and once it was laid correctly it would be easy to make sure the rest of the building was aligned correctly. Who is the cornerstone? In Ephesians 2v20 Paul says it is Christ Jesus. QED.

To be fair I should quote the whole of that verse: "God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone". But in chapter 4 he qualifies this by saying that the purpose of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers was to "prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ might be built up..." {Ephesians 4v12}. So the meaning of 2v20 is that the WORK of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the church, not the men themselves. And of course there is no special reference to Peter in this. Paul of course also wrote: "No-one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" {1 Corinthians 3v11}.

The church could only have come into existence because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For that reason it would not make sense to think of anyone but Jesus as the Rock on which the church is built. Sure, he left the church in the hands of 12 uneducated men from Galilee, but it was thier faith in him combined with the power of the Holy Spirit within them that made the church grow. I maintain that any other interpretation simply defies common sense.

Peter

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth"

2 Timothy 2 v 15

Cathoholic

543 posts

6/21/2008 3:10 pm

Quoting Noah235:

First of all, let me explain something to you. We actually know for a fact which word Jesus used to describe Peters name in the Bible. Peter is referred to as "Simon Kephas" in the Bible. Kephas means rock. Not just "little rock" either. It is very clear that Peters name means rock and there is no refuting that point. Jesus used the word Kephas.

As stated before, the Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is the cornerstone of our Church, but it also realizes that Christ can conver this distinction on Peter as well and did in fact do so.

Peter is the rock on which the Church is built because Jesus said so in Matt. 16:18-19. Jesus also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which was to institute his authority over the earthly Church and dynastic succession of earthly representatives.

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25,

Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings.

Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

God meant the Bible to be understood by ordinary people thats true. However, he also gave us the Church to help us understand that message, thats why he appointed Apostles to teach the gospel message.

If the Bible were easy to understand, why would Saint Peter in the New Testament write this? (Paraphrasing here)

"Pauls letters contain things that are difficult to interpret"

The Bible needs an interpreter. The Bible is not open for private interpretation of every layperson to decide for themselves it's meanings, thats now how the Church has, or ever operated. Thats why multiple Christian Churches has now created mass confusion over the actual meanings of the Gospel as far as doctrines are concerned.

Cathoholic

543 posts

6/21/2008 3:27 pm

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Also, during the time period in which Christ and the Apostles lived, Hebrew was a sort of dying language (hence why you can tell they wrote the New Testament in greek not hebrew). However, the more common language spoken during that time was Aramaic. So it is extremely likely that was the language of Christ and the apostles, and many words written in greek in the New Testament have Aramaic influences.

Noah235

975 posts

6/21/2008 4:02 pm

Quoting Cathoholic:

First of all thanks for explaining the reference to "Simon Kephas". I still maintain that the explanation of the play on words that I have heard before is the right one, and the size of the stone is irrelevant.

I have explained the reference to the apostles {and prophets} as the foundation in Ephesians. I don't have a problem with the concept of Jesus as the Shepherd and the apostles as the shepherds, or with most of the references you have made. However I DO have a problem with the assertion that a special dispensation was given to one man, and his spiritual successors, to be the final authority on the interpretation of scripture. This assertion is made solely on the basis of the dubious interpretation of a SINGLE VERSE of scripture. Scripture ought always to be interpreted with scripture and a single verse, especially one where the meaning is at best uncertain, ought not to be used as the basis for such a far reaching doctrine.

The model to follow is the one described in Acts 17 v 11:

"The Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true"

In other words, listen to the experienced 'professional' preachers by all means, but also check it for yourself from the Bible! The Bereans were commended for doing this. If the church is to act as the sole interpreter of scripture, then we might as well go back to having only Latin Bibles and throw away the struggles {mainly against the Roman Catholic Church} of Christians through the centuries to have it in English and other languages. You might as well close down all the excellent Bible translation ministries that are seeking to translate the Bible into the many languages that do not have it.

I agree that people {"laypeople" or "professionals" alike} should not decide for themselves the interpretation of scripture, but not surprisingly Jesus thought of that:

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth" {Acts 16 v 13}

And to whom is the Holy Spirit promised? Read the words of PETER at Pentecost:

"The promise is for you and for your children and for all those who are far off - for all those the Lord our God will call" {Acts 2 v 39}

So you see that the reading of the Bible by ALL BELIEVERS is encouraged {cf Bereans} and the interpretation of the Bible is promised to ALL BELIEVERS thanks to the Holy Spirit. Yes some parts are easier to understand than others, but again we have God's promise, through James this time:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him" {James 1 v 5}

As a final word I would say of course we should be grateful to scholars, preachers etc for their expertise in translating and explaining the scriptures. But a church which teaches its members to submit their understanding and wills to one man is vulnerable to the possibility of a "bad apple" getting the top job, which has undoubtedly happened in the past and could easily happen in the future. A church where EVERYBODY knows their Bible is a strong church which makes this unlikely to happen.

Peter

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth"

2 Timothy 2 v 15

crucified777

861 posts

6/21/2008 7:02 pm

Quoting Hidden_Treasure:

WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT THE CONFESSION I CONCURE

Hidden_Treasure

Ask me for a photo

6/22/2008 1:20 am

Cathoholic,

But think about this, Jesus talked about the House built upon THE ROCK.... then He concluded this way:

Lk:6:47: Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

He tells the story of the House on the Rock here...

THEN ends with:

49: But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth

and you see, PETER showed he UNDERSTOOD about Jesus. It was the understanding itself... that only the Holy Spirit revealed to him. Not Peter himself.

because we ALL can understand this!

It was JESUS, His sayings, and our understanding of them and building upon them... THAT is the Rock, you see?

But actually now that I think about it, Ephesians 2 says:

20: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21: In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

so you DO have sort of a point there,but I just think you are misapplying it.

Let me think about this awhile...

to see what the meaning of it is

Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments. --Jesus.

Cathoholic

543 posts

6/22/2008 4:27 am

Quoting Hidden_Treasure:

As I stated before, Christ is like Solomon. Solomon in the Old Testament was a man who was wise and was known as a builder of a great temple during the Old Covenant. Likewise, Jesus is an even wiser man, and an even wiser builder, who choose an even better foundation for his Church, that the gates of hell he even says shall not prevail against it.

If you go back and read my initial post very carefully, you will multiple times that God (Jesus) Is not the only Rock of the Church, nor is he the only shepard in the Church. Saint Peter understood that Christ was very much the cornerstone of our beliefs, however, if you notice he does talk about how Christians are being built up as "living stones", so in the verse where Christ calls Peter the rock on whom he will build the Church itself, there is no mistaken that Christ intended to build the Church on the foundation of Peter, and of course the rest of the disciples of the Church.

It is possible to have it both ways, without denying Christs place and his roll.

For example, consider the following:

Let's look at the new name Jesus calls Simon. But before we do this, let's examine what a name change in the bible meant. If you examine some examples you will realize that when God changes someone's name, he also designates new duties to that person. Notice the names God gives the angels which pertain to some quality they possess. In the Old Testament, God changes Abram's name to Abraham (Gen. 17:5) [see also Gen. 32:38, where Jacob's name is changed to Israel and 2 Kings 23:34, where Eliakim's name is changed to Joakim].

Abram in Hebrew means "exalted father". Abraham means "chief of the multitude". In the light of this, let us examine Isaiah 51:1-2:

Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock (Hebrew=sur) from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many.

In these verses, Abraham is referred to as "the rock from which you were hewn". Many Jewish rabbinical writings (Talmudic texts) as early as the 2nd century recognize this (Yalkut Shimoni: "a rock upon whom I can found a world"). Many Protestant commentaries also cite this. Now wait a minute, in Psalms 18:2, 31, and 46, God is called the rock and the same Hebrew word is used to designate Him as such... Sur.

See the connection! If the Jewish people were able to refer to Abraham as the "rock" when this word was also used when referring to God in the Old Testament, and as their father, why see the difficulty in saying that Peter was the rock in Matthew 16:18 and spiritual father to all? (Pope = papa = father)

Simon Peter is the rock on which Christ built his Church!

When God changes a persons name, that persons status changes as well. Simon Peter is the foundation Christ begins to build the Church on. Peters name change is significant, why would Christ simply change his name to Rock? Clearly Jesus had a special reason for naming him this. So when Jesus does tell Peter he is the rock on whom the Church would be built, it's clear his name has something to do with the purpose Christ intended for him.

Think about it. Jesus gives Peter a purpose.

Cathoholic

543 posts

6/22/2008 4:48 am

Quoting Noah235:

I'm sorry, you mentioned some things here that I need to address. You said something here that seriously is not possible and let me explain what it was.

You stated here that scripture should be interpreted by scripture. That simply is impossible. This is the argument Protestantism makes for sola scripture (Bible alone) that scripture merely interprets itself.

Scripture cannot interpret itself, if you could provide me one example of scripture making an interpretation of itself (just one example will do) I'd convert to sola scripture and quit Catholicism on the spot. The bible requires interpretation, and scripture can no more make interpretations then it can beat you over the head with a baseball bat.

When your reading the Bible, the bible does not cry out to you "Stop! your mis interpreting me!"

Thats not how this works at all. On one hand your saying you agree with me that lay people should not decide for themselves the interpretation of scripture, yet thats exactly what non-Catholic Christians do. When there Church interprets the scriptures in a way they disagree with personally, they simply move to another denomination that supports their personal interpretations of scripture.

The interpretation concerning the position of Peter is not merely based on a single verse in scripture. Examples of this can be found later on in the Bible also. I'll happily provide that information for you if your interested in combing it over. The Catholic Church is not required however to go by "scripture alone" because it has been handed down Apostolic traditions which also are adhered to.

When the Bible talks about teaching us with the Holy Spirit, this is done not only to us individually, but through the Church itself. You see the Church authority and office of Bishops is exactly the method by which the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in matters of doctrine.

If there is no final authority on what the Bibles interpretation should be, then there is no way for anyone to have right interpretation of the Bible, and that would lead to the possibility of following false doctrines. So you see, you may deny that there is a final authority designated one earth to determine the Bibles meaning, but if that were really true, and there was not, that means Christianity would be divided upon itself based on interpretations (which as we can clearly see Protestantism is divided against itself).

However, remember the parable of a divided house not being able to stand? If the Protestant houses are so divided, is it any wonder that none of them shall stand in the end as institutions????

Clearly God ensured we would have certainty. Thats why there is a line of apostolic succession. One example that proves the Apostles were replaced as they died in their offices, is the election of Mathias to replace Judas Iscariot. Let another take his office, Peter qouted the New Testament and decided on Judas replacement.

Think on that carefully before you decide that their is no line of succesors for the Apostles.

A Church where everybody knows their Bible would be a strong Church. However when everybody interprets there Bible differently, that clearly shows the weakness of the Church now doesn't it?

The Spirit of truth that guides us into all truth is leading the Church. Not every single layman individually for interpreting scripture. Thats not what that scripture means at all in my opinion. Clearly the Holy Spirit is not guiding every Church's interpretation of the Bible or we would not have multiple Churches at all.

"The Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true"

Allow me to explain whats going on in this verse also. Your thinking that the Bereans were just checking the scriptures to see if the scriptures matched Pauls preaching. Thats not what was going on at all.

If they already had "Pauls" information on the scriptures then Paul would not have bothered talking to them now would they?

Rather, Paul being a Bishop of the Church and being guided by the Holy Spirit, explained and interpreted the scriptures for the Bereans that they might have understanding they did not have before.

The Bereans looked into the scriptures, and saw the interpretations and truths Paul was revealing to them. They were commended for checking and testing Paul's wisdom of the scriptures, not comparing what he says with the scriptures to see if they "matched up" like a pair of socks.

Noah235

975 posts

6/22/2008 8:20 am

Quoting Cathoholic:

Let me respond to the points you have raised here (although not in the order you have raised them):

You suggest that I am denying that there is a final authority designated on earth to determine the Bible's meaning. This is not the case. I do not deny the existence of a final authority, I simply deny that the final authority is the Pope or any church, Catholic, Protestant or whatever. The final authority is the Holy Spirit.

Your claim that the Holy Spirit is not guiding every church's interpretation of the Bible is quite wrong. What is happening is that not every church is listening to the Holy Spirit. There CAN only be ONE interpretation of the Bible, and if the church and its leaders and members were perfect and listening carefully then there WOULDN'T be all the different interpretations that we see. But we are NOT perfect, and that is PRECISELY the reason why ALL Christians should endeavour to understand the Bible fully for themselves, so that they can identify false teaching when they hear it. And although I do not recommend "church-hopping" on the scale you describe, which is certainly happening, are you suggesting that a Christian should remain in a church that is clearly teaching heresy?

The picture you paint of clergy and laity is not one which is found in the Bible. The concept of a special class of person, with rights, privileges and responsibilities that the remainder do not have, and who wear distinctive clothing, is quite simply a throwback to the Old Testament concept of the Levitical priesthood which ought to have no place in the Church as we are {ALL of us} a "spiritual priesthood" {1 Peter 2v5}. The correct model of leadership is found in Ephesians 4 where apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors are appointed to "prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ" {Ephesians 4 v 12-13}. The model of 'the ignorant layman must do as he is told by the superior priest, bishop, apostle etc' is a recipe for immaturity which results in believers remaining as "infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming" {Ephesians 4 v 14}.

I would be very interested to know what scriptural support there is for Peter's position beyond the verse in question. I would also be interested if there is any other scriptural support for all 12 apostles needing to be replaced. I would have thought the replacement of Judas Isacriot by Matthias made sense as that was the starting point of the church. However, it was the last decision made by the church before the giving of the Holy Spirit and I know of no such thing being repeated after Pentecost.

When I said that I believe scripture interprets itself I may have used the wrong word. What I meant is that scripture SUPPORTS itself and we should be wary of basing any doctrine on a single verse or passage of scripture. For example, in Luke 23v43, some would interpret the word TODAY as referring to the day that Jesus was speaking to the thief. Others would interpret it as also referring to the day when the thief would be in paradise with Jesus. We would therefore be unwise to base a doctrine which says 'Christians go straight to be with the Lord when they die' solely on Luke 23v43. However, in Philippians 1v23 we read that Paul was looking forward to leaving his body and going to be with the Lord. So we can be confident of our doctrine now because we have 2 scriptures confirming it, not just one.

Neither you nor I know exactly what the Bereans were looking for when they were checking Paul's words in the Bible. But the Bible does say "they examined the Scriptures every day TO SEE IF WHAT PAUL SAID WAS TRUE"{Acts 17v11}. Of course Paul had some understanding that they didn't have! Peter at Pentecost explained some scriptures in a new way to the crowd in Jerusalem. Philip explained the 'suffering servant' prophecy in Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian eunuch so that he understood it better. Priscilla and Aquila had to take Apollos to one side to explain the way of God to him more adequately. I am not suggesting that people do not need to be taught things that they do not know! But in all of these cases I am certain that the listeners would be encouraged to think it out for themselves using the Bible {and the Holy Spirit} as their guides.

Peter

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth"

2 Timothy 2 v 15

Cathoholic

543 posts

7/1/2008 7:59 pm

Quoting Noah235:

Sorry for the lateness in my response, I have been very busy with school and have not had the time to give this my full attention. However, I will point something out and hopefully you will see what I am trying to help you see.

Of course nobody is going to argue with you that the final authority is the Holy Spirit, the problem here however is that many people mis understand the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. Therefore, to say the Church is not the final authority on understanding the scriptures doesn't make sense. Since clearly the Holy Spirit guides the Church means we can surely trust the Church's interpretation of scripture in matters of binding doctrines.

I am in no way recommending Christians support a Church that supports heretical views. That is why I always encourage my Protestant brothers and sisters to embrace the Catholic Church. Heresy as far as individual leaders goes is not the same as heretical doctrines (for example, like Sola Scripture).

It's easy for your to take the "Holy Spirit is the final say!" route, because it's like saying "God is clearly the highest authority!" yes of course we know this, the question is whether or not God is supporting everyones private interpretation of the Bible. Which he is not.

I have no idea how you can actually deny Apostolic succesion, when it did in fact take place in scripture with Judas being replaced. Why would you make an ASSUMPTION based on absolutely nothing, that the others didn't get replaced in their offices as Bishop confounds and baffles me.

I'm supporting Apostolic succession on Early Church tradition, and the very fact that one Apostle did get succeeded by another.

Your denying apostolic succession based on, well, thats just it, theirs nothing in the Bible that even hints that the offices the Apostles had were not intended to be handed down to another in a line of Apostolic succesion.

Now of course their are other examples that Apostolic succesion is true in the Bible, but keep in mind that the Bible will allude to many things, rather then flat out say them. The Holy Trinity being one such example. Such truths had to be deduced by the Church as time progressed.

The idea that your setting the criteria on the truths of doctrines based on how many times the Bible mentions them is also mind numbing. I have no idea why something has to be repeated 20 times in order for the Church to understand and accept it as some sort of truth.

Jesus established the Church according to to the Bible to "Baptize and teach all nations" If he had intended for Christians to depend soley on the Bible and the "Holy Spirit speaking directly to the believer and not through the Church" does not line up with what the Bible says. Thats exactly the problem, everyone believes he or she is guided by the Holy Spirit when they as individuals make an interpretation.

Clearly the Church, not individual believers has the final say because it absolutely has the assurance that it's doctrines come from the Holy Spirit. Individual believers do not determine the Church's doctrines. The Church magesterium as a collective whole does this.

Noah235

975 posts

7/2/2008 3:36 am

Quoting Cathoholic:

"I have no idea why something has to be repeated 20 times in order for the Church to understand and accept it as some sort of truth"

It doesn't, and I never said that. All I meant was that if something is mentioned once it is possible that we have misunderstood the meaning. If it is mentioned more than once and means the same thing then we can be more sure that we have understood correctly. If our supposed meaning is supported by Scripture viewed as a whole then that would remove all reasonable doubt.

Let me give you an illustration. As a Mathematics teacher I often have to instruct children on how to draw a graph that we know is supposed to be a straight line. To draw the line correctly they need a starting point and an ending point then they use a ruler to draw the line. However, there is the possibility that they have calculated incorrectly where one of the points should be marked. How do we get round this? Simple. I ask them to calculate the position of a third point somewhere in between the two ends. If this third point fits on the same straight line then we KNOW we have got it right.

"I have no idea how you can actually deny Apostolic succesion, when it did in fact take place in scripture with Judas being replaced"

I cannot deny that it happened on that one occasion. But there is no record of any of the other apostles being replaced. For example, when James the brother of John was martyred {Acts 12v2} there is no mention of a replacement being appointed. This of course does not prove it didn't happen, but to conclude that it did is to draw a straight line with only ONE point to use as a guide - it is impossible to know if we have drawn it in the right direction.

The main concern most people have with apostolic succession as understood by the Catholic Church is the special position given to Peter. If all the apostles were succeeded in the same way then it should be possible to point out who are the present day successors to James, John, Matthew, Philip, Andrew etc. Can you?

"I am in no way recommending Christians support a Church that supports heretical views"

Now we come to my main point. If the Church is the one who has the final say in interpreting the Scripture, then how will we ever know if a church DOES support a heretical view? We would just have to believe our superiors and betters and do what we were told! No, the final authority dwells in the Church but is NOT part of it. This final authority, as I have said, is the Holy Spirit who has been given to ALL believers.

Peter

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth"

2 Timothy 2 v 15

Cathoholic

543 posts

7/3/2008 8:32 am

Quoting Noah235:

\

I will certainly agree with you that we do need to check, and test everything we think we know is correct. As a math teacher I certainly could understand your point of view in this aspect. However, the problem here is that in order to do that, you have to be fair minded and look at all the evidence around you.

You can deny Apostolic succession, but it did in fact take place. Judas being replaced is a prime example of this happening. Simply because you do not find 20 other examples in the Bible of the times the other Apostles were succeeded, does not disprove the fact that they all were succeeded in their offices much the same way Mathias replaced Judas.

If you were really being open minded about this concept, you would read the Early Church Fathers, which were part of the early Church and proves without even question, that Apostolic Succession did take place. The only reason I can think of to deny this very truthful event, would be to continue living as a Protestant so as to not have to abide by any Church authority.

That’s the major problem with Protestantism as I am sure you can clearly see, Protestants do not accept any Church authority over themselves, they only accept Church authority when it agree’s with their supposed “Spirit-lead” interpretation of the Bible. When that doesn’t line up with their Church, they just go to another Church that agrees with them.

One thing you have to admire about Catholics, is that we make it a point to make sure we follow our Church leaderships teachings, if it teaches something we don’t agree with, we make it a point to do our best to conform to it even if we don’t fully understand the reason behind it This at the very least provides our religion with consistency that Protestantism clearly lacks on many many levels.

In Protestantism, the Church conforms to whatever the majority of people wish to follow. In Catholicism it isn’t a democracy, the people have to conform to the Church, not the other way around.

Now back to your analogy that we don’t have another “point as our guide” your simply not looking in the right places. Of course there is another point other then the Bible to plot our “graph”. The other graph we use as a co-ordinate to help us understand that it is true is Church Tradition. Remember, the early Church fathers taught us about Apostolic succession, it’s found in the Bible in the case of Judas and Mathias, then found yet again in the teachings of the original Christians, whose teachings are believed to come from the true early Christian Churhes. (Even among Protestant circles these early leaders are held up as the original Christians)

We can be sure that the true Church that has the final say is not supporting heresy, because Christ said the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15. That means if even one false doctrine can be found, that is not the true Church of Jesus Christ and cannot be since the true Church cannot teach Heresy. Heresy does not include the actions of bad Christians inside that Church, just for the record. Heresy involves a denial of a fundamental Christian truth (such as the Holy Trinity). To say the final authority is part of the Church but not apart of the Church is a contradictory statement. The Holy Spirit is with the Church, but doesn’t guide it to teach the truth? What manner of nonsense is this?

So the “true” Infallible truth of the Church lies with individual people and not as a whole? This is simply absurd and I am surprised your actually insinuating that the Church doesn’t have the truth, but rather individual followers all individually lead by the Holy Spirit.

If it’s easy for you to believe the Holy Spirit will lead individuals, why is it so hard for you to believe it would guide the entire Church as a whole in it’s councils and decisions?

Think and pray on that please. For it is not impossible for God to allow his Church to teach only truth. If Jesus were to establish a fallible Church, that would prove that he built his Church on faulty foundations. That would make him not God.

Once again, I implore you think about the plotting points for your graph. Then think about how one example of succession is found in the bible, and another found in the tradition of the early Church fathers. The Church is not some "fallible" authority that Christians just ignore when it teaches something they dislike. Remember, it was doing that, wh