A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Dr. Walter]

The Lord uses the second person singular direct address "you" when addressing Peter but changes to the third person singular direct address when addressing the rock "this" rock. The nearest antecedent to the third person singular "this" is "it" in verse 17 which has for its nearest antecedent the confession of Peter in verse 16.

If Jesus intended that Peter was the rock he would have continued using the second person singular direct address - "You are Peter and You are the rock upon which" The change of person demonstrates Peter is not the rock

Peter is masculine whereas "rock" is feminine in gender. Despite Rome's denial there was current Jewish literature where the masculine "petros" is used as a diminuative small stone rather than the feminine large source.

The context is about WHO IS CHRIST not who is Peter. Jesus never asked Peter individually, Peter responded in behalf of all of them as they had all confessed this eariler in the crossing of the sea.

Last, this is a building context "build". There is a builder named "I will". There is a building to be built "my church." There is a foundation to build "upon this rock". But there is no building materials except in the name of Peter. Remember, Jesus is the one who gave this name to Simon. Notice that in verse 17 Jesus does not call him Peter but "Simon Bar Jona." In giving this name it is in the anarthous construction for characterization. Jesus is saying in the context of building that Peter is characteristic of the type of building materials (born of the Father, Christ professing persons) that Christ builds His churches out of - spiritual born again living "stones" and Peter understood this as in 1 Pet. 2:5 he describes the church as composed of "lively stones" and immediately identifies Christ alone as the "petra" or foundation (1 Pet. 2:8).

In addition, the "keys of the kingdom" were given to Peter in this REPRESENTATIVE capacity or what characterizes the materials Jesus builds his churches out of because in Matthew 18:17-18 the power of the keys is attributed to the plural "you" comprising the church.

In addition the grammar of Matthew 16:19 supports the interpretation "has already been bound....loosed" in heaven "shall be bound....loosed" on earth.

Peter was so named by Christ to be REPRESENTATIVE in the character of his name of the rest.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I appologize, but I'm not sure how this response ties in with my statement...



Let's look at the Early Church Fathers. James was given the See of Jerusalem, but Peter governed the universal Church. This was dealt with early on by St. John Chrysostom who anticipated and refuted such an argument.

Says Chrysostom: "If anyone should say, 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world." Ibid. 81.

In other words, says Chrysostom, after Peter's fall (his denial of Christ), Christ "brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship [epistasia] of the universal Church." [Ibid., 80.]

Peace!

Hey, when you really don't have Scripture to support your assertions, move elsewhere and give that a shot?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I disagree. They are Christian though they differ on certain theological points with Us. I don't see them as being less Christian that the Anglicans, Lutherans, etc..

This is why I feel one of the most important questions we should be addressing is "What is a Christian?"

Since Rome teaches a Gospel that is different from that of the Bible, it is no longer Christian but an enemy of Christ. Neither do we lack fruit to judge them by.

 

[BillySunday1935]

The Lord uses the second person singular direct address "you" when addressing Peter but changes to the third person singular direct address when addressing the rock "this" rock. The nearest antecedent to the third person singular "this" is "it" in verse 17 which has for its nearest antecedent the confession of Peter in verse 16.

If Jesus intended that Peter was the rock he would have continued using the second person singular direct address - "You are Peter and You are the rock upon which" The change of person demonstrates Peter is not the rock.

Do you even know where they were when Jesus said this? Do you not know the cultural significance of the location? It was Caesarea Philippi. (Note the rock at that location and its pagan usage)

You see, doc, this is a perfect example of using tortured logic not to mention impossible grammar in order to shore up a position that would otherwise fall completely apart. Jesus would not have insulted Peter by using third person feminine singular which, by-the-way, did not even exist in their spoken language of Aramaic (petros / petra were synonymous in the Koine Greek of the New Testament as well) nor would he ambiguously dance around in such comical grammatical tenses – that only comes from the contrived Protestant interpretation (less than 500 years old) needed to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, which if acknowledged, destroys their (and your) position.

Jesus was God on Earth. Do you think he would not recognize the confusion that would inevitably result from using such impossible verbiage?

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

This is why I feel one of the most important questions we should be addressing is "What [who] is a Christian?"

And who on Earth has the authority to define who is a Christian? Hmmm...

You know, there are some creeds out there that define what one must believe in order to be considered a Christian. How about the Constantinople/Nicene creed?

Since Rome teaches a Gospel that is different from that of the Bible, it is no longer Christian but an enemy of Christ. Neither do we lack fruit to judge them by.

That's an amazing claim since it was that very Church who finalized the canon of the New Testament. So... by your acceptance of that canon, you must necessarily accept the authority of those who set the canon.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Hey, when you really don't have Scripture to support your assertions, move elsewhere and give that a shot?

What? Clearly you didn't read my first post on the matter (#4). Anyway, as you well I don’t hold to the false and man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura and thus I am not bound by it, nor am I bound to defend it - that would be your position. Additionally, I can see why you run from the writings of the Early Church fathers. You do know that St. John Chrysostom is considered to be in the top five of the ECF's by theologians - both Catholic AND Protestant don't you?

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Peter was so named by Christ to be REPRESENTATIVE in the character of his name of the rest.

See post #9...

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And who on Earth has the authority to define who is a Christian? Hmmm...

You know, there are some creeds out there that define what one must believe in order to be considered a Christian. How about the Constantinople/Nicene creed?



That's an amazing claim since it was that very Church who finalized the canon of the New Testament. So... by your acceptance of that canon, you must necessarily accept the authority of those who set the canon.

Peace!

1. The Roman Catholic Church does not define what Scripture is. I know these arguments and claims and they are some of the most shockingly arrogant statements I have heard from any non-Christian group.

2. Are creeds subject to error? Is the Scripture subject to error?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What? Clearly you didn't read my first post on the matter (#4). Anyway, as you well I don’t hold to the false and man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura and thus I am not bound by it, nor am I bound to defend it - that would be your position. Additionally, I can see why you run from the writings of the Early Church fathers. You do know that St. John Chrysostom is considered to be in the top five of the ECF's by theologians - both Catholic AND Protestant don't you?

Peace!

I am well aware of early Christian writings. I am not, however, bound by their authority as you are. It is quite revealing to me when debating papists that their primary appeal is to authority outside Scripture while bible-believers look to the Scripture (today, in large part to Huss, Wycliffe, and others who sacrificed their lives by the papacy to do so).

Yes, we believe and teach that Scripture Alone is the sufficient rule and guide for faith and Christian practice. Yet, even the papacy doesn't deny that Scripture is infallible. Even the papacy doesn't deny its authority...at least in word.

Early Christian writing are always subordinate to the Scriptures. What true Christians have never done, early or late, is submit their conscience and will to men rather than to God. They have always held to the primacy of Scripture over tradition.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I can't let this absurd reasoning go unchallenged before getting off.

1. There was literature during the period between Malichi and Matthew that kept the distinction between "petros" and "petra" as a smaller versus large stone. The Jews were well read and it would not require current usage to understand this.

2. There is no proof for the Q theory. Greek was the language of the day and Greek was used to express the nuances. The Greek text and its nuances express the mind of God and that is precisely why we have it and not some supposed Aramaic copy.

3. If "kepha" in a generic sense was designed by Christ then he should have said "you art "petros" and upon you I will build" or "you are petros and upon petros" I will build. He said neither but that is exactly what the Aramaic translation argument would demand.

4. See my exposition of the grammar and context in the last post to prove these Roman Catholic arguments are nothing but pure rubbage.

These do not preclude Jesus using this as Simon's new name.



First, the linguistic argument you are using regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra is flawed. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

Second, you are overlooking the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for the interpretation.

If you do further study on Matthew 16:17–19 you will notice several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" The third is also a blessing: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—"And I tell you, you are Peter"— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

Peter is definitely the Rock!

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

I am well aware of early Christian writings. I am not, however, bound by their authority as you are. It is quite revealing to me when debating papists that their primary appeal is to authority outside Scripture while bible-believers look to the Scripture.

Yes, we believe and teach that Scripture Alone is the sufficient rule and guide for faith and Christian practice. Yet, even the papacy doesn't deny that Scripture is infallible. Even the papacy doesn't deny its authority...at least in word

1. I am not a papist

2. I believe that scripture is materially sufficient. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. I do not, however, believe scripture to be formally sufficient. In other words, scripture does not have the SOLE authority and never makes that claim for itself.

3. Since scripture is inspired, then is is by definition authoritative - just not the only authority. (see point 2 above)

Early Christian writing are always subordinate to the Scriptures. What true Christians have never done, early or late, is submit their conscience and will to men rather than to God.

How do you think scripture was passed on until it was written down? Orally. Did that make it not the word of God? No.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Dissecting this verse:
Traditions taught by word of mouth = oral traditions
Traditions taught by letter = written traditions

There you have it; the word of God in written and spoken forms: Sacred scripture AND sacred traditions.

Consider 2 Timothy 2:2
"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."
Notice the Paul uses the word heard and not read, indicating an another example of oral tradition directly in scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."
Again, this is an example of passing on sacred oral traditions.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
"And we also thank God constantly for this that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is; the word of God, which is at work in you believers."
So, they received as the word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in scripture.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. I am not a papist

2. I believe that scripture is materially sufficient. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. I do not, however, believe scripture to be formally sufficient. In other words, scripture does not have the SOLE authority and never makes that claim for itself.

3. Since scripture is inspired, then is is by definition authoritative - just not the only authority. (see point 2 above)



How do you think scripture was passed on until it was written down? Orally. Did that make it not the word of God? No.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Dissecting this verse:
Traditions taught by word of mouth = oral traditions
Traditions taught by letter = written traditions

There you have it; the word of God in written and spoken forms: Sacred scripture AND sacred traditions.

Consider 2 Timothy 2:2
"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."
Notice the Paul uses the word heard and not read, indicating an another example of oral tradition directly in scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."
Again, this is an example of passing on sacred oral traditions.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
"And we also thank God constantly for this that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is; the word of God, which is at work in you believers."
So, they received as the word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in scripture.

Peace!

Your not a Roman Catholic? I thought you were. What are you then?

Why would what is taught orally by the Apostles in their day be different from what is written?

 

[BillySunday1935]

I can't let this absurd reasoning go unchallenged before getting off.

1. There was literature during the period between Malichi and Matthew that kept the distinction between "petros" and "petra" as a smaller versus large stone. The Jews were well read and it would not require current usage to understand this.

Most theologians of import just don't buy into this and it was not the teaching of the Church from its founding up to the time of the Reformation. Who is then to be considered as holding to the absurd.

I2. There is no proof for the Q theory. Greek was the language of the day and Greek was used to express the nuances. The Greek text and its nuances express the mind of God and that is precisely why we have it and not some supposed Aramaic copy.

Aramaic was the spoken language of the day. Jesus and the apostles spoke it. Greek was the written language - the language of commerce. Your response is meaningless.

3. If "kepha" in a generic sense was designed by Christ then he should have said "you art "petros" and upon you I will build" or "you are petros and upon petros" I will build. He said neither but that is exactly what the Aramaic translation argument would demand.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

It pretty clear actually and it's also what Christians everywhere believed for 1,500 years.

4. See my exposition of the grammar and context in the last post to prove these Roman Catholic arguments are nothing but pure rubbage.

So you say there, doc. However, opinions do not an argument make.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

See post #9...

Peace!

Post 9 of yours follows:

First, the linguistic argument you are using regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra is flawed.

I doubt that very much.

There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

That is not true. Two words were used for a purpose. If they were synonymous there would have been no need to use two different words. Your argument fails on that point alone. Remember that this is the Holy Spirit writing. He doesn't make mistakes.

Second, you are overlooking the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.)

You are absolutely wrong on this point, so wrong that it seems like you don't know what you are talking about.
First, just before this Alexander the Great had conquered the world. What he gave this world was the Greek language. Greek was the universal language of the day. Even the slaves spoke it. Why do you think the entire NT was written in Greek? In fact to be specific it was written in Koine Greek--Common Greek or the Greek of the common person. That is what virtually everyone in the world of that time spoke.
Second, the language of commerce was Latin. The government of the time of Christ was Rome. Official transactions had to be done in Latin. The currency was in Roman currency with Latin inscriptions. Latin was the language of Rome.
Third, the OT was written in Hebrew, the sacred language of the Jews. Some say it was a fading language but it was not. It was still taught in the synagogues, and spoken among educated Jews. Remember Paul spoke to an entire crowd in the Hebrew tongue:

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
--It was the mark of an educated Jew, and when they heard him speak in that language he acquired their respect.

Fourth, Chaldee was a language that the Jews picked up when they were in captivity. It was related to Hebrew and many of them spoke it with ease. However it did not replace the Hebrew Language. Aramaic was a related language, like a dialect that was common at the time.

Another Scripture:
John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
These were the three official languages of the time.
Hebrew--official language of the Jews.
Latin--official language of Rome (language of commerce)
Greek--official language of the people--or common language of the world.

Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra.

Here is a Catholic assumption, more like a myth or lie.
The NT was written in Greek. It is inspired and no other MSS. There was no Aramaic. Your argument is from silence and therefore not worth a Mexican Peso (or a Canadian penny). Deal with Scripture. It alone is our authority--not guess work.

In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said.

Bluntly put, that is a lie. That is not what was originally said, and you have no way to prove it.
First, Greek was the common language of the day; everyone spoke it.
Second, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and we have no reason to question the Holy Spirit and infer that he was lying to us.

Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for the interpretation.

"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"
"What is written is written."
Why don't you believe the Word of God? It is written and inspired in the Greek language and that is what we have to work with.

If you do further study on Matthew 16:17–19 you will notice several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock.

However, if you do an expository study of "rock" throughout the entire Bible or even just the NT, you will notice several passages that require Jesus to be the Rock in every place.

Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!"

A simple blessing--nothing special about it. Simon is identified as the Son of Jonas. It refers to his physical heritage. We all receive blessings everyday.

The third is also a blessing: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."

Every believer is given these keys. It is called the gospel. Jesus cursed the scribes and Pharisees who took away these keys and locked up the kingdom of heaven from the common person.

But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—"And I tell you, you are Peter"— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well.

No, it is a statement of fact; an address.
It is like me saying: "And I tell you, you are BillySunday" But that doesn't make it a blessing.

Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

Peter's testimony was the Rock (that Christ was the Messiah), but Peter was the stone that would be built upon the Rock, the chief corner-stone which would be laid as the foundation.

"For other foundation can no man lay which is Jesus Christ. Christ alone is our Rock, our foundation. This the Bible teaches clearly.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Your not a Roman Catholic? I thought you were. What are you then?

I was born and raised a Baptist - just not one who holds to some of the more mainline fundamentalist views.

Why would what is taught orally by the Apostles in their day be different from what is written?

There is no difference and that is my point. Oral and written tradition were both inspired and therefore have equal authority.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I was born and raised a Baptist - just not one who holds to some of the more mainline fundamentalist views.



There is no difference and that is my point. Oral and written tradition were both inspired and therefore have equal authority.

Peace!

So you are a Baptist then? What denomination?

You may want to revise your last statement here because I wanted to be precise about the time period and make it specific to the time period of when the Apostles were alive.

So there would be no difference, in the days of the Apostles, between what they taught publically and what they sent in letters to the churches. Well, the Apostles are with the Lord now. So how can I know what they taught orally then except by what is left in the letters ?

 

[Tom Bryant]

I believe that scripture is materially sufficient. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. I do not, however, believe scripture to be formally sufficient. In other words, scripture does not have the SOLE authority and never makes that claim for itself.

And this is exactly why this discussion is fruitless. To Baptists, Scripture is suffecient, period.

 

[BillySunday1935]

That is not true. Two words were used for a purpose. If they were synonymous there would have been no need to use two different words. Your argument fails on that point alone. Remember that this is the Holy Spirit writing. He doesn't make mistakes.

That's very weak DHK. Did you even look at my sources? They are Protestant you know and - guess what - they disagree with you as well.

You are absolutely wrong on this point, so wrong that it seems like you don't know what you are talking about.
First, just before this Alexander the Greek had conquered the world. What he gave this world was the Greek language. Greek was the universal language of the day. Even the slaves spoke it. Why do you think the entire NT was written in Greek? In fact to be specific it was written in Koine Greek--Common Greek or the Greek of the common person. That is what virtually everyone in the world of that time spoke.

Everyone could speak a little Greek precisely BECAUSE it was the language of commerce - Just as today - if you go to Miami, FL you had better be able to speak a little Spanish. However, Aramaic was the spoken form of Hebrew. That's fact there DHK.

Second, the language of commerce was Latin. The government of the time of Christ was Rome. Official transactions had to be done in Latin. The currency was in Roman currency with Latin inscriptions. Latin was the language of Rome.

And Latin evolved from...

Third, the OT was written in Hebrew, the sacred language of the Jews. Some say it was a fading language but it was not. It was still taught in the synagogues, and spoken among educated Jews. Remember Paul spoke to an entire crowd in the Hebrew tongue:

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
--It was the mark of an educated Jew, and when they heard him speak in that language he acquired their respect.

And the Hebrew tongue was... ARAMAIC!

Fourth, Chaldee was a language that the Jews picked up when they were in captivity. It was related to Hebrew and many of them spoke it with ease. However it did not replace the Hebrew Language. Aramaic was a related language, like a dialect that was common at the time.

Well, it is historically held to have been the dialect spoken by Jesus. Again, that's fact there, DHK.

Another Scripture:
John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

These were the three official languages of the time.
Hebrew--official language of the Jews.

Yes - but Aramaic was the spoken form of Hebrew.

Latin--official language of Rome (language of commerce)
Greek--official language of the people--or common language of the world.

If "...Greek was the universal language of the day..." and it was "...what virtually everyone in the world of that time spoke.." as you say, then why do you think Latin was the Language of commerce? It wasn't. It was simply the official language of Rome. They even adopted their gods from the Greeks for cryin' out loud.

Here is a Catholic assumption, more like a myth or lie.
The NT was written in Greek. It is inspired and no other MSS. There was no Aramaic.

Right...

Your argument is from silence and therefore not worth a Mexican Peso (or a Canadian penny). Deal with Scripture. It alone is our authority--not guess work.

Prove it!

In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said.

"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"
"What is written is written."
Why don't you believe the Word of God? It is written and inspired in the Greek language and that is what we have to work with.

Then why do many - MANY - scholars consider Jesus to have been speaking directly to and about Peter? After all, they are working with the Greek as well, yet they come to a different conclusion than you.

However, if you do an expository study of "rock" throughout the entire Bible or even just the NT, you will notice several passages that require Jesus to be the Rock in every place.

Jesus was also called the cornerstone, the door, the way, the truth, the Lamb of God, the Word made flesh, etc. However, none of this would preclude Jesus from changing Simon's name to Peter. He was, after all, God on Earth - the Word made flesh and, as such, was all knowing.

A simple blessing--nothing special about it. Simon is identified as the Son of Jonas. It refers to his physical heritage. We all receive blessings everyday.
Every believer is given these keys. It is called the gospel. Jesus cursed the scribes and Pharisees who took away these keys and locked up the kingdom of heaven from the common person.

You obviously do not understand the significance of changing someone's name in scripture, nor do you realize the import of giving someone the keys to the kingdom in Jewish culture - both of which Jesus did to Peter in the context of the passage.

Peter's testimony was the Rock (that Christ was the Messiah), but Peter was the stone that would be built upon the Rock, the chief corner-stone which would be laid as the foundation.

I think we are close to agreement on the above statement.

"For other foundation can no man lay which is Jesus Christ. Christ alone is our Rock, our foundation." This the Bible teaches clearly.

Amen! However, the fact that Christ built his Church upon Peter does not detract from that whatsoever.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

And this is exactly why this discussion is fruitless. To Baptists, Scripture is suffecient, period.

Perhaps. Yet sufficiency does not equate to SOLE authority and that is my point.

Peace!

 

[sag38]

Yes Tom, it does seem fruitless. How do you debate with someone who doesn't even believe in the sole authority of the Bible? They can feel free to pick and choose what is truth and what isn't. Opinion reigns supreme with them. On top of that, they can interject teaching from extra-Biblical sources as being authoritative or even above the Bible.