Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[BreadOfLife]

The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14

That's NOT what these verses say at all. NOWHERE do we see the term "Universal".
I'm sure that's what it meant before the rebellion of Protestantism raised its ugly head.

Unfortunately, because of this rebellion however, Protestant Christianity is splintered into tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering factions that all pretend to be "One" but aren't.

There IS only ONE Church that Jesus established and YOU and Stranger and the rest are in desperate need of returning home to it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It certainly does. How about if it says 'church'? The Church consists of those believe on Jesus Christ and are born-again. See all the verses of John I gave you. Christ will build His Church upon that confession as he told Peter when he made such a confesion. The Church consists of all those who are born-again.

Stranger

Wrong.

NONE of the verses from John's Gospel that you presented mention ANYTHING of a Church - let alone a "Universal" or "Catholic" Church.
STRIKE ONE.

Matt. 16:18 says NOTHING of Peter's confession but of Peter himself.
STRIKE TWO.

Finally - NONE of the verses you presented make the claim that ALL who are born again belong to His Church.
STRIKE THREE . . .

 

[Stranger]

Wrong.

NONE of the verses from John's Gospel that you presented mention ANYTHING of a Church - let alone a "Universal" or "Catholic" Church.
STRIKE ONE.

Matt. 16:18 says NOTHING of Peter's confession but of Peter himself.
STRIKE TWO.

Finally - NONE of the verses you presented make the claim that ALL who are born again belong to His Church.
STRIKE THREE . . .

The verses in John speak of the New Birth as a result of belief on Jesus Christ. Peters confession is the belief on Jesus Christ as the Son of God. And upon that rock of confession Christ is building His Church. The Church is composed of all those who are born-again.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

The verses in John speak of the New Birth as a result of belief on Jesus Christ. Peters confession is the belief on Jesus Christ as the Son of God. And upon that rock of confession Christ is building His Church. The Church is composed of all those who are born-again.

Stranger

Wrong.

First of all - YOU said that Jesus said that ALL born again believers were part of the UNIVERSAL Church.
WHERE did He say this??

Secondly - Peter is the Rock - not his confession of faith.
That's what "Peter" (Kepha) means . . .

 

[Stranger]

Wrong.

First of all - YOU said that Jesus said that ALL born again believers were part of the UNIVERSAL Church.
WHERE did He say this??

Secondly - Peter is the Rock - not his confession of faith.
That's what "Peter" (Kepha) means . . .

I just showed you. Read again post #329, 340, 343. Not that I have any illusions that it will do any good.

No, Peter is not the rock here. It is the confession of belief he made concerning Jesus Christ. That is what the Church is built on. Would you have the Church be built on one who denied Jesus Christ. (Matt. 26:33-34) (Matt. 26:69-75) Yeah, what a rock. Would you have the Church built on one who was a man pleaser, as he sided with the Jews as soon as they came down from Jerusalem for which Paul scolded him to his face. (Gal. 2:7-12) What a rock.

The Church is not built on any unstable man. It is built on the faith that sees Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Because that faith is given by God the Father. (Matt. 16:17-18)

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

I just showed you. Read again post #329, 340, 343. Not that I have any illusions that it will do any good.

No, Peter is not the rock here. It is the confession of belief he made concerning Jesus Christ. That is what the Church is built on. Would you have the Church be built on one who denied Jesus Christ. (Matt. 26:33-34) (Matt. 26:69-75) Yeah, what a rock. Would you have the Church built on one who was a man pleaser, as he sided with the Jews as soon as they came down from Jerusalem for which Paul scolded him to his face. (Gal. 2:7-12) What a rock.

The Church is not built on any unstable man. It is built on the faith that sees Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Because that faith is given by God the Father. (Matt. 16:17-18)

Stranger

Actually it is revelation, which is what Jesus was trying to teach him.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Stranger]

Actually it is revelation, which is what Jesus was trying to teach him.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

You cannot disconnect the revelation from what the revelation said. It was Jesus who asked "Who do men say that I am"? Had the incorrect response been given, the revelation would be of no account.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

I just showed you. Read again post #329, 340, 343. Not that I have any illusions that it will do any good.

No, Peter is not the rock here. It is the confession of belief he made concerning Jesus Christ. That is what the Church is built on. Would you have the Church be built on one who denied Jesus Christ. (Matt. 26:33-34) (Matt. 26:69-75) Yeah, what a rock. Would you have the Church built on one who was a man pleaser, as he sided with the Jews as soon as they came down from Jerusalem for which Paul scolded him to his face. (Gal. 2:7-12) What a rock.

The Church is not built on any unstable man. It is built on the faith that sees Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Because that faith is given by God the Father. (Matt. 16:17-18)

Stranger

Uhhhhh, no - you didn't show me.

Where did Jesus say that ALL born again believers were part of the UNIVERSAL Church??
Answer: He NEVER did.

As for your silly claim that Peter's confession is the "Rock" - that is a claim built on simple anti-Catholic denial.

First of all - his name was "Simon" before Jesus changed it to "Kepha" (Rock). That's why Paul refers to him as "Cephas" in his letters. Jesus's blessing on Peter was THREEFOLD:

1. "Blessed are YOU Simon, Son of Jonah for flesh has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven"
2. "YOU are KEPHA and on this KEPHA, I will build my Church"
3. "I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. WHATEVER YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and WHATEVER YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."

MANY Protestant scholars disagree with your unsubstantiated position:

William Hendriksen - member of the Reformed Christian Church - Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church. Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church. Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647 JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier - leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text, applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate - Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58 JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III - Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean stone and rock respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (you are kepha and on this kepha), since the word was used both for a name and for a rock. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning rock (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken rock to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, New Testament, vol. 2(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78

John Peter Lange, German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: Thou art Rock, and upon this rock, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293, JPK page 19

John A. Broadus - Baptist author (two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

J. Knox Chamblin - Presbyterian and New Testament Professor - Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words this rock Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but PETER HIMSELF. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
Matthew - Evangelical Commentary on the Bible - (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742 - JPK page 30

David Hill - Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies - University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the rock as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
The Gospel of Matthew - The New Century Bible Commentary - (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261 - PK page 34

Donald A. Hagner - Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matthew 14-28 - Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470 - JPK pages 36-37

 

[mjrhealth]

You cannot disconnect the revelation from what the revelation said. It was Jesus who asked "Who do men say that I am"? Had the incorrect response been given, the revelation would be of no account.

Stranger

Every thing we are taught is by revelation, reading teh bible accounts for nothing with out revelation form God to explain it to you, without revelation you cant know Christ, there is a whole book on Revelation given to John, no man can understand it unless God reveals it to Him, because its Johns revelation, not ours.

 

[Stranger]

Uhhhhh, no - you didn't show me.

Where did Jesus say that ALL born again believers were part of the UNIVERSAL Church??
Answer: He NEVER did.

As for your silly claim that Peter's confession is the "Rock" - that is a claim built on simple anti-Catholic denial.

First of all - his name was "Simon" before Jesus changed it to "Kepha" (Rock). That's why Paul refers to him as "Cephas" in his letters. Jesus's blessing on Peter was THREEFOLD:

1. "Blessed are YOU Simon, Son of Jonah for flesh has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven"
2. "YOU are KEPHA and on this KEPHA, I will build my Church"
3. "I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. WHATEVER YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and WHATEVER YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."

MANY Protestant scholars disagree with your unsubstantiated position:

Yes, I did show you several times. Go back and reread.

No, it is not a claim of anti-Roman denial. It does deny Romes claim that the Church is built upon Peter. Which claim is for obtaining power over the Church. A power God never gave.

In the Greek the name 'Peter' and 'rock' are a play on words. 'Peter' is 'petros' which means a stone or part of a rock. 'Rock' is 'petra' out of which a stone is broken from. In the Aramaic the same word 'kepha' is used for both. That is because in the Aramaic they had one word for both. But it to was a play on words "...this exalted play upon the word ( ), John 1:43 can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. " ( A Commentary Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Eerdmans, 1990, p.89.)

"The promise to Peter from the gospel of Matthew (16.18), 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,' which is so central for today's bishops of Rome and which now adorns the interior of St. Peter's in gigantic black letters on a glit background, is not once quoted in full in any of the Christian literature of the first centuries---apart from a text in Tertullian, and this does not quote the passage in connection with Rome but in connection with Peter....Only in the middle of the third century did a bishop of Rome, by the name of Stephen, appeal to the promise to Peter, he did so in a dispute with other churches as to which had the better tradition." (The Catholic Church A Short History, Hans Kung, Modern Library, 2003, p. 41)

And isn't it amazing that Peter never once claimed any such authority and never once did any other apostle recognize any such authority to Peter. And when Peter speaks in (1 Peter 2:4-6) what does he say? "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God,and precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect,precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

Peter identifies the believers as living stones with Christ the Corner Stone. Same word is used for 'stone' in both cases. Christ is the Rock, is the Corner Stone, and foundation of the Church. We as believers are also living stones built upon that foundation. Peter calls us 'living stones' because in his confession in (Matt. 16:16) he said 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God'. And that confession of Christ as the Son of the living God will be what Christ builds His Church on with living stones.

Concerning the 'Keys of the Kingdom' being given to Peter, it doesn't mean Peter is in charge of the Church. The Kingdom and the Church are not the same thing. Plus, in (Matt. 18:18) you will find that authority is given to all the disciples. (18:1,) "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus,....) (18:18) "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, I did show you several times. Go back and reread.

ya, that'll help

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, I did show you several times. Go back and reread.

No, it is not a claim of anti-Roman denial. It does deny Romes claim that the Church is built upon Peter. Which claim is for obtaining power over the Church. A power God never gave.

In the Greek the name 'Peter' and 'rock' are a play on words. 'Peter' is 'petros' which means a stone or part of a rock. 'Rock' is 'petra' out of which a stone is broken from. In the Aramaic the same word 'kepha' is used for both. That is because in the Aramaic they had one word for both. But it to was a play on words "...this exalted play upon the word ( ), John 1:43 can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. " ( A Commentary Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Eerdmans, 1990, p.89.)

"The promise to Peter from the gospel of Matthew (16.18), 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,' which is so central for today's bishops of Rome and which now adorns the interior of St. Peter's in gigantic black letters on a glit background, is not once quoted in full in any of the Christian literature of the first centuries---apart from a text in Tertullian, and this does not quote the passage in connection with Rome but in connection with Peter....Only in the middle of the third century did a bishop of Rome, by the name of Stephen, appeal to the promise to Peter, he did so in a dispute with other churches as to which had the better tradition." (The Catholic Church A Short History, Hans Kung, Modern Library, 2003, p. 41)

And isn't it amazing that Peter never once claimed any such authority and never once did any other apostle recognize any such authority to Peter. And when Peter speaks in (1 Peter 2:4-6) what does he say? "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God,and precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect,precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

Peter identifies the believers as living stones with Christ the Corner Stone. Same word is used for 'stone' in both cases. Christ is the Rock, is the Corner Stone, and foundation of the Church. We as believers are also living stones built upon that foundation. Peter calls us 'living stones' because in his confession in (Matt. 16:16) he said 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God'. And that confession of Christ as the Son of the living God will be what Christ builds His Church on with living stones.

Concerning the 'Keys of the Kingdom' being given to Peter, it doesn't mean Peter is in charge of the Church. The Kingdom and the Church are not the same thing. Plus, in (Matt. 18:18) you will find that authority is given to all the disciples. (18:1,) "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus,....) (18:18) "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Stranger

WRONG again.

You haven't shown me ONCE where Jesus said that ALL born again believers were part of the UNIVERSAL Church like you claimed He did.

As for Peter being the "Rock" - I already gave you NINE quotes from Protestant Bible Scholars (PhD's) on the subject. I had to whittle-down the list because of the word count constraints of this forum.

Look - you're just a angry little poster on an obscure forum. These men and women have made Scriptural study their life's work - and they ALL agree with the Catholic position on Peter being called "The Rock."

As I educated you back in post #348 - Jesus' blessing on Peter was THREE-fold:
1. "Blessed are YOU Simon, Son of Jonah for flesh has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven"
2. "YOU are KEPHA and on this KEPHA, I will build my Church"
3. "I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. WHATEVER YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven andWHATEVER YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."

However - YOU would have us believe that Jesus BLESSED Peter:
1. "Blessed are YOU Simon, Son of Jonah for flesh has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven"

Then he INSULTED him:
2. "YOU are KEPHA and on this KEPHA, I will build my Church"

Only to BLESS him again:
3. "I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. WHATEVER YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven andWHATEVER YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."

This position is mind-numbingly stupid as there is absolutely ZERO precedent for this kind of "blessing/insult/blessing" in ALL of Scripture.

As to Peter's Primacy over the others - Peter was the only one SINGLED-OUT for this blessing.
The other Apostles were given this blessing later as a group.

Although Peter was NOT the first Apostles chosen - he is referred to in the Gospel as "PROTOS" (First) in Matt. 10:3.
At the Last Supper - Jesus prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32).

After the Resurrection, Jesus tells Peter - and Peter ALONE to "Feed His Sheep", "Feed His lambs" and "Tend His flock".

In the NT - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first.

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

And the list goes on . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

ya, that'll help

And you wonder why I expose you so often . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

And you wonder why I expose you so often . . .

i still wonder, i mean after all he did show you at least 2, 3 times, you don't even acknowledge it, let alone debate it
i don't really get it wadr, you might mean something else, but it comes across as denial?
but i have learned not to judge too much there, you might have several reasons for refusing to engage i guess

sometimes there just is no vocabulary to express an objection that cannot also be taken a different way, and i don't really know how to say that myself. I'm working with--or prolly seems like against lol--@H. Richard on one of these right now

i should stress that i don't judge you for this, ok, you would be welcome in my home even (if i had one). We debate beliefs here, and ppl tend to get quite emo about their beliefs, take words too much to heart imo, etc. Fire burns. until it doesn't

 

[BreadOfLife]

i still wonder, i mean after all he did show you at least 2, 3 times, you don't even acknowledge it, let alone debate it
i don't really get it wadr, you might mean something else, but it comes across as denial?
but i have learned not to judge too much there, you might have several reasons for refusing to engage i guess

sometimes there just is no vocabulary to express an objection that cannot also be taken a different way, and i don't really know how to say that myself. I'm working with--or prolly seems like against lol--@H. Richard on one of these right now

It's one thing for Stranger to lie - but for YOU to lie on his behalf is pathetic.
He never showed me ONE verse where Jesus says that ALL born again people were part of His Universal Church.

This is a claim that he kept making and not once was he able to prove it with Scripture.
Maybe it's best that you simply mind your own business and argue your own points instead of fighting somebody else's lost argument . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

He never showed me ONE verse where Jesus says that ALL born again people were part of His Universal Church.

well that is Christianity and you are a Catholic, bro, apples and oranges. i could back him up with the Book for the rest of the day lol, wouldn't matter to you i guess.

Is everyone not RCC going to hell, or not?
rhetorical Q of course, i know you would never actually answer this,
bc then you would be revealed to yourself.
i doubt you even read the Q

 

[epostle1]

Yes, I did show you several times. Go back and reread.

No, it is not a claim of anti-Roman denial. It does deny Romes claim that the Church is built upon Peter. Which claim is for obtaining power over the Church. A power God never gave.

Because you misrepresent power. Authority is preferred over the word "'power", which implies a paranoid fundamentalist view of the papacy.

In the Greek the name 'Peter' and 'rock' are a play on words. 'Peter' is 'petros' which means a stone or part of a rock. 'Rock' is 'petra' out of which a stone is broken from. In the Aramaic the same word 'kepha' is used for both. That is because in the Aramaic they had one word for both. But it to was a play on words "...this exalted play upon the word ( ), John 1:43 can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. " ( A Commentary Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Eerdmans, 1990, p.89.)

Yet you refuse to use one word for both.

The promise to Peter from the gospel of Matthew (16.18), 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,' which is so central for today's bishops of Rome and which now adorns the interior of St. Peter's in gigantic black letters on a glit background, is not once quoted in full in any of the Christian literature of the first centuries---apart from a text in Tertullian,

Because it was illegal to be a Christian in the first 3 centuries.

and this does not quote the passage in connection with Rome but in connection with Peter....Only in the middle of the third century did a bishop of Rome, by the name of Stephen, appeal to the promise to Peter, he did so in a dispute with other churches as to which had the better tradition." (The Catholic Church A Short History, Hans Kung, Modern Library, 2003, p. 41)

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

You are refuting yourself.

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

You are in error.

And isn't it amazing that Peter never once claimed any such authority and never once did any other apostle recognize any such authority to Peter.

There are 70+ verses in the NT indicating Peter's leadership and spokesman for all the Apostles AND YOU CAN'T FIND ANY OF THEM????

And when Peter speaks in (v) what does he say? "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God,and precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect,precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

So what? What do you expect Peter to say? I am the dominating dictator and if you don't do as I say I will beat you with my keys? Your interpretation hinges on 16th century politics, and not plain reading of Scripture. Keys symbolize authority. How does 1 Peter 2:4-6 remove Peter's authority? I could quote any 2 random verses from Paul, would that remove his authority?

Peter identifies the believers as living stones with Christ the Corner Stone. Same word is used for 'stone' in both cases. Christ is the Rock, is the Corner Stone, and foundation of the Church. We as believers are also living stones built upon that foundation. Peter calls us 'living stones' because in his confession in (Matt. 16:16) he said 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God'. And that confession of Christ as the Son of the living God will be what Christ builds His Church on with living stones.

Does that mean everybody is a living stone except Peter?

Concerning the 'Keys of the Kingdom' being given to Peter, it doesn't mean Peter is in charge of the Church. The Kingdom and the Church are not the same thing. Plus, in (Matt. 18:18) you will find that authority is given to all the disciples. (18:1,) "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus,....) (18:18) "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[/quote] Where in scripture does it call us to be anti-authority and anti-institutional to the point where we can't function in society?

Stranger[/QUOTE]

 

[Stranger]

WRONG again.

You haven't shown me ONCE where Jesus said that ALL born again believers were part of the UNIVERSAL Church like you claimed He did.

As for Peter being the "Rock" - I already gave you NINE quotes from Protestant Bible Scholars (PhD's) on the subject. I had to whittle-down the list because of the word count constraints of this forum.

Look - you're just a angry little poster on an obscure forum. These men and women have made Scriptural study their life's work - and they ALL agree with the Catholic position on Peter being called "The Rock."

As I educated you back in post #348 - Jesus' blessing on Peter was THREE-fold:
1. "Blessed are YOU Simon, Son of Jonah for flesh has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven"
2. "YOU are KEPHA and on this KEPHA, I will build my Church"
3. "I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. WHATEVER YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven andWHATEVER YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."

However - YOU would have us believe that Jesus BLESSED Peter:
1. "Blessed are YOU Simon, Son of Jonah for flesh has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven"

Then he INSULTED him:
2. "YOU are KEPHA and on this KEPHA, I will build my Church"

Only to BLESS him again:
3. "I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. WHATEVER YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven andWHATEVER YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."

This position is mind-numbingly stupid as there is absolutely ZERO precedent for this kind of "blessing/insult/blessing" in ALL of Scripture.

As to Peter's Primacy over the others - Peter was the only one SINGLED-OUT for this blessing.
The other Apostles were given this blessing later as a group.

Although Peter was NOT the first Apostles chosen - he is referred to in the Gospel as "PROTOS" (First) in Matt. 10:3.
At the Last Supper - Jesus prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32).

After the Resurrection, Jesus tells Peter - and Peter ALONE to "Feed His Sheep", "Feed His lambs" and "Tend His flock".

In the NT - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first.

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

And the list goes on . . .

I did show you, go back and reread.

And I have shown you in Scripture where Peter being called a rock does not mean the Church is built on Peter. And I have shown you one of your own Romanists, Hans Kung, agrees with me.

Peter had no primacy. Never claimed any primacy. Was never shown any primacy. He stumbled along like all the others. Denied the Lord. Used by satan to try and prevent Christ from going the cross. Was rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy. If anyone should have had any primacy it should have been Paul. But he never claimed it either as he was never given it either. God gave primacy to no man save the Lord Jesus.

Yes, yes, you are the list man. That Peter, James, and John were of the inner circle of the apostles, proves no primacy for any of them. It doens't matter how many times you count the name of Peter in the Bible. He was given no primacy. You can't find it so you have to make it up.

You want a verbatim quote from Scripture that says all born-again believers are part of the universal church. Well give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Peter is given primacy over the Church. Give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles? Give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Peter was a bishop of Rome. Give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Peter was ever even in Rome.

How is Christ statement that, upon Peter's confession and faith He will build His Church, an insult? It is just insulting to you because you want Peter to have the primacy so as Rome can build some sort of primacy over the Catholic Church.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

epostle1

What is it with you Romanists? You are the masters of deception, twisting, and misleading. Your post is riddled with your comments and mine made to look as though they belonged to the other. Do yall have classes you go to that teach this? Do you really think anyone is fooled by it?

It is tough being straight forward when what you are selling is full of holes. I understand. If you want me to respond to you, clean up your response first.

All you have proved in your post to me is that deception is necessary for you to have an 'appearance' of proving your point.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

WRONG again.

He, and other lame objectors, have been reminded of the same things repeatedly.