1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by 1Tim115, Jun 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    See my profile...
    Correct!


    You can read the writings from the ECF's. Some were personally taught by at least one of the apostles, and many were taught by someone who was only one generation removed from them. Remember, everything in the Bible is true... BUT, not everything is IN the Bible.

    Peace!
     
  2. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand your position here. However, I can't accept scripture as the sole authority when scripture never says that about itself.

    Is it sufficient? Well - materially - yes!

    Is it inspired? According to the Early Church - yes!

    Is it authoritative? Well, since it is inspired it must be authoritative!

    Is it the SOLE authority? If it were, it would say that about itself - yet it never does.

    Peace!
     
  3. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    yet it never does.

    Yes, it does and it's been pointed out to you. But, you refuse to accept it. Again, how do you debate someone who rejects the sole authority of the Bible? I think its a good example of casting one's pearls before.............
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Your sources? I am a Baptist. Lori tried the same trick. She gave me "Dale Moody" as a "Protestant source," a rank liberal, a Barthinian, a Protestant agnostic. It did more to defeat her cause than to support it. Why is it that Catholics try to represent evangelical Christianity by "Protestant liberals"? I don't need to look at your sources. What you need to do is look at the Bible. Again, don't you trust the Holy Spirit and what he has to say? Does God lie? The NT was written in Greek.
    No it wasn't the language of commerce; it was the common language of the day which even the slaves--both Gentile and Jewish spoke fluently. Go and study history. The language of commercial transactions was Latin. What kind of coins did they have? Aramaic was not the spoken form of Hebrew. You don't believe what Pilate put on the cross either, or what Paul spoke from the stairs in Acts 22. Why do you deny the Bible's account of history and try to make it say something it doesn't? It specifically states "Hebrew" and you say "no it doesn't." You say the Bible is wrong and you are right. Give me one good reason why I should believe you over the Bible?
    According to you it could have been monkeys.
    Greek was the common language of the day, and Latin the language of commercial transactions. Look it up.
    Thus saith Billy :rolleyes: But that is not what the Bible says.
    Check Acts 21:40 and 22:2. The word is Hebrew and the Greek word is Hebrais. Can you guess what the Greek word would mean?
    No, it is an opinion held by you that is unsubstantiated. You can shout all you want. But your opinions don't hold water. What did Pilate write on the cross that Christ was crucified on? In what languages did he write? Why?
    Aramaic was a dialect. Hebrew was the language used.
    It was. Go to the library and find some pictures of Roman coins.
    The government in power was the Roman government. It, of necessity, had to use its own coinage and documents for commerce.
    But the language of the world had been given to them by the preceding empire of Alexander the Great. He had conquered the world, and left the world with the language of Greek. That was something that Rome could not change on a whim. It was inculcated into the very fabric of the people.
    Commerce had to do with the official language Rome. Have you never seen an ancient Roman coin? The name Caesar in Latin.
    Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
    --this has been dealt with at length in other threads.
    Most of the scholars I read agree with me. Thus, I conclude you are reading liberal commentaries, Catholic literature, agnostics, etc. You don't want the truth. You want to read the literature that agrees with your point of view. Thus you find those books that do. That is not so hard to figure out.
    I am not saying that he didn't change his name. He did. It simply means "stone," as in little rock.
    You are the one not realizing the context of the passage and the contrast between the two words in the Greek language. You don't see the parody between petros and petra.



     
  5. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks! I am simply stating to you and all here that scripture does not claim to be the SOLE (only) authority - never - nowhere. It is simply not in scripture. Now, everyone who "pointed that out to me", simply gave me their (or someone else's) opinion of what scripture is saying. Historically, this was never taught by the Ancient Church and only became prominent after (and was a product of) the Reformation. If that is uncomfortable, then perhaps you should re-examine your belief system.

    Peace!
     
  6. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you think these sources are bogus? Right...

    Sources:
    Joseph H. Thayer, “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament” (Peabody: Hendrickson 1996), 507;

    D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.

    Peace!
     
  7. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    We can say Peter was the rock, or we can say Peter’s confession was the rock. I tend to go with Peter’s confession—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”—because it fits with Paul’s characterization of Christ being the foundation of the church. However, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus left Peter in charge of His church.

    In 16:19 Jesus says to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . .” This verse is far more significant that the petra/petros controversy. The keys are obviously a symbol of authority. Cf. Isaiah 22:17-23. Peter would be the vicar of Christ after He departed this earth.

    In John 21 Jesus tells Peter three times to “Tend my sheep.” Peter would be the pastor of the New Testament church.

    Although James presided at the First Jerusalem Council, the debate went on until Peter spoke. When Peter spoke, people listened and the debate ended.

    It was Peter who took the position of leadership among the apostles, calling for the appointment of a replacement for Judas, preaching the first sermon of the Christian church, working many miracles and first apostle taking the gospel to the Gentiles.

    Peter is mentioned more often than any other apostle except Paul. No one else comes close.

    There be no possible reason to deny the fact of Peter’s primacy. Anyone who does so, denies it out of an effort to discredit the papacy and not out of any basis in scripture or history.
     
    #47 Zenas, Jun 9, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 9, 2010
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    First, you gave general references not specific, so no one could look them up. Context means nothing to you.
    Second, Thayer is not quoted in post 9. That is the post referred to.
    Third, it is post 4 that both of these men are referred to. Perhaps you are confused.
     
  9. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    And might I add, neither do your opinions.

    Yes - you dealt with it, but never successfully. I'll say this again...Nowhere in that verse or any other for that matter, does scripture claim to be the SOLE authority for christians regarding faith and morals. Hey - it's not my doctrine.

    Then I must concluded that you only read the work of those that espouse your particular point of view. I do want truth - I just don't believe that you posses it.

    That lame petros/petra argument was put to bed years ago and only exists in the fringe community of Christianity who's members must necessarily hold onto it lest they be forced to re-examine their own beliefs.

    Those mean ol' nasty Catholics!

    Peace!
     
  10. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Possibly - it’s late and I am responding from my office while stomping gnats and slaying dragons.

    Peace!
     
  11. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is part of history - it is what it is. The Catholic Church called the councils that put together the canon of the New Testament. All Christians who accept that canon tacitly accept their authority.

    Well, not the one that I proposed as it was derived from scripture by one of the early Church councils.

    Peace!
     
  12. 1Tim115

    1Tim115 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like I said in the original post...Bible scripture is the best commentary.

    I saw a comment in one reply that most of Christiandom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The problem is that instead of calling Peter "Vicar" in Matt 16 - Christ calls him "satan".

    Christ is "The Rock" in fact the text is clear "NO OTHER Rock" is allowed 1Cor 3.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    I didn't make the statement so I don't know the source, but the best modern commentary I know of is the New American Commentary. This commentary was commissioned by Broadman Press because the older Broadman Commentary was deemed too liberal. The Matthew volume was written by Craig L. Blomberg, who is very emphatic that Peter is the rock. Here is the first paragraph of his commentary on this subject:
    In view of the conclusions drawn in this very conservative Baptist commentary, I believe it would be correct to say that the majority view is that Peter is the rock. However, I believe the better view, more consistent with other scripture, is that Peter's confession is the rock.
     
  15. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Unfortunately you are gone and I wish you well. But your position isn't sound.
    1. Yes the jews would understand terms such as Rock and Pebble and use them in the context of their speach. It would be prohibited to give peter a feminine name in order to make the point. Thus Jesus wouldn't say Petra (f) though art Petra (f). Peter would then have to have a feminine name applied forever. However, the language doesn't support the masculine equivelant of Kepha.
    2. There may or may not have been a Q document which were a collection of sayings of Jesus. I believe that communal memory passed down by the Apostles to their disciples were more consistent than we give them credit for. Either way its irrelevant to the discussion.
    3. If the translator wanted to use pebble then I will build my church upon this pebble misses the import that a rock or founding stone would have. Petra would have to be used to get the point accross.
    4. So unless you can come up with better material it may not be as much "rubbish" as you may suppose.
     
  16. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The thing about the ECF writings is that its not authoritative however it is a snap shot into the thinking and the beliefs of the people at the time we can from them discover what is was that christians were thinking and doing. That is their value. And where they are consistent we have to give serious consideration.
     
  17. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You assume difference rather than commentary. The issue is one of commentary rather than difference. And not just commentary but application as well. That is how it is to be viewed.
     
  18. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    The keys, Bob, the keys to the Kingdom. They are a symbol of authority and you have completely ignored them.
     
  19. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The reason Jesus calls peter satan is not so much a personal attack against peter but peter's wrong perseption of his messianic eschatology. He believed with the popular thought Jesus was a secular (present world) leader that would free them from the Roman Empire. I wonder if Jesus would say something similar to the popular belief system held by most evangelicals specifically the pre-trib rapture. I don't know just a curiousity.
     
  20. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly! I'm only posting up to the time of St. Augustine, however there is much more after his time.

    Tatian the Syrian
    "Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

    Clement of Alexandria
    "[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’" [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

    Tertullian
    "Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . .’" (On the Prescription against the Heretics, 22 [c. A.D. 200])

    "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

    Letter of Clement to James
    "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

    Origen
    "And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. . ."( Commentary on John, 5:3 [A.D. 232])
    "If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

    Hippolytus
    "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." *(Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 [ante A.D. 235]

    Cyprian
    "‘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?" (De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 [A.D. 251])

    Ephraim
    "[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

    Ambrose
    "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

    Gregory of Nyssa
    “The leader and coryphaeus of the Apostolic choir…The head of the Apostles.” (Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 371, Alt. Orat. De S. Steph. tom. iii. p. 730, 4, in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri – The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879), 51.

    Pope Damasus
    "We have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’ . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it." (Decree of Damasus, 3 [A.D. 382]

    Jerome
    "Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

    Augustine
    "I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." (Against the Letter of Mani, 5 [A.D. 395]).

    “Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” (To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 [A.D. 397]).

    "Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

    "Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

    Here Augustine lists the actual apostolic order of succession:

    “If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2, [A.D. 412])

    Peace!
     
    #60 BillySunday1935, Jun 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...