Pope Rock


Constantine: I am always startled when I see the utter disrespect that Roman Catholics pay to the Old Testament. After all, those were “the Scriptures” that Jesus affirmed, down to every pen stroke (Matthew 5:17-21).

So when you wrote, “And, there is no Scripture that demands that the title Rock can only be applied to God” you showed my suspicions to be true! The entire Old Testament demands that the title Rock be applied only to God.

Here are just a few examples:

For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? Psalm 18:31

Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” Isaiah 44:8

“There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 1 Samuel 2:2

So just in these three example, we have David, the prophet Isaiah and the prophet Samuel saying exactly that the title “Rock” can only mean God!

BFHU: I have an immense respect for the Old Testament. You are misunderstanding what I said.

I said:

“And, there is no Scripture that demands that the title Rock can only be applied to God”

I did not say that Rock in the OT does not refer to God, which is what your OT Quotes show. I agree with you and the OT, that in the OT Rock is one of the names of God. While the OT uses Rock to refer to God there is nowhere in Scripture that demands that Rock can ONLY & ALWAYS refer to God. You are interpreting these passages as demands but they don’t say that explicitly. In fact in the New Testament Jesus changes Simon’s name to ROCK.


Constantine:
You remember how often Jesus cited the book of Deuteronomy, don’t you bfhu? He quoted it more than any other book in the Bible. Does Deuteronomy say that Peter is the “rock”?

BFHU:That is a silly question. Moses did not know Peter.

Constantine: He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. Deuteronomy 32:4

They abandoned the God who made them and rejected the Rock their Savior. Deuteronomy 32:15

You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. Deuteronomy 32:18

BFHU: These are great quotes. I don’t dispute them. I never said that the Rock in the OT referred to Peter. It refers to God.


Constantine: So, only the Roman Catholic Church, taking only one example from the New Testament which was unknown to the Apostles and Christ, Incarnate, takes God’s rightful title away from Him and gives it to a man. That strikes me as a blasphemy.

BFHU: Well it would be blasphemy if mere men “took God’s rightful title away from Him and gave it to a man.” But, Jesus is the one Who changed Simon’s name to ROCK. God is very generous.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. Dear whomever may be concerned,

    I think it is worth noting that often when Catholics explain there views of truth and doctrine, they must work very hard to explain why it is ok for them to teach things that cannot be found in the Scriptures or that in fact contradict the Scriptures, such as 1 Timothy 3: 1-2 (a Bishop then must be …the husband of one wife) and 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 (all Scripture is breathed by God and profitable…that the man of God may be made complete and thoroughly equipped unto every good work).

    Much more could be said,

    Joe

    • I think that it’s just the opposite. Catholics certainly don’t have a problem with harmonizing the whole bible. It’s the Protestants who commit every types of interpretation methodology errors by proof-texting and ignoring “difficult” bible passages. It’s no coincidence that Peter (the first Pope) would warn in 2 Pet 3:16: “(Paul’s writings) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

  2. Dear Surkiko,

    If Peter were in fact the first Pope, and if the Scriptures are able to make the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped unto EVERY good work, then one would expect the Scriptures to elaborate on the office as it did the office of high priest in the old testament. We should be able to read about the ordination of Pope, who qualifies, how long the term of office, what responsibilities the Pope has, what responsibilities Christians have to follow or obey the Pope, etc. etc. Unfortunately for the Catholic position, we have nothing of the sort in the Scriptures.

    Conerning Peter’s statement, he certainly did warn about men twisting the Scriptures. This is exactly what the Roman Catholic “Church” does with 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 in an attempt to reconcile their practice of demanding that men swear oaths of celibacy in order to qualify for the office of bishop, which is a good work for them to desire and which God explicitly stated must be married. Even if I water down the Scriptural statement in 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 to grant all that the Roman Catholic “Church” claims is being said in said passage their position is still contrary to the Scriptures. Even if all God explicitly said in 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 was that a bishop is allowed to marry and have children, how can one deny that your practice of demanding that a man swear celibacy before allowing him to be a bishop is in fact making the Word of God of none effect?

    It is true that the Roman Catholic “Church” makes the Word of God of none effect.

    Much more could be said. May God bless your continued study of the Scriptures.

    Joe

    • “If Peter were in fact the first Pope, and if the Scriptures are able to make the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped unto EVERY good work, then one would expect the Scriptures to elaborate on the office …. Unfortunately for the Catholic position, we have nothing of the sort in the Scriptures.”

      That’s your problem, insisting on a man-made tradition of sola scriptura which itself cannot be verified from the bible? Prove your basic assumption to be true first !

      As far as the biblical quotes for petrine authority, why don’t we start with the basic Matt 16:18-19: Thou art Kepha (Rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven …

      “This is exactly what the Roman Catholic “Church” does with 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 in an attempt to reconcile their practice of demanding that men swear oaths of celibacy in order to qualify for the office of bishop, which is a good work for them to desire and which God explicitly stated must be married”

      One good example of how Protestants have strayed so far away from truth. Where in the bible does it say that a bishop must be married? In the heart and historical context of Christianity, a bishop must be “the husband of one wife” just mean “married only once” instead of a commandment that one must be married. In fact, it’s even inaccurate to state that celibacy is the rule for all Catholic priests. For Eastern Rite Catholics (like the Maronites) , married priests are the norm. There are also married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

      One needs to learn to harmonize with the rest of the bible so as to derive at the correct interpretation of a “difficult” passage. In our Lord’s own words, celibacy is a gift for the “sake of the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:22). Paul makes a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (1 Cor 7:27-34). He even goes one further: “He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

      Is there a biblical precedent for the practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes, see 1 Tim 5:9-16 for an order of widows pledged not to remarry.

      The bible is “sufficient” to prepare someone for “good works” (Do Protestants even believe in holiness and the sanctification of faith through works?) is not the same as saying that the bible is ALONE sufficient . What you are doing is inheriting the curse of Rev 20:18-19 which forbids the adding or taking away from the words of the bible. Don’t do what Martin Luther did … by tampering with the bible to suit one flawed personal view by physically adding the word ALONE after the word “faith” in Rom 3:28 (“So halten wir nun dafur, da der Mensch gerecht wird ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben”. He added the word “allein” (alone) to justify his novel doctrine of Sola Fide.

  3. “And, there is no Scripture that demands that the title Rock can only be applied to God”

    I don’t know why this is so hard for you, bfhu? But let’s try this again…

    “Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” Isaiah 44:8

    “There is NO OTHER ROCK…” Surely God is “demanding” that this “only” be applied to Him.

    And who is the Rock except our God? Psalm 18:31

    What does this mean? That someone else can be the Rock?

    You wrote, further,
    “I never said that the Rock in the OT referred to Peter. It refers to God.”

    But that is the whole point my friend. Jesus affirmed every little pen stroke of these verses I quoted to you (Matthew 5:17-21). That means that Jesus Himself affirms that God is the only Rock. So if the OT, affirmed in its most minute detail by Christ, says only God is “the Rock” what is Peter? Does your church teach that there are two “Rocks”?

    I pray for you bfhu that God will enlighten your mind so that together, we may glorify Him more fully.

    Peace.

    • You can call Jesus and Paul both liars, BUT:

      1) It was Jesus who changed Simon’s name to Kepha or Rock (Jn 1:42).
      2) Paul called Peter as Kepha or Rock (like in Gal 1:18).

      So read Matt 16:18 again, and be mindful of 2 Tim 2:14 (“Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen”):

      “Thou art Kepha (Rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my church”.

      It’s all so very clear and simple.

      • Hi Surkiko,

        Catholics should be very, very careful when the apply Matthew 16:18. It is historical Catholic teaching that a text like this can only be used if it has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (Creed of Pope St. Pius V).

        And the Catholic church has historically held at least 5 different interpretations of this passage.

        So if you think Matt. 16:18 means Peter you better watch out! You might be in trouble with Rome!

        Peace.

  4. Thanks for the warning but I don’t think we have anything to worry about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: