Hardshellism's Refutation

Thus far in my book - "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (see Hardshellism link) I have refuted much of the argumentation put forth by Hardshell apologists to uphold their Hyperistic view of "born again before and without faith."

In early chapters I refuted their "logical reasonings" with regard to the regeneration of infants and idiots, and with regard to the use of means, human and divine, in God's work of creation and resurrection.

I also wrote against their "logical deductions" and "interpretations" of the "Parable of the Sower and the Seed" and showed how they erred in making the pre-faith work of preparing the ground to be regeneration.

Recently I have published several chapters in the series (section) on "Hardshell Proof Texts" and have already looked at these passages.

1. John 1: 10-13
2. John 3: 1-16
3. I John 5: 1 (with 2: 29 & 4: 7)
4. John 5: 24, 25
5. John 6: 37, 44-47, 65

Scripture passages and other arguments of "logic" yet to examine are these:

1. John 8: 47
2. John 10 (sheep)
3. Conversions in Acts (Pentecost, Cornelius, Lydia, Saul, etc.)
4. Hebrews 8 ('they shall not teach everyone to know the Lord')
5. II Timothy 1: 10
6. Romans 2: 13-15
7. Depravity passages (that supposedly imply Hyperism)
8. Ezekiel's 'new heart.'
9. Misc. minor passages

For Lovers of "Conferences"

Since many of the "Reformed" crowd love to promote their conferences (rather than evangelism, as brother Bob Ross has often shown in his writings at the calvinistflyswatter blog), and since the issue of "born again before faith" seems to be a "hot topic" of discussion among Baptists, why not have a conference and invite both sides? We could line up debate sessions. I know Bob Ross, Charles, and myself would be happy to come and represent historic, creedal, Baptist confessions, traditional and creedal Calvinism, the old Reformed view, that rejects the idea that men are born again before faith. Perhaps Piper, White, Grudem, Sproul, etc., can represent the other side?

How many people do you think might attend?

The Heretical Twins

B. H. Caroll Jr., wrote a section of his book, on the "Anti-Mission Movement," titled "Rise of the Hardshells." In that chapter he showed that Alexander Campbell was the "father of twins," the "twins" being "Hardshellism" and "Campbellism."

Anyone familiar with the history of these two sects knows how true is this description. I will be writing upon this in future chapters of my book on the "Primitive Baptist Church."

New Blog for Campbellism

Besides the blog on Hardshellism (see link), where I have posted my chapters on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," I have created a blog on Campbellism, a place where I have posted my writings and notes on that sect.

Another Homily with Steve Camp

Recently Steve Camp wrote:

"Here is a great article, and indirectly, a brief review of the new ESV Study Bible (ESVSB) from our good friends at Monergism.com. What I appreciate about this piece, is that it focuses in on an important theological truth in salvation, that regeneration precedes faith. Now, did the ESVSB get it right on this important doctrinal issue? Read the following to find out and let me know your thoughts..."

I then responded by writing:

"Brother Steve:

I will ask you the questions I have asked of James White. He never answered. I hope you will.

1. Do you believe sinners are begotten by the gospel?

2. If so, does not "begotten by the gospel" not mean "begotten by faith in the gospel"?

Since you are friends with James, and knowing I have challenged him to debate this issue, why don't you get him to accept the challenge? Regeneration is not put before faith in scripture.

As far as the passage in I John 5: 1, that is the worst heremeneutics I have seen. I wrote on this recently in Hardshell Proof Texts at

http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/10/chpt-83-hardshell-proof-texts-v.htmland

http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/10/chpt-83-hardshell-proof-texts-v.html

I also intend to elaborate on I John 5: 1 in light of what bro. White has written, over the next few days.

The passage does not say that men are born again before the initial act of believing, because the simple initial act of believing is not under consideration, as White admits. John puts faith in the present tense for the ongoing life of faith. THUS, he is saying that begetting precedes the life of faith, but that is a lot different from saying that the begetting precedes the initial act of believing or receiving Christ.

In John 5: 40, does "life" come after coming to Christ or before?

You misread Eph. 2 on what it means to come to life. How can you deny that Paul is explaining to them their conversion? Why would he be explaining to them some mystic subconscious experience that may have happened years before coming to faith?

You promote monergism's web site; do you accept their dividing of regeneration from the new birth, making the birth to have three distinct stages?

Looking to hear from you, I am,

Yours for the cause of Christ,"

Stephen

Brother Camp then responded, writing:

stephen

Thanks for your comment.

Two things initially for you:

1. Where does the phrase "begotten by the gospel" appear in Scripture?

2. The regenerating ministry of the Holy Spirit is clearly taught in Scripture (John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 12:3; Titus 3:4-7).

3. You seem to be struggling here not with being born of the Spirit (regeneration) but with the depravity of man. I believe when you settle that issue, this other will be clear to you.

Grace and peace,

Steve

Then I wrote in response:

"Begotten by the gospel is in I Cor. 4: 15. You may also see James 1: 18 and I Peter 1: 23.

Yes, the Spirit regenerates and when he regenerates he does it through the medium of truth and faith. (Eph. 2: 8)

I believe in total depravity. I don't believe a man can create his own faith nor draw himself to God. I believe that when one is drawn, he comes to Christ (believes) and is instantaneously born again. God creates the faith IN regeneration.

Paul explains that coming to life, in Eph. 1: 19-2:10 is coming to faith and repentance.

God bless

Stephen

Then I followed the above with this one.

Dear Steve:

Here is what Hendryx, of monergism.com, wrote on the "new birth."

Again, do you agree or not?

If not, why do you promote his view?

Hendryx wrote:

I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.

1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.

2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture).

4. J I Packer says, "Infants do not induce, or cooperate in, their own procreation and birth; no more can those who are 'dead in trespasses and sins' prompt the quickening operation of God's Spirit within them."

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/spirit_affections.html

Do you agree or not?

Blessings

Stephen

Steve Camp then responded:

stephen

J I Packer says, "Infants do not induce, or cooperate in, their own procreation and birth; no more can those who are 'dead in trespasses and sins' prompt the quickening operation of God's Spirit within them."

I agree. Great quote - thank you for sharing it with us.

I then responded by writing:

Dear Steve:

I guess you pick and choose what questions and parts of citations you want to respond to and which to ignore. I don't see how one can have a meaningful dialogue in such a manner as this.

Blessings

Stephen

Steve then responded, saying:

stephen

I also appreciate this definition that JH gave: "Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth."

I wholly agree. Excellent. Thank you again for these thoughts here. Well done.

Campi

Then I responded:

Dear Steve:

Do you agree with Hendryx that there are at least two "stages" to the "new birth"? Do you agree with him when he says "quickening" is "regeneration" but not the birth? And, when he says that the first "stage," or "quickening," is done without the means of gospel truth, but the final "birth," the second "stage," is through means?

Again, blessings

Stephen

I then added this comment:

Dear Steve:

"...for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15 KJV) The only difference is in the use of the word "by" (by me) instead of "through," but do you not think they mean the same thing?

"...for in Christ Jesus, through the good news, I -- I did beget you." (Young's Literal Translation)

"...for in Christ Jesus I have engendered you by the gospel." (Wycliffe New Testament)

Also, James 1: 18 says we are "begotten with (by means of) the word of truth."

I Peter 1: 23 "born again...by the word of God."

It seems Steve that you agree with the Hardshells that the gospel is not a means in regeneration and new birth.

Blessings

Stephen

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/10/regeneration-precedes-faith-esvsb-gets.html

Next, Camp responded:

stephen
The Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the Word of Christ (Roms. 10) in the salvation of the elect - no question. That is not the issue here.

The Father has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world; these promises were granted to us in Christ Jesus by grace in times past eternal; Jesus redeemed His own on the cross - not just provided a way to believe unto eternal life; and the Spirit of God renews and regenerates us. No many may confess Christ as Lord without the Spirit of God being in him (1 Cor. 12:3).

From God's perspective, regeneration always precedes faith - as does election, predestination and foreknowledge (Roms. 8:29-31). From our perspective we call all men to repentance, we call them to follow Christ as Lord of their lives, to believe solely in Him, etc.

This is good news!

There is a mystery here.

Steve

Then I responded to him and to a commenter named "Brian," saying:

Dear Steve:

Good morning!

My question for you this morning is this - "how is your view on regeneration and means different from the Hardshells?"

Yes, I know you affirm the instrumentality of the word and faith for "salvation," but so does the Hardshell. He, however, like you, will not make this "salvation" to be regeneration. You, like him, will make this "salvation" a salvation that follows regeneration. But, such a view has a man regenerated who is not yet saved!

Does your regenerated infant have to believe to be "saved"? Or, is his being "regenerated" enough?

Do all the elect have to be "saved" as well as "regenerated"?

Steve, I don't see how you can accuse me of building "straw men," taking a look at your responses, particularly the last. How do I deny that it is the Spirit who regenerates when I affirm that the Spirit does it through the gospel?

Brian:

The "calling" that precedes the justification is not equated with regeneration. Your reading would be thus - "whom he regenerated, them he justified."

The meaning is rather this - "whom he called (to life, faith, repentance, and salvation, effectually through his word and Spirit), them he regenerated, saved, justified, sanctified, etc."

No problem here!

It is absurd to say that regeneration precedes faith but justification and sanctification follow it.

Blessings

Stephen

Then, my friend Ian sent me this comment in am email.

Stephen:

I have replied to Brian's remarks that John 3.3 teaches regeneration precedes faith by bringing into question his interpretation of "see" in the verse. Too often I have heard persons make this claim and it cannot go unchallenged and I do not want others misled.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14012689&postID=414827584121467238&page=1

Camp's evasion of your question whether he endorses Hendrix bifurcation of regeneration and dismissal of the passages you provided demonstrating regeneration is through the word is sad. If he truly believes the word is the instrument, then why should he evade the question and dismiss the verses?

With regards,
Ian

Surely all can see how Steve Camp, like James White, do not care to really engage on this issue. Any comments?

Peter The Rock III

A writer wrote:

"Further, the Scriptures affirm that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone” (Eph. 2:20). Two things are clear from this: First, all the apostles, not just Peter, are the foundation of the church; second, the only one who was given a place of unique prominence was Christ, the capstone. Indeed, Peter himself referred to Christ as “the cornerstone” of the church (1 Peter 2:7) and the rest of believers as “living stones” (v. 5) in the superstructure of the church. There is no indication that Peter was given a special place of prominence in the foundation of the church above the rest of the apostles and below Christ. He is just one “stone” along with the other eleven apostles (Eph. 2:20).

Peter’s role in the New Testament falls far short of the Catholic claim that he was given unique authority among the apostles. While Peter did preach the initial sermon on Pentecost, his role in the rest of Acts is scarcely that of the chief apostle but as one of the “most eminent apostles” (plural, 2 Cor. 21:11 nkjv). By inspiration of God the apostle Paul revealed that no apostle was superior to him when he affirmed, “I was in no way inferior to these [so-called] ‘superapostles’ ” (2 Cor. 12:11).

No one reading Galatians carefully can come away with the impression that any apostle is superior to the apostle Paul. For Paul claimed to get his revelation independently of the other apostles (Gal. 1:12; 2:2), to be on the same level as Peter (Gal. 2:8), and he even used his revelation to rebuke Peter (Gal. 2:11–14).

Likewise, the fact that both Peter and John were sent by the apostles on a mission to Samaria reveals that Peter was not the superior apostle (Acts 8:4–13). Indeed, if Peter was the God-ordained superior apostle, it is strange that more attention is given to the ministry of the apostle Paul than to that of Peter in the Book of Acts. Peter is the focus through parts of chapters 1–12, but Paul is the dominant figure in chapters 13–28.

Though Peter addressed the first council (in Acts 15), he exercised no primacy over the others. The decision came from “the apostles and the elders [in agreement] with the whole church” (Acts 15:22; see v. 23). Many scholars feel that James, not Peter, presided over the council, since he was the one who gave the final words to the council (cf. vv. 13–21; see, for example, Bruce, 86f.).

In any event, by Peter’s own admission he was not the pastor of the church but only a “fellow presbyter [elder]” (1 Peter 5:1–2). And while he did claim to be “an apostle” (1 Peter 1:1) he nowhere claimed to be “the apostle” or the chief of apostles. He certainly was a leading apostle, but even then he was only one of the “pillars” (plural) of the church, along with James and John, not the pillar (see Gal. 2:9)."

http://www.shakinandshinin.org/

"...in this verse, Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Eph 2:20-21. If all the apostles and prophets are seen as rocks, does that diminish the unique blessing to Peter? Not at all. Although the apostles may be “rocks” in one sense, Peter is “the rock” in special sense."

All four of the gospel writers, then, seem to attribute a unique position to Peter. (By: Brittany C. Burnette from bible.org)

"What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching.

"Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity ca. A.D. 193. As a Christian he was a prolific writer and has been called the ‘Father of Latin Christianity’. He was most likely a layman and his writings were widely read. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian. He is the first of the Western fathers to comment on Matthew 16. In one of his writings Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built..."

"Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men.

Here is a quote from Origen:

"And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters."

"Origen and Tertullian are the first fathers, from the East and West respectively, to give an exposition on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16 and the role and position of Peter. Their views are foundational for the interpretation of this important passage for the centuries following. Strands of their teaching will appear in the views of the fathers throughout the East and West. It is important to point out that the first Eastern and Western fathers to give an exegesis of Matthew 16 do not interpret the passage in a pro–Roman sense."

http://www.the-highway.com/

More on the views of the church fathers in Part Two.

CYPRIAN (A.D. 200–210—ca. 258)

"On the Unity of the Church Cyprian gives the following interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one."

(A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135)

"Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock."

He states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro–Roman sense. His view is that Peter is a symbol of unity, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." (Cant. 9:6)

(A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133)

"Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock."

"The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘...a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’" (Ibid)

Robertson on John 3: 3

Brian, a commenter who jumped into the debate at Steve Camp's blog, made this comment to my friend Ian.

"Ian,

Must not the new birth precede seeing the kingdom? At what point does a person first see the kingdom? At salvation! Praise God!

BTW..."see life" does not appear in John 3:3..."see the kingdom of God" does. The word "see" in verse 3 is in the aorist infinitive, which does not designate a future eschatological action, but a present ability of perception and knowledge and understanding of.

John gill says, "if this is not the case [no birth from above], a man can have no true knowledge of the kingdom of the Messiah, which is not a temporal and carnal one".

I think the "enter" in verse 5 is indeed referring to a future entry into the kingdom, but that the "see" in verse 3 refers to a present ability to see/perceive/know of the kingdom of God."

Now, Ian can surely answer for himself, but I must add a few of my own thoughts here. Steve Camp "dropped the ball" on our little discussion on the "born again before faith" error (more on this in an upcoming post) so the discussion over there is over (it seems). I have already addressed this scripture and the arguments the "born again before faith" crowd make from it (see my series on "Hardshell Proof Texts" in the Hardshell link and archive). But, let me cite Robertson and another passage or two that refutes what Brian is saying (as well did D. A. Carson).

""He cannot see the kingdom of God" (ou dunatai idein tˆn basileian tou theou). To participate in it as in Lu 9:27. For this use of idein (second aorist active infinitive of hora) see Joh 8:51; Re 18:7."

(A. T. Robertson - "Word Pictures in the New Testament")

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9: 27 NIV)

This is eschatological life, what is to be enjoyed when "thy kingdom come."

"I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." (John 8: 51 NIV)

Peter The Rock II

John Broadus was one of the ablest of Baptist theologians. He wrote:

"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.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)"

And, the able theologian, Hendriksen, wrote this:

"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.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)"

From http://www.katoliko.com/

D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) --

"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."

(Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984],

"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."

(Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

"The change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above."

(France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) --

"It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church."

(Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

Craig Blomberg (Protestant Evangelical) --

"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname 'Peter' (Petros=rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42 [wherein he is called Cephas]), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, 'You are Peter,' parallels Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ,' as if to say, 'Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.' The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification."

(Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32)

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"The play on words -- 'Peter', this 'rock' -- requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, 'stone') to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical -- Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, 'rock'. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the 'rock' from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world..."

(Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"The 'rock' is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense."

(Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)

Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean 'rock,' it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: 'Your name is "Rock," and on this "rock" I will build my church.' Jesus' meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for 'Peter' and 'rock' are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the 'rock,' corresponding to Abraham of old, who was 'the rock from which you were hewn' (Isa. 51:1)."

(Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)

Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite) -- McCarthy, when he sadly left the Catholic Church became part of a Protestant "Brethren" sect --

"The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter's faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view...."

(Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)

www.envoymagazine.com

I agree with this statement:

"The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of petros and petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops."

And of this affirmation:

"In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe."

1shiloh.com

The early church fathers differed on the precise interpretation of the passage. None of them gave it the significance that the Church of Rome does today, however.

"...the Church Fathers are not unanimous in understanding that Peter, as opposed to his confession of faith, is the "rock" referred to."


The Demonstrative Pronoun

"This (demonstrative pronoun) rock..."

"...the basic rule of grammar is that a demonstrative generally refers to its nearest antecedent."

From what I have gleaned, this a true statement and would therefore favor the view that Peter was the rock referred to and upon which the church would, in part, be constructed.

"You are Rock and on this [very] rock I will build my Church" does seem to indicate and emphasize a direct connection between the demonstrative and its immediate antecedent."

And to this I would once again give my hearty approval as the proper understanding of the syntax of the passage.

"Would it not be strange for the Lord, immediately after calling Simon the "Rock," to expect His hearers to understand his next reference to "rock" to refer to a completely different antecedent?"
Again, I think this reasoning is correct and has not been adequately dealt with by those opposed to Peter being the rock.

"...why not use alla instead of kai to join these clauses and say, "You are Peter but on your confession I will build my Church?"

This is an excellent argument against the idea that Jesus is contrasting Peter, a supposed "pebble" with himself, a bolder.

"A prime minister might say when eulogizing a famous humanitarian, "You are a Beacon of Hope, and to this beacon all Europe will look as a source of comfort in these dark days." Or a king says to his champion, "You are The Hammer, and under this hammer all the enemies of England will be crushed."

These are solemn, even stylized pronouncements. But we all understand immediately what is being said. Far from inclining us to hunt for some separate referent to which the demonstrative refers, we see immediately that the same person is addressed. To introduce (indeed, to insist on) a separate referent is not only foreign to the rhetorical device, but destroys it. These examples illustrate the almost jarring disjunction that the confessional interpretation introduces into the text."

http://www.mwt.net/

Again, all this is but added weight to the argument that "petra" refers back to "petros."

"The KJV translators had no problem translating the Greek tautee tee as "this same" or "the same" because they recognized the demonstrative force this adjective could carry (cf., 2 Cor. 9:4-5; 8:6; 1 Cor. 7:20; Acts 13:33), as did other translations such as the NIV, NEB, and NASB in other verses of Scripture."

Again, this is but additional proof of the rock referring back to Peter.

"...there is no English grammar rule that says that because an indirect address follows or is in the vicinity of a direct address then the indirect address cannot be identified with the direct address."

www.shakinandshinin.org

The above was written by Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, and though I do not agree with what he and Catholics attempt to superimpose upon the passage, I do agree with their position that the rock is Peter. I disagree too that it was Peter alone and that such a view necessarily leads to the papists views on the primacy of Peter.

Again, though Geisler would not agree that Peter is the rock, he nevertheless expresses the view of other Protestant apologists who believe Peter, and all the apostles, were rocks upon which the Church was built. He and his co-author wrote:

"Even if Peter is the rock referred to by Christ, as even some non-Catholic scholars believe, he was not the only rock in the foundation of the church. As noted above, Jesus gave all the apostles the same power (“keys”) to “bind” and “loose” that he gave to Peter (cf. Matt. 18:18). These were common rabbinic phrases used of “forbidding” and “allowing.” These “keys” were not some mysterious power given to Peter alone but the power granted by Christ to his church by which, when they proclaim the Gospel, they can proclaim God’s forgiveness of sin to all who believe. As John Calvin noted,

“Since heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the gospel, the word ‘keys’ affords an appropriate metaphor. Now men are bound and loosed in no other way than when faith reconciles some to God, while their own unbelief constrains others the more” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4:6.4).

These are, to me, irrefutable arguments for Peter being the "Rock" that Christ referred to in the passage. But, as I said, granting this does not give one inch of ground to the Papists in support of their views of the episcopacy.

Reviewing "Reviews"

Over the past several months I have written "reviews" of leading internet articles that were written in defense of the "born again before faith" error of the Hardshells, neo "Reformed" Baptists and Presbyterians, and other Hyper Calvinists. Here is a list of some of these "Reviews."

1. James White (more than one)
2. Bill Ascol
3. Frank Turk & Dan Phillips at "Teampyro"
4. R. C. Sproul
5. Gene Bridges
6. Steve Camp
7. John Piper
8. Hardshell Apologists (numerous)

Upcoming planned Reviews include the following writers and apologists for the "error."

1. Wayne Grudem
2. Ligon Duncan
3. W. E. Best
4. W. Pierce

I have also reviewed the writings of authors who do not support Hyperism and the false equation that puts the new birth (regeneration) before faith. Writers such as J. P. Boyce, B. H. Carroll, Jr., J. M. Pendleton, etc.

I also have plans to write more extensive "reviews" of the writings of these authors.

A Lost Truth?

I believe as the historic confessions state, that Lord God is "without body, parts, or passions (emotions)."

I think it tragic that, in conjunction with an acceptance of "Process Theology," or "Open Theism," there is a growing denial that God is without emotion, believing rather that God is "just like one of us," compassed with emotions and fluctuating between states of "anger" and "love."

The "transcendence" and complete "otherness" of God, his supreme uniqueness, is being lost sight of. Lord God has now become "comprehensible" and an object of "investigation" as any other area of science or knowledge.

God said to the ancient theologian in his musings - "...thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee..." (Psalm 50: 21 KJV)

Such is the error of today's modernist theologians.

I hope to post some writings on this topic in the future. It is very important that we have right conceptions of the Deity if we are to serve and worship him in a pleasing manner.