Posted by: Standing Solus Christus | December 24, 2007

What is significant about the way Jesus calls the disciples? (Lesson 5: Question 2 Answer)

2.  What is significant about the way Jesus calls the disciples?   Why is Peter given a new name?

As we consider the significance of Jesus’ calling of the disciples we will be looking at the next series of verses in our text.  At the same time we will also consider the significance of the new name that our Lord gives to Peter.  In examining both of these questions our focus will be on the following verses:

39He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. 40One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

In these next verses of our text we are encountering the apostle John’s account of the calling of the first disciples.  As we alluded to in our opening comments of this lesson the events that are recorded about this calling are similar to that of Abraham’s in the book of Genesis.  These parallels lend credibility to those of us who believe the Scriptures, themselves, yield a covenantal framework.  This framework facilitates a more robust and accurate understanding of the Scriptures.  The Lord who is the great King (Suzerain) is pleased to engage Himself in the terms of a covenant with His servants (vassel).  There are different examples of this occurring within the Scriptures, including covenants initiated with Adam, Noah, Abraham, the Nation of Israel, and David.  Moreover, the terms of these different examples vary and depending on the circumstances will differ between conditional types or unconditional oaths.  It is essential that we differentiate between these two types of covenants, which are characteristically the same as the distinction between command and promise or law and gospel.85  In covenantal terms these distinctions commonly fall into the categories known as the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (Galatians 4:21-31).  One more important distinction is to note that there is a further clarification between special grace and common grace that needs to be heeded.  This is particularly in reference to the covenant with Noah, which is common to all men and not concerned with our reconciliation before God (Genesis 8:21-9:17).  Although, this covenant would fall into the category of the unconditional oath it does not share the redemptive benefits of the other covenants that also fall into this category.  Of the biblical examples that are identified as “covenant of works” being characterized as conditional covenants there are the pre-fall covenant with Adam and the Siniatic covenant made with Israel (in the covenant of redemption made between the Persons of the Trinity, Christ is obliged to fulfill the covenant of works thus has overlap with this category).  It should be noted that although the Siniatic covenant made with Israel is essentially conditional, when it came to salvation, Israel remained under the covenant of grace.  However, relative to temporary blessings and their tenure in the land it was a conditional covenant based on their obedience to the Law.  They were essentially a typological replication of Adam and his probation in the garden when it came to their tenure in the land.  The biblical examples identified as “covenant of grace” being characterized as unconditional oaths are the post-fall covenant with Adam (Genesis 3:15), its continuation in the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15), its further continuation in the covenant with David (2 Samuel 7:8-17) and its culmination in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 26:28).  We find in the various administrations of the covenant of grace an inherent continuity with the original pronouncement after the fall.  The theme that is maintained is a contrast between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.  These two groups are also known as the children of God and the children of the devil who war against the covenant community.   The interaction between these two groups is chronicled throughout the history of redemption (i.e. Genesis 4).  The seed of the women is progressively defined throughout redemption in the various manifestations of the covenant of grace.  We learn through these manifestations that this Seed or Messiah will be born of a woman, be a child of Abraham, be of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49), descend from David and will also be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.  It is upon this stage, the unveiling of the new covenant administration, that we come to our text in John.  The Seed has come to usher in a new covenant with the people of God and we find Him following a similar pattern of the covenant inauguration.  This inauguration begins with the calling, which we see in our text resembles the callings of a prior administration of this covenant.  This resemblance is observed by Meredith Kline in the following:

God’s call to Abraham may be likened to Jesus’ call to discipleship, the familiar summons to “follow me” (Matt 8:22; 9:9; 19:21; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27; John 1:43, etc).  Abraham was to set out on a journey following after the Lord who would lead the way to the land he would show his servant.  For the disciples of Jesus, following him was associated with his identity as the way, as the One who through his death and resurrection leads his followers to the Father and everlasting life (John 13:36-14:6).  Similarly, in the journey Abraham undertook when called out of Ur of the Chaldees, he must follow the Lord in the way of the death-passage that leads to resurrection, as he later learned from the episodes of Genesis 15 and 22.  Succinct as it was, God’s opening summons to Abraham to follow him was a declaration of the requirements of covenant life in all the breadth and depth of their demands.  Covenantal discipleship under the authority of the Lord Jesus is a denial of self and a following after him on the way of the cross (Matt 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; 10:21; Luke 9:23). 86

As Kline points out the similarities between these two covenant of grace administrations are not only found in the inaugural summons as we will encounter in the rest of this study the resemblances will continue as Jesus’ mission unfolds.  Like Abraham the disciples in the new covenant were compelled to identify themselves with their covenant Lord, leave their way of life and follow Him.  The grounds for dedication of covenant discipleship in both instances were the same, faith in the promise that one day the Seed of the woman, the Messiah, would crush the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15).  Moreover, in both instances it would be manifested that a death would have to occur in order for the fulfillment of the promise to be ratified. The covenant Lord would in both instances, assume the curses as seen in the passing between the severed halves in the old and in the new by hanging on a tree.  The basis of judgment, therefore, would not be a condition upon the servant the conditions would be assumed by the covenant Lord:        

God’s call to Abraham was “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household” (Gen 12:1).  Similarly Jesus commanded his disciples to leave their nets and follow him.  Whatever stipulations, whatever requirements and demands God put on his people they will never – can never – be the basis for his judgment of their status before him.  Like the prologue to the Decalogue, the covenant of grace in every administration issues with a sovereign call simply to “come” on the basis of the liberation that has already occurred and is being announced. 87

Although, we admit that all of the details are not identical between the two callings there are some definite parallels among them.  As we also alluded to in the opening comments to this text it is conspicuous how several of the events recorded in John’s Gospel, thus far, are analogous to events recorded in Genesis.  In our text here we have just addressed one of those analogies and we will be moving on to address a second.  As we now turn our attention to the second question on our agenda when our Lord gives a new name to Peter it also hearkens back to the prior covenant administration under Abraham.  In the subsequent events of Genesis the patriarch Jacob receives a new name from the covenant Lord as well.  The practice of bestowing a new name on an individual was not uncommon to the ancient world or to the Scriptures.  It signifies a position of authority that the Lord bestowing the name has over the servant that is receiving the name.  Moreover, it also carries a connotation of a change in ones status in life that substantiates the need to be called by a new name.  It demonstrates that the person who receives the new name will carry out a new life under a new master.  An example that we can appeal to from Scripture is the prophet Daniel.  Daniel was exiled from Jerusalem and taken to Babylon as a youth to serve under king Nebuchadnezzar.  As a symbol of his subjection and new responsibilities in life he was given a new name by his new lord, Belteshazzar.  The same also holds true for his three friends who were in the same situation as him.  Similar to king Nebuchadnezzer, our great King had the authority over the lives of His “covenant” servants and demonstrates it by the bestowal of a new name.  Although the examples of the Old Testament servants and in our text here with Peter are not identical in the details, the analogous events support the idea that our God deals with His people covenantally.  There is, however, a significant detail that all three of these covenant servants share in common.  All three of these covenant servants were privileged to receive their new names in this age.  For the rest of us as subjects of the covenant Lord we must wait to receive our names at the end of our pilgrimage in the age to come:

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’ (Revelation 2:17)

As servants of the great King we will one day receive a new name that will symbolize His authority over our lives.  Authority not only as our Creator, but as our Redeemer as well who purchased us with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

A further interesting matter we should consider before concluding our response to this question is the significance of the name Peter, which means rock or stone.  It seems appropriate that we can justifiably offer two reasonable responses to the significance of this name that our Lord gives to the apostle.  First, as Calvin points out in his commentary on this verse and Peter himself alludes to in his Epistle (1 Peter 2:4-5) the name could be signifying the concept of living stones:

All the godly, indeed, may justly be called Peters, (stones),which, having been founded on Christ, are fitted for building the temple of God; but he alone is so called on account of his singular excellence. 88 

As Calvin indicates that all believers can be justly called Peters, since they are living stones founded on Christ and being constructed as a “spiritual house”.  Thus, Simon Peter, who is also one of those “stones”, is representative of all believers.  It is interesting how Calvin here interprets the term “spiritual house” as the temple of God, which is not out of line.  As we’ve considered thus far in this study  and will reconsider in the final verses of this lesson, Christ is the temple of God who “tabernacled” among us and equated Himself with the “ladder” in Jacob’s vision at “Bethel” (house of God).  Moreover, as the church we are also categorized as the “body of Christ”, which is descriptive of our union with Him who has the double cure for our sins.  Many of these types or analogies from Scripture begin to overlap, however provide a rich illustration of the blessings we have in Christ.There remains one more item of significance to the name that our Lord gives to the apostle and this is relative to his office as an apostle.  In this view the term “rock” signifies Peter’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, whose office symbolizes the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20).  In this view Peter is also representative of a group, however not the entire Church but the entire apostolic office.  The apostles’ role was to recall the words of Christ through the inspiration of the Spirit and inscripturate these words, which would serve as an infallible witness to the Church during its pilgrimage on earth.  This is pointed out by Hermann Ridderbos in the following:    

Scripture represents the witness of the Spirit that Christ promised would be combined with the witness of the apostles (John 15:26-27).  Scripture is the rock laid by Christ himself and to which His statement to Peter applies in principle, “on this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16:18). 89

Our Lord from the beginning knew the role that Peter and the rest of the apostles would play in the history of redemption.  The covenant Lord seeks out what will be His covenant witnesses to the world.  These witnesses would produce the new canon for the covenant community, which would be an infallible and authoritative witness to the promises and regulations of the covenant.  It is this Word of God that we now appeal to for what we are to believe and what we are to do as faithful subjects of the King.  Similar to the Word given in previous administrations (Deuteronomy 4:2) we are not to add or take away from it without being subjected to a curse (Revelation 22:18-19).

The Scriptures reveal that our God deals with His creation and His redeemed people in covenantal terms.  We may not realize this, but all people are in covenant with God and fall into two categories.  They are either in the covenant of works or the covenant of grace.  The covenant of works stands as the basis for God to judge all people according to their deeds.  The covenant of grace is the basis for God to have mercy on some and issue an acquittal from the judgment they deserve.  Not that it provides a basis for God to look the other way, but that within the covenant of grace a substitute is provided to stand in the place of God’s elect people.  Naturally, if our God deals with His people in a covenantal manner we will expect to see this reflected in the Scriptures.  In this text we have attempted to identify the similarities that exist in the way that God has dealt with his people during different administrations of the covenant of grace.  In our next section we will consider the unifying theme throughout the Scriptures of both the old and new covenant.

85 Michael S. Horton God of Promise Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker, 2006) 18

86 Meredith Kline (2007) Kingdom Prologue Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR:  Wipf & Stock 2006), 310

87 Michael S. Horton God of Promise Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker, 2006) 106-107

88 John Calvin (1550) Commentary on the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to John (Calvin’s Commentaries, 17; Baker, 2005) p 73
89 Hermann N. Ridderbos Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ; P&R, 1963) 30

Advertisements

Responses

  1. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’ (Revelation 2:17)

    Give me more verse that will prove, that the one holding the white stone will have his own new name written on it.

    What is your point on Peter’s new name? Are you insinuating and proving that he became the foundation of the Catholic Church because of this?

  2. El man the man,

    I apologize, but I do not understand your first statement. You are asking for more verses to prove what Revelation 2:17 says.

    In context our Lord is speaking to the church and indicating that those who overcome (conquer according to your translation) will receive a stone with their new name. Those who overcome are the believers that finish their pilgramage here on earth and enter into glory. Thus, when we as believers finish the race we will receive a new name.

    On the second point maybe I was not clear enough, Peter is not the foundation but all of the apostles are (Ephesian 2:20). More specifically the apostles writings that are now part of the canon of Scripture (the Bible). The apostolic writings, Scripture, are the testimony of Christ (the Word of God). It is Word of God that is the foundation of the Church.

    Hopefully that helps.

  3. Oh, I did not translate rev 2:17, I just copy and pasted in this comment that verse that you posted on your post.

    Reading it made me ask you to clarify if you understood it that there is no mention that “will receive a stone with their new name.” This you mention on your new comment together with this: “Those who overcome are the believers that finish their pilgramage here on earth and enter into glory. Thus, when we as believers finish the race we will receive a new name.”

    Are you insinuating again that those that will be saved by then, will have a NEW name REPLACING their former names? So, they will be called on another name?

    And then you are saying that according to Ephesians 2:20 (KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; -“that Peter is not the foundation but all of the apostles are…”

    Please, read the verse carefully, it is not the apostles and prophets that are called the foundations but rather they are founded on a foundation, that is, they are founded on the cornestone which is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the foundation.

    Your 3rd paragraph has conflicting thoughts and that is not true when you combine those sentences.

    I hope these help.

    Please also visit:

    http://www.esoriano.wordpress.com

    For more insights of the Truth.

  4. Elmantheman,

    Sorry I am not insinuating anything beyond what the verse says. I fail to see what the problem is in reading Revelation 2:17 and believing what it says.

    He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.

    Do you not believe the verse is clear in what it is saying? If not, what is your justification?

    Relative to my comment contradicting my post, I would beg to differ with this characterization. Either you have not read the content carefully or are taking something out of context. It says:

    In this view the term “rock” signifies Peter’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, whose office symbolizes the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). In this view Peter is also representative of a group, however not the entire Church but the entire apostolic office. The apostles’ role was to recall the words of Christ through the inspiration of the Spirit and inscripturate these words, which would serve as an infallible witness to the Church during its pilgrimage on earth

    Maybe you are confused by the term in the third sentence “apostles’…” this is plural not singular (apostrophe outside of the s). This is essentially saying that canon of Scripture is our foundation for our beliefs and practice.

    About Ephesians 2:19-21 it reads as follows:

    So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord

    In the ancient world the cornerstone was only part of a foundation, not the entire foundation. It was the first block that was laid that would provide the dimensional control for the rest of the foundation pieces. The text is stating that the apostles are part of the foundation along with Christ who is the cornerstone. Are you denying that this is what the verse says?

    The cessation of the apostolic office leaves us with no other foundation than Scripture.

    Thanks for the link. I went on the website, but was unable to find any indication of what this man believes. For your information, you can see what my beliefs are in the side bar widgets. I subscribe to a confession that summarizes what I believe about the Bible. The following are links to the creeds and confessions that I hold too:

    Apostle Creed: http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

    Nicene Creed: http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html

    Westminster Confession of Faith: http://www.opc.org/wcf.html

    Do you or Reverend Soriano subscribe to a confession?

  5. 1. I am only clarifying on what you said because you might have learned it from people that deceived you for self-interest.

    Should I say that your interpretation is yours only because it is you who posted it? I won’t mention of where you learned it, or if you learned it by yourself. But please, since you wrote this post, hear the words of the verses. The verse says, as it is written for the members of the church of God, they were told that they are now founded on a foundation where the the apostles and prophets where founded too, on Jesus Christ! They are fellow citizens with the saints and the membes of the household of God. All them are considered founded on Christ Jesus. Thus, In whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

    Read it again please:

    About Ephesians 2:19-21 it reads as follows:

    So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

    built on the foundation of

    the apostles and prophets,

    Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

    in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

    You are not that different from the Catholic Church’s stand on the matter, only that you added all the apostles and deleted the prophets. Was there a mention of office? Was there a mention that these Pope, the was, the is, and is to come needs to study on the apostolic school? Was there any mention that the chief cornerstone will have other cornerstones beside it as foundation? Or the fact is, the chief cornestone is the foundation and only on the top of it that lively stones will be placed? The member of the Church of God, which is the body are all lively stones put on top of the chief cornerstone which is Jesus Christ, for the wind will blow and the rain will come and the house will remain standing.

    How can the Catholic Church have a pope beginning with St Peter, when in fact the Apostles, even St Peter were commanded to what was given freely, they should give freely. Ask yourself Catholics, haven’t you paid starting baptism until someone felt your present when your dead, and paid for your misa/for prayer. And if you are not a Catholic, your faith leans on the Catholic teachings. Please study again.

    2. I never insinuated that if I will be saved, I will be given a new name. That is the reason why I want you to clear your stand that if you will be saved, you will receive a new name, and you will be called with a new name like that of Peter when he was Simon still.

    You first said in your reply to my comment that: “Thus, when we as believers finish the race we will receive a new name”

    For insights you can visit:

    http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/was-peter-really-the-rock/

  6. …the fact that you are stating parallelism of Simon given the name Peter and the name on stone will confuse anyone. So be clear, will you have a new name of your own written on a white stone? Will those be saved be given a name of their own like that of Peter?

    REV 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

    Only those who hath an ear that can hear, what the Spirit saith unto the churches; may I just remind you of that. Those in the Church of God that has an ear that can hear.

    Hope you are not offended by this but rather study more and seek.

    http://www.esoriano.wordpress.com

  7. Elmantheman,

    I think you and the author of this blog are talking past each other. I’m pretty sure you are charging him with things he is not guilty of because you have misunderstood what he has said.

    I think the misunderstanding boils down to this: when Jesus says to Peter that he is the rock on which he will build his church, he seems to be speaking of himself as the builder of the church, not part of the foundation.

    In Ephesians, however, Paul says that Christ is the beginning of the foundation, the first stone laid, so to speak.

    But I think in both cases, an analogy is being used to make a point. The point of the one passage is not exactly the same as the point of the other, so it would not be a good idea to make the two analogies conform to one another, because they are not saying exactly the same thing. That’s not to say that they contradict one another, just that they’re talking about two different points.

    In the one, Jesus is talking about how he’s going to go about building his church, beginning with the apostles. Notice Jesus himself is the builder of HIS church here. So this is not PETER building the church, this is Christ building the church, using Peter and the other apostles as foundation stones.

    In the other, Paul is talking about the primacy of Christ as himself being the cornerstone, the head in whom all are joined.

    One talks about how Jesus will build his church, the other talks about how Jesus is the head of the church that holds it together. These are certainly not at odds with each other, but making different points.

    I think your concern is that we remember that Jesus is ultimately the one with the authority in the church. If that is your concern, it is a good one. It is my concern too. Peter had no authority apart from Christ. Paul, in Rom 1:1, describes himself as a slave of Christ, though he is in fact an apostle. We are all slaves of Christ.

    And yet, Jesus Christ has delegated certain authorities to the church. It began with his apostles, who had a measure of authority, and today we have ministers who have a certain measure of authority.

    Now we may disagree as to the nature of that authority, but for now, we can all agree regarding the fact of the authority. Ministers today have some kind of authority which is given to them by our one King, Jesus Christ.

    For my part, I recognize the authority of NO POPE. In my opinion, the office of Pope is a manifestation of the spirit of antichrist, if not THE Antichrist. I hope this makes my opinion of the Pope clear.

    Nonetheless, the apostles and prophets and ministers today had/have some measure of authority given them by Jesus Christ. It is his authority to delegate.

    I hope that helps.

    Echo

  8. echo,

    Matthew 21:
    42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

    1 Corinthians 3:

    11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

    12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,

    13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work.

    14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

    16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

    18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

  9. …who told you that both verses are saying two different things, echo? Is it your own interpretation?

    You might think that the point of the one passage is not exactly the same as the point of the other, but that is what you think, not what the bible imparts.

    Jesus during the time he spoke to Peter, the Father actually was the one talking, telling Peter that Jesus is the Rock. Start from there and you will see, I hope by the grace of God, where the parallelism is leading us to. So you can move forward.

  10. Elmantheman,

    Echo is right you are having a very difficult time understanding what is said. Now you are making accusations that do no make any sense.

    I suggest that you read the confession to get a better understanding of what I believe. Anything that you think is deviating from what is stated in the confession means that you are misunderstanding what is written.

    Again do you or Brother Soriano have a confession you subscribe too? Or do you just believe what he says like you say on your blog? I have heard of the Church of God, but do not know what they believe.

  11. Then tell me which things
    I have accused you of and what have I not understood!

    Or only that you cannot accept the verses that I mentioned and has given your own interpretation together with echo_ohce?

    You have a topic above and as the author, it would be easier for those who reads your post if we remain on the topic, right?

    Surely, the church of God does not need anyone outside the church to teach us.

    1 John 2:27
    As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

    I believe in God and Jesus Christ, and I believe that Brother Eliseo Soriano does what he has been predestined to do for the Church of God. Try to visit his blog and learn what the wisdom truly says about any topics under the sun.

  12. Elmantheman,

    You accused me of being no different than the Roman Catholic Church. However, if you read what has been written it is certainly not true.

    I wasn’t asking for you to receive any teaching from another Church. I was asking if you and Brother Soriano subscribe to a confession. Is there a document that you refer to that states what you believe? Something like what my Church has: http://www.opc.org/wcf.html

  13. El man,

    Almost every time you have two different verses, they are saying slightly different things. They are different verses for a reason. If they were saying exactly the same thing, then one of them would be redundant, unneeded.

    I said that the two passages have two different points. That’s a bit more refined than saying that they are saying two different things. That they are saying two different things should be obvious, since the words are different, the authors are different, and the original audiences are different, and the genres are different. Thus they are saying two different things. However, it might be the case that though they are saying two different things, they might still have the same point.

    However, in this case, they are not only saying two different things but making two different points.

    Clearly someone must have taught me this, and I am obviously only rehearsing what they have told me to say, because I have no ability to think for myself. That this is obvious should be proven from the fact that I disagree with you, the only person who knows how to think for yourself. So why don’t you tell me what to think, and I’ll just obey you, and follow you, like the unthinking robot that I am.

    What I have just said is called sarcasm. It means that I’m saying the very opposite of what I mean, in order to be provocative.

    By the way, when Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock upon which he will build my church, how on earth can it be the Father talking, saying that Christ is the rock upon which he will build his church? That interpretation offends common sense. In fact, I find it downright silly.

  14. This blog proclaims: Sola scriptura = By Scripture Alone. And your opinion does not count without basis from the scriptures.

    I challenge you to give me verses your claims and cite the verse from the holy bible.

    But since God wants all men to be saved, I suggest you read below link and the doctrine it contains.

    http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/was-peter-really-the-rock/

  15. El man,

    You say God wants all men to be saved. However, all men are NOT saved. Apparently God cannot bring about what he wants. He must be crying himself to sleep every night on his huge God pillow because of all the people who he wants to save but cannot.

    E

  16. Elmantheman,
    Let’s take a moment to think about your last comment. If you really think hard about this you will see that you are proving my point. Let me try to point out how you are doing this. You said:

    I challenge you to give me verses your claims and cite the verse from the holy bible.

    This is a noble request, which should be taken under consideration. At the same time your desire is to have proof texts provided that support my position. Why is the Bible being appealed too? Well, I would argue that it is our only authority that the church has to properly support its faith and practice. Do you see how you are proving my point in your request?

    Hopefully you understand this, however there is another thing that I want to point out. After looking on your Church official web-site thankfully they affirm the Trinity. Well I challenge you to find a Bible verse that states explicitly that we are to believe in the Trinity….waiting…..still waiting…..I might as well let you know that it isn’t in there. Why do we believe it though and affirm this important doctrine? Well it is because that although it is not explicitly mentioned in the text, we can deduce by plain and necessary reason that the Bible teaches it and we should believe. Are you still with me?

    With this in mind I will respond to you request. Fortunately, this is a topic that I have labored to articulate in the past and already have many posts about it. I would start with the entire category of Revelation:

    https://msamudio.wordpress.com/category/revelation/

    If you don’t have time then particularly focus on the following three posts:

    https://msamudio.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/the-scriptures-alone/

    https://msamudio.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/why-its-sufficient/

    https://msamudio.wordpress.com/2006/10/18/it-is-sufficient/

    Hopefully, you will see that the Scriptures are alone our authority for all matters of faith and practice.

  17. And what website are you referring to? We do not affirm the doctrine of “Trinity” as composed by the Roman Catholic Church.

    Was there a word “alone” in the scriptures you mentioned? If there is none, how can you say that “the Scriptures are alone our authority for all matters of faith and practice.”

    This is a plain and simple fact. YOu just can’t prove that the word “alone” was used by the Holy Scripture to save men.

  18. This is the website:

    http://www.churchofgod.net/doctrine.htm

    Sound’s like there is more than one”Church of God”.

    Not to seem rude, but your comments are very much uninformed. The Roman Catholic Church did not compose the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is a biblical doctrine that the Church affirmed at the council of Nicea. Delegates from the Roman Bishop were present, however there were also Greek Churches, Alexandrian Churches, Syrian Churches, North African Churches and Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) Churches. All of these Christian Churches assembled to formulate a response to heretical claims against the Diety of Christ. They had to resolve the tension within the Scriptures that affirm Christ’s Diety, yet being separate from the Father, yet God is only one in being:

    https://msamudio.wordpress.com/2006/06/22/the-solution-to-the-problem/

    Who taught you that the Trinity is a Roman Catholic Doctrine?

  19. Then do Roman Catholic Church has the Trinity?

    I am not here to debate whether or not the bible is the sole source or the authority for Christian faith. I also believe that the scriptures contains wisdom sufficient for the salvation of man. What I am asking you is that why you are adding the word “alone” in the verses you mentioned when in fact there is none. Because if you are adding words to the verse, you are adulterating it. It is not pure anymore, ergo, you are not a believer of “Sola scriptura = By Scripture Alone” that you and your church claims.

    Now I have mentioned of the Church of God that we need to be imitators of from other comment area of your other post.

    Do we need to register to be a member of the Church of God or do we need to use the name of the Church of God or do we need to create a new church and use the name Church of God?

    visit these please for the biblical teachings:

  20. I think I get it now…I am not adding “alone” to the verses of the Bible. We are only interpreting what they mean. You are quoting a heading or description not a verse. Sorry for the confusion.

    And I am sorry to say if you do not believe in the Trinity then you may be called the “Church of God”, but it is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible reveals Himself to be one in being and three in person.

    I don’t understand your last question.

  21. […] from being fulfilled.  In the Old Testament the line of the messianic Seed is revealed (through covenant) to be a descendant of Abraham who was promised to be a father of a nation.  We then trace the […]

  22. […] teach doctrines and uses verses from the scriptures but they interpret these by themselves.  They did not render that the bible can explain itself even without their conclusions. Why did I say […]

  23. […] to point his followers towards the Messiah.  The disciples respond following our Lord who summons them.  In returning to the home town of the disciples they find Phillip who in turn finds […]

  24. The stone is the word and that word is the cornerstone which is rejected by the builders (scribe and pharisees).

    But who, he accepted that stone to build his house is an intellegent man who build his house not made of a bamboo.

    And the first house who build this stone is Peter, the first Apostle. That’s why Peter name was used to described that house which build on a stone.

    In this house the spirit of truth will live.

    And you will be the temple of God.

    A strong and brave man even you will put him in a death it does not matter to him like Peter and christians in the time of Nero. — fulfillment of Matthew 16:18.

    The hell their signify persecution and death.

    Hope that you will visit also my blog bros.

  25. I am sorry but I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

  26. To “member of MCGI Cebu Chapter,”

    I noticed that you really have your own interpretations of the bible just like Standing Solus Christus.

    Your name has no link to any blog of yours.

  27. Elman,

    That’s funny…I thought he was from your “church”.

    Don’t you and Bro Soriano have your own interpretation?

    Just to clarify my content is largely not “my own”, but what I have learned from others.

    S2C

  28. It’s all truth bro. elman, and nothing but the truth.

    even you ask it to bro. eli.

    The word is the stone brother and that word become flesh

    what’s the confusion bro.?


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: