Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>Ankerberg: I’d like you to put the other side of the fence. I said that there was a
hypothesis that Fr. Pacwa is using, namely that in referring to Peter, which we all agree
is, “small rock,” and that there is a differentiation between the other Rock. There
is something different; it’s not referring to Peter because of the way it’s written.
All right. What would be another option that would seem to fit this evidence better from
your point of view? Would you please explain that so we get it on the table anyway.
>>Martin: I would take Augustine’s position,...
>>Ankerberg: All right.
>>Martin: …a very great theologian, that Peter’s confession of faith: “Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God” is the foundation. And that it’s not Peter.
Cross-referencing it to 1 Peter 2, Peter didn’t understand it to refer to him. He put himself
in with all the rest of the “little stones” built up into the spiritual house, Jesus Christ
being the chief Cornerstone. Ephesians 2:20 says, “We’re built upon the foundation
of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ, the chief Cornerstone.” He quotes Scripture,
“Behold I lay in Zion a Cornerstone, a rock of offense. Whoever believes on Him...”—not
Peter, Christ—“will not be ashamed.” That Peter was a moving force, a chief apostle
in the Church, there’s no doubt whatsoever. That his writings were authoritative and they
were accepted as such. That he recommended Paul’s writings as Scripture, even calling
it “Scripture,” equating it with the Old Testament, is indicative of the fact that
they agreed in their basic theology. Well, since they agreed in their basic theology,
the facts fit the hypothesis that the whole structure of the New Testament and the first
five centuries following that, historically, did not give any supreme role to the Bishop
of Rome.