Argument :Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church

I've moved a conversation on whether Peter is the Rock that Christ build His Church from Story of the attack on the attack on the Baghdad Church to this thread.



Kris K has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

Hey Fletch (3:47 pm),

I regard myself first and foremost as a biblical Christian - denomination/church is secondary, and the measure of any church I attend is how closely it adheres to God's word the Bible (KJV IMHO).

When Christ said "upon this rock (Christ Himself; who is the chief cornerstone) I will build my church", He was speaking of all those who come to Him in faith and believe on Him alone for salvation. The church of Christ is the body of all true believers - it is no particular church/denomination.

I know Roman Catholics are told that Peter is the rock, but I believe the scriptures are clear that Christ alone is the Rock; the chief cornerstone which the builders rejected.

Peter hiself admits Christ is this chief corner stone:

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Peter was most assuredly NOT talking of himself.

Posted by Kris K to New Zealand Conservative at 4:17 PM, December 11, 2010
*

I.M Fletcher has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

I'm sorry Kris, but I believe Jesus was referring to Peter when he called him "Rock". But not only that - he said he was giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, not to Himself, giving Peter the power to bind and lose, to forgive sins on Earth.

I've asked this before Kris, but when do you think they authority of the first church ends? The Early Church Fathers all believed in the authority of Peter and the Church.

Some of the greatest Protestant scholars of all time admit that Jesus means Peter is the Rock. Scott Hahn points them out -


One of the top Evangelical, non-Catholic scholars in America, Professor Donald Carson of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in his book, God With Us, Themes from Matthew says, "Jesus was simply using a pun to say that Peter is the rock on which Jesus would build His Church." Now Dr. Carson is no Catholic Apologist. He would try to set up arguments against the Catholic faith, I'm sure; but he's sincere and, I think, also respectable as a scholar in insisting upon the obvious evidence in the conclusions.

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will see."

One of the greatest reformed Biblical scholars of this century, Herman Liderboss, a European scholar, in his Matthew commentary says, "The slight difference between these two words, petra and petros, has no special importance. The most likely explanation for the change from petros, Peter, masculine, 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. 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 he had received and the confession it had motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future Church."

Posted by I.M Fletcher to New Zealand Conservative at 5:27 PM, December 11, 2010 

*

I.M Fletcher has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

Hahn also quotes martin Luther, when he says

In fact, I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, "Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.'" This is Jesus talking, "'Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.'" Luther even saw it, "'They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.'" The only thing that Luther won't admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background.

It should also be noted that Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in January 1521, yet he writes after that -

"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., "
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28.
(1522)

And

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304


Posted by I.M Fletcher to New Zealand Conservative at 5:35 PM, December 11, 2010 

*

Kris K has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

Fletch (5:27 & 5:35),

While I could also quote you many scholars who disagree with your quoted scholars - Matthew Henry, for instance - I prefer to keep to God's word.

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 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.

Here's a little hint on how to understand the difference between the "thees" and "thous" in the KJV:
"Thou" = you (individual)
"Thee" = you (plural)

Now lets go verse by verse:
[13] Christ is addressing ALL the disciples, not just Peter, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" So we have clearly established that "Christ" is the subject at hand.
[14 - 16] Peter happens to answer, perhaps because he was the more outspoken.
[17] "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona" - to Peter
"for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." - to ALL the disciples.
[18] "And I say also unto thee" - to ALL the disciples.
"That thou art Peter" - because Peter answered.
"and upon this rock I will build my church" - the MAIN subject at hand: Christ Himself; the chief corner stone [see 1 Peter 2:6-8 which I quoted earlier].
[19] "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" - to ALL the disciples.
"and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - to each individual disciple.

Of course verse 19 is speaking to ALL true disciples of Christ, and was not just limited to the Apostles or the disciples at that time.
The "keys" are symbolic of spiritual power given to ALL true followers of Christ; those who are His body, His church. This spiritual power is delegated to those entrusted with the gospel of salvation - once again ALL true followers of Christ (His body, His church) are to share the gospel. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that opens the kingdom of heaven to those who receive Christ and entrust Him alone for their salvation.

If you're going to convince me otherwise, Fletch, you need to use the scriptures ALONE and your own reasoning - as I just have above.

Posted by Kris K to New Zealand Conservative at 6:31 PM, December 11, 2010 


*

I.M Fletcher has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

Kris, sorry but I don't by that AT ALL. Thou and thee are simply old versions of I and Me.


The difference between "thee" and "thou" is easy as pie. The word "thee" is the object of the sentence/question/exclaimation/etc. and the word "thou" is the subject. Have a look at this, it makes things easy to remember.

Subject: 1st/2nd person singular
I/thou

Object: 1st/2nd person singular
me/thee

Possesive adjective: 1st/2nd person singular
my/thy

Possesive pronoun: 1st/2nd person singular
mine/thine

Reflexive pronoun: 1st/2nd person singular
myself/thyself

I simply must disagree with you that the "keys" are symbolic of all power given to believers. I doubt that there are many theologians who believe that.

If what you say is true, then any Bible believer has the "keys" and is therefore able to forgive sins. Lets look at the NIV translation -

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

This is pretty obviously directed to Peter alone - especially the keys. Later on, in John 20 in scripture, Jesus also gives power to the Apostles to forgive sin -


On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Compose
Are you saying that this applies to all Christians today? The ability to forgive sin? How can that be? The only institution that DARES to suggest they have the authority (through the sacrament of reconciliation - not by their own power) is the Catholic Church.

So, I believe you are plain WRONG in that regard.

Posted by I.M Fletcher to New Zealand Conservative at 8:13 PM, December 11, 2010

*

I.M Fletcher has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

ps, also, logically, you assertion that Thou means Jesus is addressing Peter, and Thee is addressing ll the disciples simply doesn't stack up.

Let's look at one of the verses you use as your argument -

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Ok, 'so blessed are you Simon Barjona' - fair enough so far; he's talking to Peter - 'for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father...'.

Well - the whole point of these verses is that the Father revealed Jesus' real identity to Peter - not the other disciples - they didn't know and it was Peter who spoke up with the answer.
So how can "thee" be referring to all the disciples when it's obvious the answer had not been revealed to them and Jesus is talking to Peter alone?

Just sensible.



Posted by I.M Fletcher to New Zealand Conservative at 8:26 PM, December 11, 2010

*
I.M Fletcher has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

ps, also, logically, your assertion that 'Thou' means Jesus is addressing Peter, and 'Thee' is addressing all the disciples simply doesn't stack up.

Let's look at one of the verses you use as your argument -

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Ok, 'so blessed are you Simon Barjona' - fair enough so far; he's talking to Peter - 'for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father...'.

Well - the whole point of these verses is that the Father revealed Jesus' real identity to Peter - not the other disciples - they didn't know and it was Peter who spoke up with the answer.
So how can "thee" be referring to all the disciples when it's obvious the answer had not been revealed to them and Jesus is talking to Peter alone?

Just logical.

Posted by I.M Fletcher to New Zealand Conservative at 8:29 PM, December 11, 2010

*

Kris K has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

Fletch 8:13 pm Dec 11,

On reflection, I'll give you the "thee" and "thou" argument, but NOT that Christ was addressing Peter only rather than all the disciples present. He only replies initially to Peter because it was Peter who answered the question, He then goes back to addressing the group. Remember He started speaking to the group - Mat 16:13 "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

But I want to stick with the issue of whether it is in fact Christ who is the Rock.
Lets go to the Greek for Matt 16:18.

Mat 16:18 And1161 I say also2504, 3004 unto thee,4671 That3754 thou4771 art1488 Peter,4074 and2532 upon1909 this5026 rock4073 I will build3618 my3450 church;1577 and2532 the gates4439 of hell86 shall not3756 prevail against2729 it.846

I have left the Strong's Numbers showing.
Lets look at "Peter,4074", followed by "rock4073".

"Peter,4074":
G4074
?e´t???
Petros
pet'-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

"rock4073":
G4073
pe´t?a
petra
pet'-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Now Peter is from the Greek "Petros" - a piece of rock, and is distinct from "Petra" - a large mass of Rock. These two things are NOT the same, just as "Peter,4074" and "rock4073" are not the same.

Of course Peter makes this clear later when he said:
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And2532 a stone3037 of stumbling,4348 and2532 a rock4073 of offense,4625 even to them which3739 stumble4350 at the3588 word,3056 being disobedient:544 whereunto1519, 3739 also2532 they were appointed.5087

Once again the "chief corner stone" is Christ (not Peter), and this same stone is the "rock4073" (petra) which we have already established is NOT Peter (4074 Petros).

Paul also confirm that this "rock4073" is in fact Christ:
1Co 10:4 And2532 did all3956 drink4095 the3588 same846 spiritual4152 drink:4188 for1063 they drank4095 of1537 that spiritual4152 Rock4073 that followed190 them: and1161 that Rock4073 was2258 Christ.5547

How much clearer do you want it? - "... for they drank of that spiritual Rock4073 that followed them: and that Rock4073 was Christ."
Clearly, it is Christ who is the Rock (4073 Petra).


Posted by Kris K to New Zealand Conservative at 5:59 PM, December 12, 2010 

*
I.M Fletcher has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

Kris, that is because you're looking at the Greek and not the Aramaic that Jesus and the disciples spoke.

Scott Hahn explains -


I discovered that all the evidence points to the fact that Peter is the "rock."

Now you might say, "That's as plain as the nose on your face. What's the excitement of that discovery?" Well, non-Catholics frequently claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this rock." Or other Protestants object and say, "No, Jesus says, 'And you are petros.'" You are petros, you are rock, and on this petra, the Greek word for large rock, "I will build my Church." So some Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really saying is. 'You're a little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ, the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.'"

Now the closer I studied the more I realized that those positions were untenable, simply untenable. And I'm going to share in a few minutes the fact that most conservative anti-Catholic Protestant scholars today will admit that readily and candidly. The more I dug, the more I found that the evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus was speaking of Peter. Peter is the Rock. Peter just said, "You are the Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros." There is a little parallelism there. "You are the Son of the Living God" and "You are the son of Jonah, Simon Bar-Jonah; you are the Petros."

Now people could say, "Wait a second. There is a distinction in the Greek language between petros," Peter's name and petra. Petros can mean stone, whereas petra can often mean "big rock." The problem with that is two-fold. First of all, Jesus probably didn't speak Greek when He was with the disciples. I mean that is held by 99.9 percent of all scholars. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Jesus in His normal conversations spoke Greek. What's almost certain is that He spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic there is only one word that could possibly be used and Kouman and other scholars have pointed to the fact that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He only could have said, "You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given our knowledge of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The Aramaic language doesn't allow it.

Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word in Greek that is normally used for "large rock," but - I should say petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra, large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.

You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or, you know, something like that. You give him the masculine form of the word. I should also add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon.

Good try though :)

Posted by I.M Fletcher to New Zealand Conservative at 7:33 PM, December 12, 2010

*

Kris K has left a new comment on your post "The story of the attack on the Baghdad Church":

Fletcher 7:33 PM, December 12, 2010

Kris, that is because you're looking at the Greek and not the Aramaic that Jesus and the disciples spoke.

Scott Hahn explains

I think your mate Mr Hahn is grabbing at straws, and is being dishonest not to mention totally inconsistent in his reasoning, if you can call it that. The Holy Spirit preserved the New Testament in the Greek, and God made this distinction between "petros" and "petra" for a reason - that reason is that Peter is NOT the Rock (petra), but Christ is.

You try and wriggle your way out by saying that "petra" is feminine and therefore can't refer to Peter, a male, and hence "petros" is used instead. Good try, but no cigar. Lets look again at what Paul said in 1 Cor 10:4.

Paul also confirms that this "Rock; petra 4073" is in fact Christ:
1Co 10:4 And2532 did all3956 drink4095 the3588 same846 spiritual4152 drink:4188 for1063 they drank4095 of1537 that spiritual4152 Rock4073 that followed190 them: and1161 that Rock4073 was2258 Christ.5547

Why wasn't "Petra - Rock 4073" replaced with "petros" as well - I mean Christ was just as much a man as was Peter? This is where your argument for replacing "petra" with "petros" to avoid using the feminine form of 'rock' for Peter falls down ENTIRELY. If you would use this 'logic' *cough* for Peter you must also use it for Christ.

And just looking at tha plain english - how do you get around the fact that Paul said, "and that Rock was Christ."? Just using common sense there is ONLY one Rock, and that Rock is Christ.

The clear testimony of scripture is that Christ is the rock (petra) in the New Testament, not to mention numerous references in the OT that God is referred to as the Rock - 2Sa 22:47 "The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation."

Whenever "Rock; 4073 petra" is used in the NT it is alway in direct reference to Christ alone (yes, the feminine form), and whenever "Peter; 4074 petros" is used it is always for Peter alone.

You try and force ONE verse to say something which is ENTIRELY inconsistent with the rest of scripture, with the Greek, and even with rational argument.

Of course, as a Roman Catholic you HAVE to to try and prop up the whole "Peter was the first pope" false argument. Scripture warns -

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hmmm, "one is your Master", "one is your Father", "one mediator between God and men", and ONE Rock - namely the Lord Jesus Christ - do we see a theme here? Christ/God doesn't like competition for His titles/roles. Roman Catholic attempts to make your pope the "Holy Father", your earthly "master", "mediator between God and men", and Peter (RC's first pope) the "rock" in place of Christ are all BLASPHEMOUS claims. Peter must grieve in heaven when he sees how the RC church assigns that which is Christ's alone to him.

I trust you seriously consider the above, Fletch (and others) - the implications are eternal ...

Posted by Kris K to New Zealand Conservative at 12:25 PM, December 13, 2010