I'm stumped (about the primacy of Peter)

[Teflon93]

Teflon,

I will be out of town for the next 4 days but I think it is fairly simple to find quite a few ECF’s who do in fact believe the rock is Peter’s confession of faith.

I’ll see what I can post when I get back.

That’s okay—if you do, I will stand corrected and say so.

I read Stephen Ray’s Upon this Rock a couple of months ago, and while the ECF’s are not as definitive on Peter’s primacy as I would like (i.e. Justin Martyr saying “As Pope Peter I said…” or somesuch") I do not recall any reference to Peter’s confession.

I am sure that anyone who has such a thing handy will post it in the meantime; if not, if you can find it that would be great.

 

[Teflon93]

Before I go…

---

‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession***. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd…For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).

Now, Chrysostom uses very flowery language to describe Peter in other writings but he will use the same flowery language to describe James, John and Paul as well. To the best of my knowledge, Chrysostom never refers to Peter as the rock when exegeting Matt 16. If someone has other information contrary to this, please post it.

Thanks.

Chrysostom certainly counts as an ECF, and flowery language notwithstanding, I stand corrected—there was at least one ECF who did in fact refer to Peter’s “confession” in this regard rather than Peter himself.

Nicely done, Calvinator—thanks for posting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I might add, in acts8:14, Peter is sent out by the apostles. If Peter had primacy, he would be sending the others out.

There is no problem whatsoever with a group of Church leaders discussing the matter at hand and who would be the best person to handle it. If the group consensus was that Peter was the best man for the job, then so be it. Some situations require the direct involvement of the top dog. There is no diminishing of Peter’s authority just because he chose to collaborate with the other leaders of the Church.

Also 1Pet5:1, Peter says he is an elder.

And so he was. The actual titles and designations were in a state of flux during the early days. Paul seems to have called himself by several titles, also. It was only later that these things became formalized.

Another interesting quote about Peter acts 10:-25-26
Peter tells Cornelius “Do not bow to me, I am only a man”

Correct. Peter is a man.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

**Origen **

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

**Cyprian **

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair * cathedra*], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 **[A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD)

“the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).

**Ephraim **

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Ambrose **

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

**Pope Damasus I **

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (* Decree of Damasus* 3 [A.D. 382]).

**John Chrysostom (347–407) **

"He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, “If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep” (Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, homily 88). Later in the same homily, John Chrysostom observes that Jesus “appointed” Peter “teacher of the world.”

**Jerome **

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

**Pope Innocent I **

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope] and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

**Augustine **

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” (Against the Letter of Mani, 5 [A.D. 395]).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” (To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 [A.D. 397]).

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Nonsense. The plain meaning is that Peter is the rock.

brosam is very anti-Catholic, and has been taught a considerable amount of untruths and misunderstandings about the Church. The interpretation he gives is a common anti-papal interretation used by fundamentalists.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s okay—if you do, I will stand corrected and say so.

I read Stephen Ray’s Upon this Rock a couple of months ago, and while the ECF’s are not as definitive on Peter’s primacy as I would like (i.e. Justin Martyr saying “As Pope Peter I said…” or somesuch") I do not recall any reference to Peter’s confession.

I am sure that anyone who has such a thing handy will post it in the meantime; if not, if you can find it that would be great.

The Early Church Fathers spoke of Peter, Peter’s Confession and Jesus Himself as being the “Rock” because they were not forced into an either/or mode by any challenge from alternative theological systems that required the denial of Peter as Pope.

In the face of Protestant opposition, we moderns have had to tighten up the precision of our language, but before the rise of certain heresies, the Church was free to take a “both/and” approach to many issues.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK

“You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)." (John 1:42)

“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter 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.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 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” New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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 . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” “Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play
is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“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.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
“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.’ . . . 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” Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

 

[guanophore]

Peter and John weren’t ordered. You misunderstand the sense in which Peter was “sent”. It has no bearing whatsoever on his authority.

The second point is utterly irrelevant. Of course Peter was a man. Does the Pope claim to be more than a man?

He has a lot of fancy titles, or has throughout history, such as Vicar of Christ, that anti Catholics seize upon to mount objections.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve often heard that most of the early church fathers saw “the rock” as being either Peter’s confession, Jesus, or both but not Peter himself as modern catholics now understand the verse.

Both things are true. It is Peter’s divinely inspired insight into the reality of the Rock as Christ that Jesus recognized as a foundation for His church. Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah is what makes him “rocky”. The two need not be separated, and were not, until the reformation.

 

[guanophore]

So Christ begins reminding the apostles that they are to eschew the doctrine of the Pharisees and Saducees—they are no longer to follow their teachings. The Holy Spirit reveals Christ’s true nature to Simon. Not to any other apostle, but to Simon. Simon reveals what the Holy Spirit has told him. Christ confirms the revelation, which establishes Christ’s supreme authority to overturn the teaching authority of the Pharisees and Saducees, and pronounces that he will found a new Church upon a different rock than that of the Temple. He then renames Simon “Rock”, promises to grant him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (keys being an obvious sign of authority), and specifically gives Peter the authority to bind and loose.

This is as clear an act of delegation of authority in the first century A.D. as Caesar adopting a male heir.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Peter’s alleged “confession of faith”, which is why you will search in vain for an Early Church Father who says any such thing.

I agree with all the things you said above except this last part. I think it has everything to do with the confession of Peter. By this confession, Peter demonstrates that the HS has given him divine insight into the person and mission of the Christ. It is this divine insight that qualifies Peter to become the Shepherd of the Church. It is also part of the Petrine gift that has been handed down over the centuries.

I

t would be ridiculous for anyone familiar with the Gospel to so assert, in fact, for as we see throughout, Peter is hardly the most steadfast of the apostles. Indeed, his selection as head of Christ’s Church is in many ways a fulfillment of Christ’s promise that the last shall be first in his Kingdom.

Why do those who profess to love the Gospel insist to torture it so in service to their anachronistic heresies and their consuming need to take issue with every single pronouncement of the Catholic Church?

Because if they didn’t, they would have to become Catholic!

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

The Early Church Fathers spoke of Peter, Peter’s Confession and Jesus Himself as being the “Rock” because they were not forced into an either/or mode by any challenge from alternative theological systems that required the denial of Peter as Pope.

In the face of Protestant opposition, we moderns have had to tighten up the precision of our language, but before the rise of certain heresies, the Church was free to take a “both/and” approach to many issues.

Only the RCC hierarchy is free to take a both/and position on anything; for everyone else it’s EITHER you submit to the pope, OR you’re a heretic.
Randy Carson:

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

The reformers weren’t the only group who had a problem with the papacy; were they?

And how many of the those protestant writers that you quote emphatically deny that the passage in question gives any basis for a papacy?

I’d wager all of them.

So what’s your point in quoting them?

 

[Teflon93]

The Early Church Fathers spoke of Peter, Peter’s Confession and Jesus Himself as being the “Rock” because they were not forced into an either/or mode by any challenge from alternative theological systems that required the denial of Peter as Pope.

In the face of Protestant opposition, we moderns have had to tighten up the precision of our language, but before the rise of certain heresies, the Church was free to take a “both/and” approach to many issues.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

It does—the bottom line is I missed the reference when reading “Upon this Rock”. Always dangerous to argue ahead of your evidence!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Ok I’m stumped. In talking about the primacy of Peter I pointed out Matthew 16:18-19

“Mat 16:18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I pointed all the normal Catholic stuff of what is being said. I asked what he thought, and after a number of trys, he has not given a interprtation that deels with every thing in these verses.

Now my problem, he asked whats up with matthew 18:18

Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.Mat 18:18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Mat 18:19 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.

I know their is no mention of keys. The keys in mat 16:19 is authortive? Right? But other than that I have no idea how to explain 18:18 in a way that is correct and dosn’t let them pounce all over me, to say Peter had no primancy.

Two excellent books on the topic: Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray, and Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, & David Hess.

For now:

Scripture and Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter
Was Peter the Rock?

Happy reading!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The reformers weren’t the only group who had a problem with the papacy; were they?

And how many of the those protestant writers that you quote emphatically deny that the passage in question gives any basis for a papacy?

I’d wager all of them.

So what’s your point in quoting them?

The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

*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. **Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. 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. **(Martin Luther 1530 A.D.- **after he left the Church**)*

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:
*Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....**To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.***

 

[Teflon93]

I agree with all the things you said above except this last part. I think it has everything to do with the confession of Peter. By this confession, Peter demonstrates that the HS has given him divine insight into the person and mission of the Christ. It is this divine insight that qualifies Peter to become the Shepherd of the Church. It is also part of the Petrine gift that has been handed down over the centuries.

I was using “Peter’s confession” in the sense that I think Brosam was using it, not in the sense that Catholics use it.

We read that as, “There! The Holy Spirit revealed an unseen truth to Peter, indicating that he received a personal revelation as to the nature of Christ.”

Fundamentalists read it as, “Wow! Peter sure has a lot of faith!”

That said, as noted, I was wrong that the ECF’s did not refer to Peter’s “confession of faith” as opposed to Peter himself.

I certainly welcome any further correction to my discussion of the context of this chapter, however. Thematically, Christ is declaring the Pharisees and Saducees no longer possess teaching authority, declaring his intent to replace their authority with Peter’s, and thereby beginning to bring about the replacement of the wicked tenants described in that parable.

 

[sandusky]

The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

*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. **Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. 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. ***(Martin Luther 1530 A.D.- **after he left the Church**)

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

*Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....**To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.***

Peter was certainly considered the leader among the apostles; however, that is not a sufficient reason on which to construct a papacy, and all of the Protestants cited as affirming that Peter was the Rock would agree with that.

That none of what was said by those Protestants cited supports a papacy, Pixie Dust, is evidenced by the fact that none of those Protestants cited were Papists.

That’s not that difficult to understand.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Peter was certainly considered the leader among the apostles; however, that is not a sufficient reason on which to construct a papacy, and all of the Protestants cited as affirming that Peter was the Rock would agree with that.

That none of what was said by those Protestants cited supports a papacy, Pixie Dust, is evidenced by the fact that none of those Protestants cited were Papists.

That’s not that difficult to understand.

Um, I think “Papist” is on the list of inappropriate slurs :tsktsk: …but of course they weren’t Catholics or they wouldn’t have been Protestant! It’s one thing to reject the authority of the Church and another thing to deny it’s even there. Just because they chose to reject that authority does not mean they didn’t believe it existed.

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

Just because they chose to reject that authority does not mean they didn’t believe it existed.

That’s both ridiculous and backwards thinking; none of those men deny that the papacy existed; what they assert is that the papacy has neither a biblical authority, a biblical basis, nor a biblical reason for its existence.