Peter the Rock

[heisenburg]

Question to our Protestant Brethren.

I am simply curious why so many protestants have an issue with the idea of Peter being the “Head Pastor”. I know many think that if you let Peter be Head, then you have to have the Pope, but, Lets say for arguement purpose that if Peter is the Head Pastor, that it doesnt necisarily require the succession of “Head Pastors”

I know many say Matthew is talking about little rock/Big rock, But for me the argument is weak because the conversation took place in Aramaic (sp) and the word used there wouldnt have distinguesed the two. Also, It doesnt seem to fit with the surrounding verses.

I know many want to quickly jump and say that I’m wrong, but I want to know why, from a biblical stand point, its so wrong to have Peter as Head Pastor.Why does it really mater if there was someone in charge of teh Apostles after Jesus left. Paul mentioned the importance of Church leaders else where, so, whats wrong with the idea that the “congregation” that consisted of the Apostles had a church leader.

Again, I am not talking about apostolic succession, i am simply talking about Peter and only Peter.

In Christ

 

[jemfinch]

Question to our Protestant Brethren.

I am simply curious why so many protestants have an issue with the idea of Peter being the “Head Pastor”. I know many think that if you let Peter be Head, then you have to have the Pope, but, Lets say for arguement purpose that if Peter is the Head Pastor, that it doesnt necisarily require the succession of “Head Pastors”

What it does require is that you believe in a visible Church. An invisible-only Church does not need a visible head like Peter.

Jeremy

 

[water]

What it does require is that you believe in a visible Church. An invisible-only Church does not need a visible head like Peter.

Jeremy

When do we all bother to go Sunday Mass/Service then? Could we stay home?

 

[heisenburg]

bump

 

[Reformed1]

Question to our Protestant Brethren.

I am simply curious why so many protestants have an issue with the idea of Peter being the “Head Pastor”. I know many think that if you let Peter be Head, then you have to have the Pope, but, Lets say for arguement purpose that if Peter is the Head Pastor, that it doesnt necisarily require the succession of “Head Pastors”

I know many say Matthew is talking about little rock/Big rock, But for me the argument is weak because the conversation took place in Aramaic (sp) and the word used there wouldnt have distinguesed the two. Also, It doesnt seem to fit with the surrounding verses.

I know many want to quickly jump and say that I’m wrong, but I want to know why, from a biblical stand point, its so wrong to have Peter as Head Pastor.Why does it really mater if there was someone in charge of teh Apostles after Jesus left. Paul mentioned the importance of Church leaders else where, so, whats wrong with the idea that the “congregation” that consisted of the Apostles had a church leader.

Again, I am not talking about apostolic succession, i am simply talking about Peter and only Peter.

In Christ

It appears that many are afraid to agree with much of anything the Catholic church teaches. In other words, it is a “if the Catholics are for it, I’m against it…” kind of thing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It appears that many are afraid to agree with much of anything the Catholic church teaches. In other words, it is a “if the Catholics are for it, I’m against it…” kind of thing.

Reformed, this is correct. Many of the commentaries I’ve read by Protestant scholars indicate that if it were not for an over-reaction to Catholicism, most Protestants would agree that Peter is the Rock Jesus was referring to.

That is a stunning admission.

 

[jemfinch]

When do we all bother to go Sunday Mass/Service then? Could we stay home?

We Catholics believe in a visible Church. Protestants, in general, do not. That’s one of the reasons they refuse to accept that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is founded.

Jeremy

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

The rock referes to Jesus not to peter see

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?

Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

1Pe 2:6 Because it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.

 

[Reformed1]

Reformed, this is correct. Many of the commentaries I’ve read by Protestant scholars indicate that if it were not for an over-reaction to Catholicism, most Protestants would agree that Peter is the Rock Jesus was referring to.

That is a stunning admission.

What is a stunning admission, that protestants sometimes over-react to Catholic theology or that I and other protestants agree that Peter was most likely the rock?

 

[heisenburg]

Driving…

I appreciate your comments and scripture you provided, however, two points, one) this is not the question I asked, I asked whats wrong with the Idea that Peter could have been the “Head Pastor” Every denom/church/congregation has a head pastor, why not here. it is not against scripture.

second, and i mean this with deep respect so do not think I am attacking you, but it seems you are combining two concepts/analogies into one. The Three verses you are talking about deal with an analogy of an Arch (or some very similar structure)… the most important stone is the Conrner stone, if you remove the corner stone, everything else false apart.

The core verse in question, is refering to a foundation in Peter, but one which CHRIST will build his church. Chirst is the Conrer stone, Christ is the Building material, but even in the very verse you provided, it says the apostles are the Foundation.

I reiterate, modifying that single verse means that the surounding verses make no sense…

If Jesus is deminishing Simon with the name Peter, why would he praise him in the verse before by saying “Blessed are you Simon, for it is not man that has revealed this, but God”

why would he then say… you little rock… Me Big Rock… (insert tim allen grunt)

Only to then go back to another blessing: I will give you (peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven, anything you hold I hold, anythign you let loose I let loose.

Even if the middle verse were true, you still have the problem of the third verse ALSO saying that Peter is in charge…

Also, where else in the bible is someone renamed to demean them. Dont care who you are, caling someone a small pebble is bordering on an insult

Again, I mean no disrespect, so please forgive me if it comes off as such.

However, the original question still stands, not talking about the Papacy, What is so terribly wrong with Peter being Incharge

 

[kaycee]

Reformed, this is correct. Many of the commentaries I’ve read by Protestant scholars indicate that if it were not for an over-reaction to Catholicism, most Protestants would agree that Peter is the Rock Jesus was referring to.

That is a stunning admission.

Offcourse there are a few, but those hardly jump to Peter is the 1st of many Popes view.

Also that view was hardly a majority view among the ECF’s!!!

How could the single most important verse that establishes the vast hierarchy of the RCC not have unanimous agreement in the early church??

There is unanimous support for all the biblical doctrines found in the bible, but only speculation and many views with regards to who or what the Rock is???

I am supposed to hang my hat on 1 or 2 verses, contradictory historical evidence and no ECF consensus to the meaning?

 

[jemfinch]

The rock referes to Jesus not to peter

Yeah, that’s why Jesus renames the man “Rock” and then says, “Upon this rock I’ll build my Church.” That makes sense. I can clearly see that Jesus is referring to himself!

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?

Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

1Pe 2:6 Because it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.

No one’s arguing that the Church isn’t founded upon Christ. But Jesus made very clear in Matthew 16 that He (the founder of the Church) would found His Church upon Peter.

You know how many cornerstones there are in a foundation, don’t you?

Jeremy

 

[Nita]

Question to our Protestant Brethren.

I am simply curious why so many protestants have an issue with the idea of Peter being the “Head Pastor”. I know many think that if you let Peter be Head, then you have to have the Pope, but, Lets say for arguement purpose that if Peter is the Head Pastor, that it doesnt necisarily require the succession of “Head Pastors”

…

Again, I am not talking about apostolic succession, i am simply talking about Peter and only Peter.

In Christ

I think it’s because if they accept that Jesus was establishing His Church (…I will build MY Church…) as a hierarchical one, with one appointed as head pastor, they would have to try to explain “how they know” (since there are no Scripture passages stating it) Jesus meant the office to last only as long as Peter lived and not for the life of His Church. The office of Pope after all, was established to serve the Church. (Strengthen your brethren; feed My lambs; etc.)

You may think it can be looked at apart from apostolic succession, but I think they know it can’t.

Nita

 

[havemercy]

Instead of adding to the number of countless threads with regards to Peter being the “Rock”, I thought I’d post in one already in existence.

I came across a Protestant blog (the author shall remain nameless) criticizing the Catholic understanding of Peter as the “Rock” and I thought I would share it with you. I’ve read it a few times over, and don’t feel up to replying to it or commenting on it because I’m not sure how I feel about it. Certainly, my knowledge of Greek is nonexistent and my scriptural understanding and penmanship isn’t as sophisticated as some here.

Peace

In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (16:18). Based on this text, primarily, an early tradition arose that placed Peter as the first “pope” of the Christian church.

Now, the evidence (in the NT) suggests that the church in Rome had existed for quite sometime before Peter arrived there. He is NOT mentioned in either Romans16 or Hebrews, for example. When Peter did arrive in Rome, he ranked himself with Christian elders who were already there (1 Peter 5:1), many of whom had apparently been there long before Peter came. However, if by virtue of his relationship with Jesus he became primus inter partes in Rome, the “first among many,” that exalted role is not depicted in his letters! In fact, 1 Peter depicts him exercising his authority over those who lived outside “Babylon” (Rome), but not within. As for the gospel of Mark, which was likely written in Rome about AD 68-70, perhaps in part to Peter’s own testimony, does not ascribe to Peter any kind of universal authority in the church, much less in Rome, as Matthew 16 supposedly does.

We must be careful to associate Peter with later claims of him being the first “bishop” of Rome, or pope for that matter. He was in fact likely to be the last apostle to reach Rome. Paul seems to have gotten there first, courtesy of Roman imperial hospitality and his ongoing trial there. Now, in the Markan ordering of things Jesus calls Simon first and then, later in the same chapter, heals his mother-in-law (Mark 1:38-39), which means Simon was already married when Jesus called him to be a “fisher of men.” Hardly any story of Jesus’ ministry is more familiar than the one about Simon Peter’s confession at Ceasarea Philippi. The story occurs in the middle of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, after the disciples have gone out two by two and evangelized the region, bringing back with them the polling data on what people are saying about Jesus.

Cont’d…

 

[havemercy]

…Cont’d from above.

The discussion was prompted by Jesus Himself, the disciples did not voulunteer the fact that Jesus was the Messiah or God’s unique Son. The question He asked first was a personal one: “Who do people say that I am?” In a culture where names gave clues to a person’s nature or character, the way people named Jesus would have been revealing of what they thought of Him. The disciples responded in ignorance. After Jesus sampled the opinions of the public on His identity, He turns to His disciples and asks, “Who do you say that I am?” Notice the emphatic position of the word “you” in the verse - “but who do you [plural], who do you say that I am?” Peter responds as the representitive of the inner circle of the disciples, and confess’ Jesus to be the Messiah, the “Son of the Living God!”

We learn that Peter’s confession comes from the prompting of divine revelation from God, not from a flash of human ingenuity that is inherent in Peter (lets remember all the screw ups of Peter before, and even after the Resurrection of Christ. Infallible?) What then follows is the unique commissioning of Peter (not “ordination”) which material is not found in the Markan source, so it must have come to him from his Matthean source. It must be said here, that the power bestowed upon Peter is the same power bestowed upon ALL the followers of Jesus, so, Peter may simply represent the group again. Matthew says clearly that the power of “binding and loosening” is bestowed upon all those who Jesus is speaking to.

Lets consider the word play on the words petros and then petra, Greek for rock, found in Matthew 16. I know of no evidence of Petros (or the aramaic original, Cephas) being used as man’s name prior to thi usage. The word play would have been inept if the two words did not refer to the same object. Notice that we do not find the two forms of the nickname juxtaposed: the disciple may be called Simon Peter but not Cephas Peter. We are dealing with a name and a nickname.
The tense in the verbs in this narrative is also of importance, Oikodomeso, meaning “I will build [my church,” and indeed the following verbs are in the furue tense. (In aramaic this would likely have meant some form of the imperfect, indicating action that was not completed yet.) What the Greek rendering of this saying suggests is that Jesus did not found His own community during His earthly ministry, but rather that would happen later, a conclusion that seems to be supported by the larger context, for example 16:21. It was only after the death and resurrection of Jesus that His community was properly founded. Thus this passage suggests that Peter would play an important role later.

The problem with an earthly ecclesiastical reading of this text is that Peter himself never seemed to exercise such authority after the resurrection. He certainly was not the head of the early church in Jerusalem when the important council in Acts 15 took place, and Galatians 2 suggests that he was not before then either. Acts 11:2 tells us that Peter was called on the carpet over the baptizing of Cornelius and his household, and Galatians 2 suggests that Peter acted on the basis of what he thought James (the “brother” of the Lord) wanted of him! Paul calls Peter a “pillar” of the church in Jerusalem, along with three others, and yet he is not named first, James is. In the Jewish culture, the order of names within a group said alot about authority!

Peter may have been one of the first real “overseers” (episcopoi) in Rome in the 50’s or 60’s, but in 1 Peter 1:1 he speaks of himself as one of a group of fellow elders, though the others are in a different location. Speculations and later traditions aside, there is nothing in Matthew, 1 Peter, or Acts to suggest that Peter was the first “pope.”

He certainly makes leaps, but I myself cannot discern where exactly and by how much they are taken. Also, how much of this blog demonstrates EO thought (if at all)? I’m curious.
[/quote]