Protestant interpretations...

[Randy_Carson]

Wrong book, verse and chapter - See Matthew chapter 20. The first shall be last of all and servant of all?

Uh…okay. Here it is:

25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Again, where does Jesus state that NO ONE will be “great” or “first”…He simply lays out the personal qualities that such a leader should have. Catholics say, “Amen!” May God grant us Popes, Bishops and Priests who are men like this.

This is clearly an opportunity for Jesus to proclain Peter as the least and sevant of all and thus the greatest, but He didn’t because he isn’t.

This is an argument from silence…not terribly compelling. Jesus could have stood up in front of the entire Sanhedrin and declared many things, but He didn’t, did He?

This is a good example as to why shepherds are wothy of double honor and the coincing warning about being a Teacher. Pastor, Elder and Overseer are used interchangeably in Scripture; the distinctive qualification between a Deacon and Elder is the ability to “teach”. There shepherds are assigned to each individual church and depending on the size their is a plurality of leaders put in charge of feeding and tending the flock God entrusts to them. There is no central authority other than Christ.

You must have missed a few verses…not surprising, really. Many Protestant pastors who come into the Catholic Church acknowledge that they “skipped over” some passages that simply didn’t fit their denomination’s theology. Let’s examine one passage that may have been overlooked.

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus takes great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Greetings JB,

please, if you could, do you have some sources to back up your claims here. Maybe you could p.m. so I don’t end up derailing things.

Also, no offense, but it floors me that you don’t see any One visible Church, Roman Primacy, or Priests w/ the authority to forgive/retain bind/loose in the ECF’s

Have you ever read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles? (which I believe are full of exhortations to holding to the unity of the Church and obeying the Bishop/Presbyters/Deacons, and harsh warning for schismatics.)

Talk to Randy; he mentioned something about the saints on a new thread. I said i was willing and able.

Don’t be offended; anybody can twist words of another to fit their bias. Besides you belong to the biggest religious entity on earth, I believe even bigger than the muslim faith. But who knows about them, many do not have freedom to choose and if they did I’m sure many would choose Catholicism.

You can find commands in Scripture to obey your Elders and Deacons; as long as they are Biblically qualified, which means being beyond reproach and faithful as a servant of Christ. But there is no global authority except that which resides as the head of all things, which includes the church. ECF’s spoke of a universal church and used the chain of succeeding overseers as a defense against heresies of other that made a the chain claim. Just like you can find writings that say Peter as a Bishop and others that don’t include him, with the former being thought to be forgeries. The ecf’s always used Scripture as their basis of authority in defending the heresies, you won’t find them using the extra books in defense of heresies; you will see them used as devotional purposes, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not going back to the RC. But rinnie did make a valid point. It has troubled me that I should be attending church. I have never attending because it’s the thing to do, but rather because I love the Lord. rinnie is right.

Ginger-

I did not realize that you used to be Catholic. Thanks for sharing that. I understand your animosity better now.

Back on track…

I am very curious about about the keys and exactly what that really means. And also, Matthew 18:
18 `Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. YLT

I looked up YLT because it is supposed to be literal.

Look at how it is worded. I’ve always seen the underlined words translated as “shall be” future tense in English, but in YLT there are written in the English past tense.

KJB online concordance (which is not very reliable) has this word in future tense also.

Was the original in future tense or past tense in the Greek?

If it was originally written in past tense, the translation should read: “Whatsoever ye bind on earth has (already) been bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth has (already) been loosed in heaven.”

What do you think?

I think, Ginger, that this translation supports the idea of papal infallibility extremely well. I’ll use the translation you provided though I have never heard of it (what does YLT stand for?).

God promised that “Whatsoever ye [Peter] bind on earth has (already) been bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye [Peter] shall loose on earth has (already) been loosed in heaven.”

How could God agree to obligate Himself in such a manner unless He were fully committed to protecting Peter from binding or loosing something completely stupid?

Logically, therefore, Peter could only be allowed to teach those things which were already true in heaven. Peter is prevented by God from teaching error to the sheep of God’s own flock.

This, Ginger, is the charism of infallibility.

It’s not a man thing; it’s something that God does to protect you and me from false teaching. It is not a club that the Catholic Church uses to pummel you and me into submission; infallibility is the means by which God prevents the Church and individual popes from leading us astray. It is a blessing and a gift that enables us to know with certainty what the truth really is.

Does this make sense?

 

[Ginger2]

In the other thread, you said you were done talking with me.

Are we still on speaking terms? :clapping::extrahappy::dancing:

Was that you??? I thought it was that guy who says Protestants invented the myth about Jamnia.

lol

I guess I have a short-term memory problem.

Oh, I looked it up:

by Randy Carson: You are wrong on several points. … Second, the gathering did occur despite your assertion that it did not.

Yes, I am sick and tired of Catholics who insist I said things I didn’t say. Since I posted after this a quote from days before where I told a Catholics there was no council of Jamnia, but that it was a school of theology.

Are you willing to admit you misunderstood my position? If not, then I don’t care to dialog with you because it wastes too much time proving I didn’t say the things Catholics claim I say.

There was a gathering, not a council, but a school. They engaged in theological discussions and debates, not doctrinal decision making.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Evolution…development…how is this a problem?

Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.” (Mt 13:31-32)

Since heaven does not “grow”, we know that Jesus was referring the Church on earth as the “kingdom of heaven”, and since the king, Jesus, is in heaven, it is understandable why He left His steward in charge of His earthly kingdom. But I digress.

The Church is expected to grow and develop over time. Thus, when the offices of the papacy or the priesthood began humbly and grew to full maturation, there is no problem. This is organic and healthy.

However, the ECF’s clearly understood the primacy of Peter as a few quotes will prove.

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 (248 A.D.)

"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 of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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 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 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]).

I have lots more. Let me know if you need them.

(cont.)

You need to focus on the core issue "Peterine primacy–>Peter apostolic succession → Roman Catholic Papacy This demonstates none of this and at best the ecf’s acknowledge Peter as the leader of the apostles, which I agree and Peter as foundational, which I also agree. But you have yet to make the leap and you can’t because it doesn’t exist except in Catholicism. You are trying to put a square peg in a round hole as I see it.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger-
I think, Ginger, that this translation supports the idea of papal infallibility extremely well. I’ll use the translation you provided though I have never heard of it (what does YLT stand for?).

God promised that “Whatsoever ye Peter] bind on earth has (already) been bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye Peter] shall loose on earth has (already) been loosed in heaven.”

How could God agree to obligate Himself in such a manner unless He were fully committed to protecting Peter from binding or loosing something completely stupid?..

Does this make sense?

In part. Are you suggesting this passage was only for Peter. I believe Jesus was speaking to all the Apostle. Later the conversation switches saying something like, “…then Peter came to Jesus asking…”

First, tell me was this directed at Peter alone or to all the Apostles?

We have a reprieve whether you admit you misunderstood my position or not - for a time - as I really want to discuss this passage and you have made a good point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Was that you??? I thought it was that guy who says Protestants invented the myth about Jamnia.

lol

I guess I have a short-term memory problem.

Oh, I looked it up:

by Randy Carson: You are wrong on several points. … Second, the gathering did occur despite your assertion that it did not.

Yes, I am sick and tired of Catholics who insist I said things I didn’t say. Since I posted after this a quote from days before where I told a Catholics there was no council of Jamnia, but that it was a school of theology.

Are you willing to admit you misunderstood my position? If not, then I don’t care to dialog with you because it wastes too much time proving I didn’t say the things Catholics claim I say.

There was a gathering, not a council, but a school. They engaged in theological discussions and debates, not doctrinal decision making.

I think you and I can agree that Jamnia was not a council in the sense that Christians understood the early councils of the Church.

I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that we would agree that the Jews no longer had any authority to determine the canon that would bind the Church because they had abdicated their position when they denied the Messiah.

Cool?

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Concerning Bishops, Priests and Deacons, I have the embarassment of riches for there is so much material from the ECF’s on this.

Here is a sampling:

Early Church Fathers on Bishops, Priests and Deacons

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… Our Apostles know through Our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Pope St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [80 A.D.])

Ignatius

“Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D.110, [13,1])

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishops presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D. 110, [6,1])

“Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic; he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, A.D. 110, [3,2])

edit for space

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living in the manner not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, - and such is your practice, that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [2,1])

“Although he [Paul] writes to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for their correction, nevertheless it is shown that there is one Church spread abroad though the whole world.” (Muratorian Fragment, [155 A.D.])

Irenaeus

“Let us be careful, then, if we should be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,3])

“And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,1])

“The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,3])

“For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches; and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in various devious paths; and on this account the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of these, however, who belong to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,20,1]).

(cont.)

Is an Elder, overseer or Deacon a priest, especially in the Catholic sense as we see today? Of course not.Nope. good try. There is a specific and separate Greek term with distinct definitions in regards to priest.

As far as the ecf’s and infant baptism, a few actually say baptise infants; none but one relate the baptism of an infant to the removal of sin. One erroneously makes the circumcision on the eight day as an equivilent to infant water baptism. If that were actually true, then God has changed the salvation message form the OT to the NT, which in turn would make God contradict Himself, which would make Him a liar and untrustworthy and ever changing, whch He is none of those.

Disproving that water baptism removes any sin is very easy to show beyond any reasonable doubt. You must remember the 1st and 2nd century ecf’s do not have the vantage point that we have for a multitude of reasons. Just because they were removed even a couple of generations is not the same as being taught directly from God. Think of all the resources to study at your fingertips this very moment; think of their resources. Hands down we have the advantage, one of which is time. Also, not one said that water baptism saves. That would be a heresy because Scripture states how a person is daved and it isn’t through the blood of water.

How were the apostles baptized and that should answer all these issues concerning baptism and it is a clear as day in Scripture. See if you can find the versus I am referring to. One is definitive and the other is just as if not more definitve. Then see if you can find what the real baptism that Jesus was sent to deliver that is the one that saves. you have a mission and should not take long if you use a "keywords baptises and baptized. You should also be able to discern the order of how one is saved. Hearing–>believing–> receiving.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

I have to log off and make dinner; beside my internet connection stinks right now. I’ll catch up hopefully tomorrow.

God bless and thanks everyone; especially Randy for the loving attitude(s).

JB

 

[Randy_Carson]

In part. Are you suggesting this passage was only for Peter. I believe Jesus was speaking to all the Apostle. Later the conversation switches saying something like, “…then Peter came to Jesus asking…”

First, tell me was this directed at Peter alone or to all the Apostles?

The Greek word for “you” is singular. Therefore, Jesus was addressing Peter alone.

Protestant scholars have begun to concede that not only is Peter alone the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, but that the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19 were conveyed to Peter alone. The following names might not mean much to you, but they are heavyweights in the Protestant world.

W.F. Albright

“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

R.T. France (Anglican)

"The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” The End of the Historical Critical Method, pp. 58-60].

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

 

[Ginger2]

The Greek word for “you” is singular. Therefore, Jesus was addressing Peter alone.

Protestant scholars have begun to concede that not only is Peter alone the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, …

Uh oh! We are headed for a misunderstanding. I am not speaking of the “rock” is right now. Matthew 18:18 is about binding and loosening. Do you agree Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles?

Sorry for the confusion, but the two passage are related in speaking of who was given what authority.

I posted in the other thread on Jamnia.

Ginger

 

[Randy_Carson]

In part. Are you suggesting this passage was only for Peter. I believe Jesus was speaking to all the Apostle. Later the conversation switches saying something like, “…then Peter came to Jesus asking…”

First, tell me was this directed at Peter alone or to all the Apostles?

Both.

The authority to bind and loose was given to Peter alone and the Apostles as a group. This is important because Catholics understand that the Pope is individually infallible and that the Church is also infallible corporately.

This mirrors (though imperfectly) the situation in Matthew. In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus makes certain declarations about and promises to Peter individually. Later, in Matthew 18, he expands this to the other Apostles:

Matthew 18:1-2
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2He called a little child and had him stand among them.

The child stood among the twelve as Jesus taught them about the qualities of true leaders. It was to this small circle of His closest intimates that Jesus went on to say,

Matthew 18:18
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The distinctions between Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are these: Peter alone is the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church and Peter alone received the keys.

Is this helpful?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Uh oh! We are headed for a misunderstanding. I am not speaking of the “rock” is right now. Matthew 18:18 is about binding and loosening. Do you agree Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles?

No, we’re still on track…just keep reading my posts.

The scholars I referenced speak of Peter singly as the rock but they go on to speak of the keys which were given to Peter alone.

I made the distinction between Mt. 16 & Mt. 18 subsequently.

 

[Ginger2]

Both.

The authority to bind and loose was given to Peter alone and the Apostles as a group. This is important because Catholics understand that the Pope is individually infallible and that the Church is also infallible corporately. …

The “you” in Mat 16:18 is singular. I don’t know that for certain, but I’ll take your word for it.

The “you” in Matt 18:18 is plural, correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

By the way, your attention to the audience is really important!

Jesus was not giving the authority to bind and loose to ALL believers as many (including JohnnyBeth in this thread) claim.

However, this interpretation is a necessity for those who deny Catholicism because they must explain away their separation from the one Church which Jesus built. IOW, to justify the fact that they are separated from the true authority Jesus conveyed upon Peter and the Apostles, Protestants have developed the idea that Jesus was actually giving the power to bind and loose to everyone.

Since that sounds far-fetched on its face, they are then forced to minimized what binding and loosing entailed. For this reason, you get explanations such as the idea that binding and loosing really only means accepting or rejecting the gospel.

However, this is a theological novelty that was unknown in the history of the Church; it is a tradition of (Protestant) men.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The “you” in Mat 16:18 is singular. I don’t know that for certain, but I’ll take your word for it.

The “you” in Matt 18:18 is plural, correct?

You know, I haven’t checked the Greek for that, but I would assume so since all the disciples had come to ask Jesus the question.

Additionally, every commentary I’ve ever read mentions the idea the Matthew 16 is expanded to include the other apostles in Matthew 18.

So, if it were not plural, I’m sure someone would have pointed it out!

 

[Ginger2]

You know, I haven’t checked the Greek for that, but I would assume so since all the disciples had come to ask Jesus the question.

Additionally, every commentary I’ve ever read mentions the idea the Matthew 16 is expanded to include the other apostles in Matthew 18.

So, if it were not plural, I’m sure someone would have pointed it out!

That is also what I have always heard.

So I’ll give you Matthew 16:18 is singular and speaking directly to Peter.

I will also concede Matthew 18:18 is not speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles.

Now, before you get too happy about my concessions,…

In Matthew 18:18 where Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles, this is where you have stated proof for papal infallibility:

Ginger-

I think, Ginger, that this translation supports the idea of papal infallibility extremely well. I’ll use the translation you provided though I have never heard of it (what does YLT stand for?). [Young’s Literal Translation]

God promised that “Whatsoever ye We’ve already agreed this is addressed to all the disciples] bind on earth has (already) been bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth has (already) been loosed in heaven.”

How could God agree to obligate Himself in such a manner unless He were fully committed to protecting [all the Apostles] from binding or loosing something completely stupid?

Logically, therefore, [All the Apostles] could only be allowed to teach those things which were already true in heaven. All the Apostles are prevented by God from teaching error to the sheep of God’s own flock.

I never saw that before! This we know all the Apostles wrote and spoke truth or they could not be considered divinely inspired. They were protected from error.

But it disproves papal infallibility as Peter was not the only one protected from error.

(I should acknowledge this doesn’t settle the issue of the keys.)

Ginger

 

[LionHeart777]

Talk to Randy; he mentioned something about the saints on a new thread. I said i was willing and able.

Don’t be offended; anybody can twist words of another to fit their bias. Besides you belong to the biggest religious entity on earth, I believe even bigger than the muslim faith. But who knows about them, many do not have freedom to choose and if they did I’m sure many would choose Catholicism.

You can find commands in Scripture to obey your Elders and Deacons; as long as they are Biblically qualified, which means being beyond reproach and faithful as a servant of Christ. But there is no global authority except that which resides as the head of all things, which includes the church. ECF’s spoke of a universal church and used the chain of succeeding overseers as a defense against heresies of other that made a the chain claim. Just like you can find writings that say Peter as a Bishop and others that don’t include him, with the former being thought to be forgeries. The ecf’s always used Scripture as their basis of authority in defending the heresies, you won’t find them using the extra books in defense of heresies; you will see them used as devotional purposes, nothing wrong with that.

JB,

I was interested in seeing your references I think more than a debate. Actually, I really don’t want to debate and I am busy these days w/ school and don’t have much time.

If you could lead me to where you came up w/ that idea I would appreciate it–if it’s not a big hassle. You can p.m. me, like I said. I just want to see what that argument is based on–what facts. Thanks.

also, while I agree w/ you that the ECF’s used Scripture… I don’t think that it was the only authority that they utilized. I would argue that they also relied on the ECF’s before them, and that they relied on Tradition.

For example, in the back of my copy of Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 1, in the “Doctrinal Index” on pg. 417 under the section, “The Trinity”, you see a listing called “In their struggle against Arianism the later Fathers appeal to the pre-Nicene trinitarian tradition.” (#231) It goes on to give the call #'s for some quote of ECF’s.
(The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1, Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970. (pg. 417.))

also, here is a quote that comes to mind from a later ECF (Vincent of Lerins):

“…‘Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion.’ (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434]).”
(catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403qq.asp) (accessed 9/ 27/ 09)

Actually, if you go back to that link and find the quote in context…I believe the topic(s) the author who utilizes Vincent’s quote here is discussing Tradition and the ECF’s and he/she mentions Irenaeus and another besides Vincent here (I think–you’d have to check the link.)

Also, just curious. Have you ever read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles? They are available in their entirety.

God bless.

 

[LionHeart777]

Randy,

I think YLT= Young’s Literal Translation, correct Ginger? (sorry if you already explained that.)

also Randy,

what post is J.B referring to regarding the Communion of the Saints?

thanks.