What is the best response?

[Brian_Culliton]

And what was the foundation of the Church? The bible?

Close, it’s the Gospel of Christ, and the Bible is the written record of the Gospel. The Apostle Paul said the foundation upon which we build is Christ Jesus, and no other foundation can any man lay. That is why I stated earlier that maybe the OP’s friend was referring to the premise of what Paul taught in 1 Cor. 3.

I noticed your references were from a period of almost 400 years after the church began. In the early third century Origen wrote a commentary on Matthew and in it he said this:

For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. (Commentary on Matthew 12:10)

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? (ibid 12:11)

“The perfect” is Origen’s reference to one who is a true Christian, fully converted to Christ.]

Concerning the “keys” he said this:

And after this let us see in what sense it is said to Peter, and to every Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” … But consider how great power the rock has upon which the church is built by Christ, and how great power every one has who says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” so that the judgments of this man abide sure, as if God were judging in him, that in the very act of judging the gates of Hades shall not prevail against him. But when one judges un-righteously, and does not bind upon earth according to the Word of God, nor loose upon earth according to His will, the gates of Hades prevail against him; but, in the case of any one against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, this man judges righteously. Wherefore he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, opening to those who have been loosed on earth that they may be also loosed in heaven, and free; and shutting to those who by his just judgment have been bound on earth that they also may be bound in heaven, and condemned. (ibid 12:14)

Even back then there was apparently debate over the notion that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built. It seems apparent that those who thought so were not of the orthodox understanding as Ante-Nicene history shows and Origen, the noted theologian, demonstrates in his commentary.

 

[Ignatius33]

I noticed your references were from a period of almost 400 years after the church began. In the early third century Origen wrote a commentary on Matthew and in it he said this:

“The perfect” is Origen’s reference to one who is a true Christian, fully converted to Christ.]
.

Origen also wrote that Peter was “the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church” (Homilies on Exodus [after 244 AD]).

 

[Ignatius33]

Catholics believe that Peter’s primacy and, consequently, the primacy of Rome, i.e., the papacy, are firmly rooted in the Bible. The most famous passage, of course, is Matthew 16:18-19, where, in response to Peter’s confession of faith (prompted through a divine revelation from God the Father, see v. 17), Jesus proclaims: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build by church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And 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.” A number of things in this passage stick out to the Catholic.

First, Jesus here changes Simon’s name to Peter, which literally means “rock.” Any time God renames a person in the Bible, the name change signifies a new designation, a new commission and a new status (e.g., Abram “father”] to Abraham “father of nations”]; Sarai to Sarah; Jacob to Israel). Remarkably, Jesus (i.e., God) here gives the name “rock” to a man when, up to that point (as far as I know), only God Himself had been called “rock.” It is also worth pointing out that until that moment, the name “Peter” didn’t even exist – Jesus took the word for “rock” and turned it into a name for the first time in history (so far as we know). Furthermore, given Peter’s vacillating personality and human weaknesses and failings (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23; Matt. 26:69-75; Gal. 2:11-14), the term “rock” couldn’t have been meant to describe Peter’s personal character. Rather, Catholics believe that the term “rock” describes Peter’s special role in the Church (as well as that of his successors, the bishops of Rome). This is not to say that Catholics believe that Peter somehow “replaced” God as the ultimate rock or cornerstone. Rather, they believe that God allowed Peter to have a significant subordinate role in the earthly Church. Catholics believe that God is the head of the Catholic Church, but also believe that God gave the bishop of Rome – functioning as one body with all the other bishops (the successors of the Twelve Apostles) (Eph. 2:20) – actual authority over the Church on earth. In this sense, Peter, and by extension, the bishop of Rome, is the rock or touchstone of unity within the Body of Christ. Elsewhere, Jesus prayed that the Church would be “one” (Jn. 17:21). Such unity is impossible absent a tangible leadership. And because the prayers of a righteous person are “very powerful” (James 5:16) – and Jesus was perfectly righteous – it follows that His prayer must have come to pass. Today, worldwide unity exists in only one Christian church – the Catholic Church (and over half the Christians now alive call her Mother Church).

Second, it is clear from the context that Peter himself is the rock on which Jesus promised to build His Church. Initially, the grammatical structure of the passage establishes that Peter was the rock. The passage, read as a whole, involves a series of “you’s,” with Jesus repeatedly saying “But who do you say that I am?”; “Blessed are you”; “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you”; “And I say to you”; you are Peter . . .” It would be odd for Jesus to be referring to Peter over and over again, but then to refer to something else entirely (e.g., Peter’s confession of faith or Jesus Himself) when He says “upon this rock.” Additionally, as a simple matter of grammar, the word “this” ordinarily refers back to the word immediately preceding it. Hence, the most sensible reading is that “this rock” refers to “Peter,” the noun immediately preceding the phrase.

Furthermore, the original Greek refers to Peter as “petros” and the rock as “petra.” Some non-Catholics posit that the difference in words proves that Jesus had two separate meanings, i.e., “petros” meaning “stone” or “little rock” and “petra” meaning “rock” or “big rock.” But the problem with that view is that it would have been entirely inappropriate to refer to Simon as “petra” (the ordinary word for rock in Greek), because one would never give a man a name using a feminine ending (“a”). It would be like calling Peter “Petrina,” a ridiculous transliteration. Rather, a masculine form would have to be used (ending in “os”), even if it meant using a less precise word, like “petros,” which was not normally used in Koine Greek. Therefore, it is only logical that the author employs the words “petros” and “petra” – he had no other choice based on the limitations of the Greek language. In any event, it would be confusing, to say the least, for Jesus to rename Simon to “rock” in that very passage, only to use the word “rock” again three words later intending to convey a completely different meaning.

More importantly, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, and thus He would have called Peter “Kepha,” which has only one form. Hence, when He actually spoke the words, He would have said: “You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church” (some believe that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek, such that the petros/petra distinction wouldn’t have existed in the original text). We know for a fact that Jesus called him “Kepha” because both John and Paul refer to him as “Cephas” – the English transliteration of Kepha (Jn. 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

In any event, the non-Catholic argument that Peter is not the “rock” on which Christ built His Church is fast becoming a dead letter. Many recent Protestant Bible scholars, such as the highly respected D.A. Carson, R.T. France, W.F. Albright and J. Knox Chamblin candidly admit that the “rock” in this passage is undoubtedly Peter. Carson and France go so far as to say that non-Catholics who reject this interpretation do so only out of an overreaction to or prejudice against the Catholic position, not as a result of any sound Biblical exegesis.

Third, although Jesus later gives the Twelve Apostles the authoritative power of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18), He gives the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (i.e., the keys to the Church) to Peter alone. Catholics believe that these keys connote primacy and authoritative teaching. Jesus’ bestowal of the keys to the kingdom of heaven on Peter is a clear allusion to Isaiah 22:20-22, where God gave a similar “key” to Eliakim, granting him authority as the chief steward of the kingdom of Israel, second in power only to the king himself. In Isaiah 22:22, God says: “I will place a key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.”

Aside from conveying the idea of authority, the imagery of keys also denotes both an office and a succession. In the old Davidic kingdom, when the chief steward – the key holder – died, a successor took over his role as the next steward. Given that the Gospel of Matthew repeatedly employs “kingdom” imagery, a first century Jewish audience would have readily understood Jesus’ bestowal of keys on Peter as an analogy to the passage in Isaiah. Indeed, inasmuch as the Old Testament merely prefigures the New and contains types and shadows of the better things to come, the office of chief steward can be seen as a mere foreshadowing or prefiguring of the pope’s role in the Church. The pope therefore functions as a sort of chief steward or prime minister in the restored Davidic kingdom, under the King who reigns in Heaven. It makes no sense to think that God gave Peter these keys, with all they entail, intending that they should be buried with Peter upon his death. God certainly foreknew that Jesus’ Second Coming would not occur immediately (even if the disciples didn’t realize it) and, therefore, it is no great leap to believe that He intended for Peter’s keys to be held by his successors, the bishops of Rome. Certainly, the Church would be in greater (not less) need of a physical leader to maintain the unity of the Church over the course of time, after the original Apostles were long gone.

Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that Jesus intertwined the indefectibility of the Church with the rock, Peter, in the very same verse of the Bible (Matt. 16:18).

There are two other significant Petrine passages from the Catholic standpoint. In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells Peter three times to “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my sheep,” and “Feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:15-17). To this point, only Jesus was referred to as the shepherd. Yet, here, Jesus Himself effectively passes the shepherd’s mantel to Peter, specifically instructing him to tend God’s sheep. The pope, as Peter’s successor, continues this divinely appointed shepherding of the Christian flock. Again, if the first Christians had need of a physical shepherd, how much more so would subsequent Christians? Thus, in two key passages, we see God calling Peter both “the rock” and “the shepherd.” Finally, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Lk. 22:31-32 [emphasis added]). Clearly, Jesus here singles out Peter alone among the Apostles and commissions him to strengthen his brethren, anticipating Peter’s role in the post-resurrection Church. The pope likewise, as the head of the college of bishops (as Peter was the head of the college of Apostles), strengthens his co-laborers and co-shepherds in the Church through his leadership.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

Turning briefly to other scriptural passages, Peter played a prominent role and figured in at most of the “big moments” during Jesus’ ministry. He was the first disciple Jesus called (Matt. 4:18-19; Mk. 1:16-18; Lk. 5:1-11). He is the only disciple to walk on water (Matt. 14:29). He was the first to recognize, through divine revelation, the Incarnation and divinity of Christ (Matt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; Lk. 9:20). He was present, along with James and John, at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8; Mk. 9:2-8; Lk. 9:28-36). Together with James and John, Peter stayed with Jesus during His agony in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-46; Mk. 14:32-42). Peter is the only Apostle to visit Jesus’ empty tomb (Lk. 24:11-12). And the authors of the Gospels understood Peter’s prominence, always listing Peter first when naming the Apostles or, at times, referring to the group as “Peter and the other disciples.” (e.g., Matt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-16). We know the Gospel authors were conscious of rank because Judas always appears last.

Peter’s prominent position continued after Christ’s Ascension, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Peter announces the need to replace Judas’ empty chair – the first order of business for the nascent Church (Acts 1:15-26). Peter is the first to preach the gospel and the necessity of baptism (Acts 2:14-41). Peter is the first to heal (Acts 3:1-10). Following the healing of the crippled beggar, it is again Peter who preaches the gospel to the Jews (Acts 3:11-26). Before the Sanhedrin, it is Peter who, filled with the Holy Spirit, undertakes their defense (Acts 4:5-22). In the following chapter, it is recorded that Peter’s shadow aided in physical healings (Acts 5:15) (supporting the Catholic practice of venerating relics, i.e., items that have touched a saint – like Paul’s handkerchief – or the remains of the saints themselves, like the bones of Polycarp and Ignatius). Peter is the first to issue an anathema, confirmed by God (Acts 5:1-11). When they are placed before the Sanhedrin again, it is Peter who primarily speaks in their defense (Acts 5:29-32). Peter refutes the first recorded heresy, denouncing Simon Magus and calling on him to repent (Acts 8:18-25). Peter is the first to raise someone from the dead (Acts 9:36-43). Peter receives the vision about Cornelius, revealing that Christianity is for both Jew and Gentile (Acts 10:1-49). And at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter, not James, issues the definitive statement, later ratified by the council, that circumcision and observance of the Mosaic rituals or purity laws are unnecessary for salvation, after which the “whole assembly fell silent” (or, at least, such is a reasonable interpretation of the proceedings) (Acts 15:7-12). Given the prominence granted to Peter throughout the New Testament (his name alone is mentioned dozens more times than any other of the Twelve, or even all the others combined), it stands to reason that the inspired authors understood that Peter had a unique role in the Church.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Origen also wrote that Peter was “the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church” (Homilies on Exodus [after 244 AD]).

Don’t you think that if Origen really meant that the church was built upon Peter in his homily he would be contradicting himself? Did you think about that? Go read his commentary in context.

 

[po18guy]

Close, it’s the Gospel of Christ, and the Bible is the written record of the Gospel.

The problem, as I see it, is that Christ did not mention keeping a written record. He did not command the keeping of any such record. He did not leave a written record. He commanded the Apostles to “make disciples of every nation” and that the Holy Spirit would remind the Apostles of everything He had said.

Another problem for sola scriptura types is that the bible itself tells us that it is incomplete. For example: Luke 3:18, John 20:30 and 21:25, Acts 2:40 and 1 Corinthians 11:34. So, the bible is clearly an incomplete foundation.

And, since the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles was not written by a witness, both books rely on the oral tradition for their content and accuracy. Don’t get me wrong, I love scripture, read it regularly and have a high place for it. But, it is not the foundation of the Church, since its words have been twisted by the ignorant and unstable to mean many other things than what the Lord intended (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[Ignatius33]

Don’t you think that if Origen really meant that the church was built upon Peter in his homily he would be contradicting himself? Did you think about that? Go read his commentary in context.

And in another passage, Origen observed: “Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’ [Matt. 16:18], left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which, however, is doubtful” (Commentaries on John [226-232 AD]).

I acknowledge that in the passage you cite, Origen implies that the rock in Matthew 16 was not Peter. Yet in other passages, he says that the rock was Peter. Given that Origen often employed the allegorical method of scriptural exegesis (to a fault), it seems reasonable to conclude that he was using the literal/historical method in the passages I cited and the allegorical method in the passages you cited. Is there a tension between the passages? Sure. But I don’t think you can simply claim Origen as an anti-Roman source based on one passage.

 

[po18guy]

And in another passage, Origen observed: “Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’ [Matt. 16:18], left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuiniy. Let us concede also a second, which, however, is doubtful” (Commentaries on John [226-232 AD]).

For those who deny Peter’s primacy, please explain why Jesus charged him to “strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32). Why would Jesus do this if Peter was not the strongest and was not the rock foundation of the earthly Church? Jesus never called Himself “rock”. Prophecy and He Himself named Him the “cornerstone”. Let’s look into this:

Isaiah 28:16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

Zechariah 10:4 From Judah will come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler.

Jesus is the cornerstone. Just whom is the tent peg?

Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

1 Peter 2:6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

Please also explain why Peter is the only one beside Job in scripture that the evil one demanded to be tested (Job 1:11, Job 2:5, Luke 22:31). The evil one “incited” King David (1 Chronicles 21:1), and “accused” the high priest Joshua (Zechariah 3:1), but demanded the testing only of Job and Peter. Coincidence?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The problem, as I see it, is that Christ did not mention keeping a written record. He did not command the keeping of any such record. He did not leave a written record. He commanded the Apostles to “make disciples of every nation” and that the Holy Spirit would remind the Apostles of everything He had said.

Another problem for sola scriptura types is that the bible itself tells us that it is incomplete. For example: Luke 3:18, John 20:30 and 21:25, Acts 2:40 and 1 Corinthians 11:34. So, the bible is clearly an incomplete foundation.

And, since the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles was not written by a witness, both books rely on the oral tradition for their content and accuracy. Don’t get me wrong, I love scripture, read it regularly and have a high place for it. But, it is not the foundation of the Church, since its words have been twisted by the ignorant and unstable to mean many other things than what the Lord intended (2 Peter 3:16).

The Gospel was the Gospel before it was written. Since they didn’t write it down, perhaps you can provide evidence from oral tradition that shows the apostles believed Peter was the foundation of the church? I have shown already that Origen did not believe it.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

And in another passage, Origen observed: “Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’ [Matt. 16:18], left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which, however, is doubtful” (Commentaries on John [226-232 AD]).

I acknowledge that in the passage you cite, Origen implies that the rock in Matthew 16 was not Peter. Yet in other passages, he says that the rock was Peter. Given that Origen often employed the allegorical method of scriptural exegesis (to a fault), it seems reasonable to conclude that he was using the literal/historical method in the passages I cited and the allegorical method in the passages you cited. Is there a tension between the passages? Sure. But I don’t think you can simply claim Origen as an anti-Roman source based on one passage.

The commentary of which I posted excerpts, is a contextual work written by Origen. His homilies are preachings that that were extemporarily recorded by stenographers. The homilies lack credibility as far as accuracy and context is concerned. The written works of Origen should undoubtedly be the standard for how we interpret his homilies. If in his commentary he says that Peter represents many Peters, “the perfects,” then Peter in the same context in a homily must mean the same thing. Can you provide the context of that quote?

If you want to choose to believe what you read in an out-of-context quote rather than the contextual works written by his own hand that is up to you, but that will never fly for those who just want to know the truth.

 

[Thing]

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
]).

 

[Kay_Cee]

Thanks everyone! I have been going in circles with this guy for awhile and I feel that he waits to reply rather than to listen to what I am saying. His grammar is confusing; sorry, I should have rewrote it for you all!

I will try a bit more and will likely let it go soon. Hopefully at least a seed will be planted and the Holy Spirit will finish the job!

BTW, has anyone ever heard that Peter “lost his discipleship when he denied Christ”? only to regain it later? He made that claim and I had never heard that…

God Bless you all!

~SuwaeNSDG

Ask your friend where the Bible says, “Peter ‘lost his discipleship when he denied Christ’ only to regain it later.” Accept nothing that doesn’t specifically mention a loss and then regaining of discipleship by Peter–anything else is a mere interpretation being added to the text.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

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
]).

You should read Tertullian in context so you can understand what he is really talking about.

“What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three. And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted a Church from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s.”

What can you tell us about the letter of Clement to James? Who wrote it? What was its purpose? The letter is at odds with Iranaeus’ account regarding the order of bishops of Rome. I don’t think there is any doubt that this letter was devised to discredit Paul’s preaching and espouse a Jewish form of Christianity. Its most likely origin is from the Elkasaites.

 

[Thing]

You should read Tertullian in context so you can understand what he is really talking about.

“What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three. And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted a Church from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s.”

.

Tertullian became a Montanist. This makes Tertullian an even better witness for Peter.
Tertullian said this [below] before he became a Montanist;

[Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you [Peter], 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 …

Tertullian became a Montanist. Montanists embraced these beliefs;

The beliefs of Montanism contrasted with Orthodox Christianity in the following ways:

The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.
The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in Orthodox Christianity at the time and since.
The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner’s restoration to the church.
A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in Orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage.
Some of the Montanists were also “Quartodeciman” (“fourteeners”), preferring to celebrate Easter on the Hebrew calendar date of 14 Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it landed on. Orthodox Christians held that Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following 14 Nisan. (Trevett 1996:202)
[edit] Modalism
-Wiki.

Tertullians earlier life in Christianity bears witness to the belief of Christianity in Peters role in the Church in the early 200’s.

Heres another quote expanding on the meaning and consequences of Peters role in the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (
Epistle to Cornelius
[Bishop of Rome] 59:14
A.D. 252
]). 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
]).

 

[po18guy]

The Gospel was the Gospel before it was written. Since they didn’t write it down, perhaps you can provide evidence from oral tradition that shows the apostles believed Peter was the foundation of the church? I have shown already that Origen did not believe it.

You ignore scripture: Peter is mentioned 195 times in scripture. The closest: John at 29 times. Peter is always listed first by every Gospel writer, Judas last. It is often written: “Peter and the rest…”, or Peter and his companions".

See also:

Matthew 16:13-20; Matthew 14:24-33; Mark 16:7; Luke 5 (Christ preaching from Peter’s boat); Luke 22:31-32; Luke 24:33-35; John 20:6; John 21:15-19; Acts 1:15-26; Acts 3:1-9; Acts 10 and 11; Acts 15:6-11; Galatians 1:18.

Please note that, in the bible:

Jesus did not change the name of Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas. He changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock).

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas that they were rock. He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas that Satan demanded to sift them like wheat. He told Peter. Peter and Job are the only two in scripture that Satan demanded to test.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas to walk on water. He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas to “strengthen your brothers”. He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas that they would deny Him three times. He told Peter.

Jesus did not ask Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas if they loved Him. He asked Peter three times.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas to “feed my lambs”, “feed my sheep” and “feed my sheep” (KJV). He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas what sort of death they would suffer. He told Peter.

Jesus did not found His Church on Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas. Jesus founded it on Peter.

There are more examples, if you require them. Now, you can put forth a recent, man-made argument against all of this, but the simple fact remains that you are ignoring massive amounts of scripture, as well as the shape and organization of the Church from day one to this very day. What matters is not one man’s opinion, whether it’s yours or Origen’s or Luther’s, but the will of Jesus Christ as written in the bible that you hold in your hands. Take a closer look. It’s all in there.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

You ignore scripture: Peter is mentioned 195 times in scripture. The closest: John at 29 times. Peter is always listed first by every Gospel writer, Judas last. It is often written: “Peter and the rest…”, or Peter and his companions".

See also:

Matthew 16:13-20; Matthew 14:24-33; Mark 16:7; Luke 5 (Christ preaching from Peter’s boat); Luke 22:31-32; Luke 24:33-35; John 20:6; John 21:15-19; Acts 1:15-26; Acts 3:1-9; Acts 10 and 11; Acts 15:6-11; Galatians 1:18.

Please note that, in the bible:

Jesus did not change the name of Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas. He changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock).

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas that they were rock. He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas that Satan demanded to sift them like wheat. He told Peter. Peter and Job are the only two in scripture that Satan demanded to test.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas to walk on water. He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas to “strengthen your brothers”. He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas that they would deny Him three times. He told Peter.

Jesus did not ask Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas if they loved Him. He asked Peter three times.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas to “feed my lambs”, “feed my sheep” and “feed my sheep” (KJV). He told Peter.

Jesus did not tell Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas what sort of death they would suffer. He told Peter.

Jesus did not found His Church on Andrew; James, John; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot or Judas. Jesus founded it on Peter.

There are more examples, if you require them. Now, you can put forth a recent, man-made argument against all of this, but the simple fact remains that you are ignoring massive amounts of scripture, as well as the shape and organization of the Church from day one to this very day. What matters is not one man’s opinion, whether it’s yours or Origen’s or Luther’s, but the will of Jesus Christ as written in the bible that you hold in your hands. Take a closer look. It’s all in there.

Did you happen to notice in all that Scripture that the Apostle Paul said we, the church, are built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, with Christ being the chief cornerstone? Where are the testimonies of the apostles and prophets recorded? That’s right, the Bible. Paul’s is an explicit teaching unlike your allusions to Peter being the rock upon which the church is built. My point was also apparent to the early church. All you have to do is show from the ancient church that the other apostles taught something different than what Paul taught. You can write Origen off if you like, but I find it interesting that you are now arguing on the side of Sola Scriptura.

 

[po18guy]

Did you happen to notice in all that Scripture that the Apostle Paul said we, the church, are built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, with Christ being the chief cornerstone? Where are the testimonies of the apostles and prophets recorded? That’s right, the Bible. Paul’s is an explicit teaching unlike your allusions to Peter being the rock upon which the church is built. My point was also apparent to the early church. All you have to do is show from the ancient church that the other apostles taught something different than what Paul taught. You can write Origen off if you like, but I find it interesting that you are now arguing on the side of Sola Scriptura.

Please address the scripture that was quoted. Is it an “inconvenient truth”? I do not know you, so I assume that you believe the bible. Please realize that you are arguing against the bible. Does this not bother you in the slightest? I answered using the bible, and you blow it off. It appears that you are not seeking anything but simple argument. My time remaining on this earth is too short to indulge your desire for dispute, no matter how well intentioned you may be. I shall pray instead.

You will not currently accept this truth, but truth it remains: There is no substantive difference between the One Church Christ founded and the Church as it exists today. I note that, of the hundreds of early Church fathers, the only one worth quoting in your opinion is the one whom you happen to agree with. Well, his opinion was personal, too. Christ’s Church is not founded upon opinion.

The Catholic Church reveres every word in the bible, not just some of them.
The Catholic Church reveres every verse in the bible, not just some of them.
The Catholic Church reveres every book in the bible, not just some of them.

God bless you and lead you to the fulness of truth.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Please address the scripture that was quoted. Is it an “inconvenient truth”? I do not know you, so I assume that you believe the bible. Please realize that you are arguing against the bible. Does this not bother you in the slightest? I answered using the bible, and you blow it off. It appears that you are not seeking anything but simple argument. My time remaining on this earth is too short to indulge your desire for dispute, no matter how well intentioned you may be. I shall pray instead.

You will not currently accept this truth, but truth it remains: There is no substantive difference between the One Church Christ founded and the Church as it exists today. I note that, of the hundreds of early Church fathers, the only one worth quoting in your opinion is the one whom you happen to agree with. Well, his opinion was personal, too. Christ’s Church is not founded upon opinion.

The Catholic Church reveres every word in the bible, not just some of them.
The Catholic Church reveres every verse in the bible, not just some of them.
The Catholic Church reveres every book in the bible, not just some of them.

God bless you and lead you to the fulness of truth.

I answered both biblically and historically.

You seem a bit hostile and obstinate to me and I really don’t want to go down that road. You have my answer.