"Peter not Pope" Post Responses
Peter not Pope (Cont'd from...)

Matt, greetings in Christ from sunny Kansas, Richard,

This is a good example with a problem of sola Scriptura: Even your citation of St. Augustine is isolated, because elsewhere he affirms the authority of the Catholic Church and the See of Rome as having Primacy (and this is what I got in only two minutes through my "library", as I don't have time for a full explication at present.)

My response--It is of course an excellent example of how scripture is to be studied and understood. We are to go to the scriptures not the teachings and commandments of men in order to do so..

Facts are:

We will refer back to these numbers as time goes on but for now please note art <1488> (5748) Peter <4074> and <2532> upon <1909> this <5026> rock <4073>

They are not the same words. Is this true or false? These are in fact NOT THE SAME WORDS..

and <2532> upon <1909> this <5026> rock <4073>

BDB/Thayers # 4074 4074 Petros {pet'-ros} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162 Peter = "a rock or a stone" 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

BDB/Thayers # 4073 4073 petra {pet'-ra} from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f AV - rock 16; 16 1) a rock, cliff or ledge 1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground 1b) a rock, a large stone 1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

See-this enables us to quickly see as individuals--that the words are not the same..we don't have to depend on someone to tell us one way or the other..

Peter's Aramaic name was Kephas (3710-HSN), and that also is the Aramaic for a rock. In either language there is here a play upon words. Immediately Peter had made his great discovery and confession, Jesus said to him: "You are petros (4074-GSN), and on this petra (4073-GSN) I will build my Church."

Matt, Jesus Christ did not build his church upon one fallable man but upon the statement of that man..It is unfortunate that you cannot "see that."

For some reason that is unclear to me--you did not care at all for the Jewish understanding and application of "rock." And, once again the answer seems to stand out. It does not support the idea of the Catholic church being founded on a mere man..but on the statement of that man.

The Rabbis applied the word rock to Abraham. They had a saying: "When the Holy One saw Abraham who was going to arise, he said, `Lo, I have discovered a rock (petra, 4073-GSN) to found the world upon.' Therefore he called Abraham rock (tsuwr, 6697-HSN), as it is said: `Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.'" Abraham was the rock on which the nation and the purpose of God were founded.

Even more the word rock (tsuwr, 6697-HSN) is again and again applied to God himself. "He is the Rock; his work is perfect" (Deut 32:4). "For their rock is not as our Rock" (Deut 32:31). "There is no rock like our God" (1Sam 2:2). "The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer" (2Sam 22:2). The same phrase occurs in Ps 18:2. "Who is a rock, except our God?" (Ps 18:31).

The same phrase is in 2Sam 22:32. One thing is clear. To call anyone a rock was the greatest of compliments; and no Jew who knew his Old Testament could ever use the phrase without his thoughts turning to God, who alone was the true rock of his defence and salvation. What then did Jesus mean when in this passage he used the word rock?

The explanation is that the rock is Peter's faith. On the faith of Peter the Church is founded. That faith was the spark which was to kindle the faith of the world-wide Church. It was the initial impetus which was one day to bring the universal Church into being.

BTW-- It has become necessary to ask--Which writings found in the scripture--were written by church fathers? Answer--Not one. God did not include any of the writings of the church Fathers into HIs Holy Writ..

By trying to ignore the teaching of the texts by using the writings of the church fathers is a little like pouring oil on a burning fire.

Fact is not even the church fathers could agree--which is why we have this long long list of additions--added by the Catholic church and bound as law..No thanks.

It is that Peter himself is the rock, but in a special sense. He is not the rock on which the Church is founded; that rock is God. He is the first stone of the whole Church. Peter was the first man on earth to discover who Jesus was; he was the first man to make the leap of faith and see in him the Son of the living God. In other words, Peter was the first member of the Church, and, in that sense, the whole Church is built on him.

It is as if Jesus said to Peter: "Peter, you are the first man to grasp who I am; you are therefore the first stone, the foundation stone, the very beginning of the Church which I am founding." And in ages to come, everyone who makes the same discovery as Peter is another stone added into the edifice of the Church of Christ.

Each human being each human being who makes the same discovery as Peter becomes another stone added into the edifice of the Church of Christ.

In 1Pet 2:4-8 all Christians are living stones who are to be built into the fabric of the Church.

1Pet 2:4 (av) To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {are: or, be ye}6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, {precious: or, an honour}8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Not only from this text are all Christians living stones--but each and every Christian is a part of the priesthood. Each is to offer their own sacrifices for their sins--

According to this text--the Catholic church is disobedient--a rock of offence to our God. I would strongly urge you to try and begin to study using only the Word of God as the "authority". In this manner even you can come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.

Suppose we go back to the idea that the rock on which the Church is founded is the conviction that Jesus is none other than the Son of the living God.

AND, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS..Sorry..

Now Hades was not the place of punishment, but the place where, in primitive Jewish belief, all the dead went. Obviously, the function of gates is to keep things in, to confine them, shut them up, control them. There was one person whom the gates of Hades could not shut in; and that was Jesus Christ. He burst the bonds of death. As the writer of Acts has it, "It was not possible for him to be held by death.... Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption" (Ac 2:24,27).

He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom.

(a) The phrase always signified some kind of very special power. For instance, the Rabbis had a saying: "The keys of birth, of the rain, and of the resurrection of the dead belong to God."

That is to say, only God has the power to create life, to send the rain, and to raise the dead to life again. The phrase always indicates a special power.

(b) In the New Testament this phrase is regularly attached to Jesus. It is in his hands, and no one else's, that the keys are.

In Rev 1:18 the risen Christ says: "I am the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades."

Again in Rev 3:7 the Risen Christ is described as, "The holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens." This phrase must be interpreted as indicating a certain divine right, and whatever the promise made to Peter, it cannot be taken as annulling, or infringing, a right which belongs alone to God and to the Son of God.

Jesus Christ is the one with the Keys..and whatever one comes to grasp about keys and Peter==Jeus is not annulling, or allowing Peter something that belongs to God and to the Son of God alone.

Translation--No Catholic Church. No long line of descendants..With the death of the Apostles..their work was done--And, since the orgin of the supernatural spiritual gifts lies in the hands of the Apostles and they died--All other powers they had could not be passed on to anyone else who could in turn pass it on.

One needs to spend a little time in History to see how the Catholic church apostasasizes from the truth..one step at a time. It begins to add teachings and doctrines of men--one at a time until you have the mess you have today.

But it is not only Peter who has the keys of the Kingdom; every Christian has; for it is open to every one of us to open the door of the Kingdom to some other and so to enter into the great promise of Christ.

Jesus further promised Peter that what he bound would remain bound, and what he loosed would remain loosed.

The duty of binding and loosing meant that Peter would have to take decisions about the Church's life and practice which would have the most far-reaching consequences.

And, Peter had the Holy Spirit to help him and to guide him in those decisions so that they would be God's and not Peter's or some other man. Though Peter plays a very promient role in the NT, he is not infallible

[1]Matt 14:28 (KJS) And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. {boisterous: or, strong} 31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

[2]Matt 26:69-75 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before [them] all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another [maid] saw him, and said unto them that were there, This [fellow] was also with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. 73 And after a while came unto [him] they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art [one] of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, [saying], I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

[3] Gala 2:11 (KJS) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Now--it takes a very big lie over a very long long period of time for folks to believe that these texts are in error and that Peter was indeed according to the Catholic Church Infallable.

Peter was just a human being like the rest of us. He was also chosen by Jesus as one of the twelve--If there was ever an Apostle that would be the closeth to the heart of Jesus it was not Peter but John...

However, the reality of the situation is that we do have a Catholic church--who is not willing to change or amend its ways to follow after the teachings of Christ alone.

It the Catholic church has far too many years believing and accepting the lie that tradition ranks with Scripture. Why not, after all, they are the ones who started it, teach it, pursue it and keep it alive.

But according to God's Word--the Catholic church is an offence to him and not a help.

Matt- when you occasionally seek "justification" for the actions of the Catholic church on the basis of the rotteness of the Prodestant actions That is the wrong comparision.

Every church--yours mine--everyone who believes that they have the right to determine who will be and who will not be saved..based on the teachings of their church--is headed directly toward the fiery eternal flames of hellsfire.

Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins--Jesus Christ speaking through Peter on the day of Pentecost--tells men how to accept the grace of God.

However, man continues to not believe God so they teach a salvation based on what they want--and, that will not work in the judgement.

Richard seeking finding Victory in Christ and in His Eternal Word


Richard,

> My response--It is of course an excellent example of how scripture is to be studied
> and understood. We are to go to the scriptures not the teachings and
> commandments of men in order to do so..

How do you tell the difference between what are "words of men" and what are "words of God"?

Now, on "Peter" and "rock"....Strong's makes a disctinction, but the defintion offers very little distinction.

Were we to take the Aramaic, which Jesus and the Apostles are reported to have spoken (which has been affirmed even by Protestant Scripture scholars), we would find the same word appearing in both places "Kepha" or "Kefa". So, the verse would be transliterated

"Thou are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church...."

What Jesus did was take a word that had not ever been used as a proper name, "kepha", and made it Simon's name, "Kepha." In addition, we always recognize a name change in the Bible as a sign of a change in "office" or status or authority... as with Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul....and even Simon to Peter.

> BTW-- It has become necessary to ask--Which writings found in the scripture--were
> written by church fathers? Answer--Not one. God did not include any of the writings
> of the church Fathers into HIs Holy Writ..
>
> By trying to ignore the teaching of the texts by using the writings of the church
> fathers is a little like pouring oil on a burning fire.

1) There is no ignoring of the teaching of the texts of Scripture, rather there is an appeal to the ealiest times of the Church to gain insight and understanding of the ACTUAL teachings; rather than appeal to our own ideas of what these texts MIGHT be teaching. If we say that a conglomerate of bishops, evangelists and apologists, etc writing about that which they received from the Apostles in the first, second and even third centuries, did not have the proper instruction in Scripture, then how in the world can we sit here in (nearly) the 21st century - 2000 years later and say, we've got it more correct - particualarly when we do not appeal to their wisdom and insight that we do not have??!

2) What is the Holy Writ? What is the exact canon of Scripture? I'd like to know the verses that you have used to compile the writings of Scripture firstly. Secondly, I would like to know, of any verse that you use to prove a specific book is "Scripture", why I should take that verse as authoritative?

Basically, you cannot make ANY point from Scripture because you have yet to define what Scripture is or is not. You hold in your hand a book and you tell me it's Scripture, that it is the Word of God, whole and complete. Why should I believe you? Who gave you special authority? Even if I were to look at that book itself, I am pretty darn positive that I am not going to find your name specifically in it - that you have the authority to declare the canon of Scripture. So - what authority do you appeal to?

On this premise alone, sola Scriptura is self-defeating; becuase one MUST appeal to something authoritative other than Scripture to determine what Scripture even is! One is forced to look at the authority of the Church, and then to say the Church is only selectively authoritative - as in the case that they could dictate Scripture only - you lose all credibility altogether because if the Church is not authoritative in all matters of God's word, it cannot be considered authoritative in any. Selective authority does not work!

So, in one short swoop I have debunked your entire premise because you appeal to Scripture alone, which is never said to be authoritative on it's own - apart from the Church.

It is absolutely true that Scripture is authoritative, however nothing says - not even Scripture - that it alone is authoritative.

God bless, Matt


Dear Brethern,

If I may jump into this conversation for a moment or two, I would like to respond to Matt's statement that "The primacy of Peter and his role among even the Apostles is made clear through the New Testament."

Primacy in making errors and in sinning or otherwise. If Peter were truly "The # 1 Apostle of the Apostles, I wonder why Paul dared 'oppose him to his face' as recorded in Gal 2:11? NONE of the other Apostles were ever corrected in this way. If Peter were really the # 1 Apostle surely Paul would have not 'opposed him to his face' but would have asked him top step aside and privately informed him of his error. Even common sense tells one that an underling NEVER corrects the CEO, and even if he dares to, it would be done privately, NOT in front of everyone.

NONE of the other Apostles flatly denied that they knew Jesus like Peter did.

NONE of the other Apostles rebuked Jesus except for Peter. Jesus then calls Peter 'Satan' something He never calls any of the other Apostles!

Scripture calls John 'The disciple whom Jesus loved' not Peter.

If Peter is Primary among the Apostles, why isn't it recorded anywhere that Jesus commanded the other Apostles to follow and obey Peter? Surely, if Peter was 'The Big Cheese' He should have had special authority that was given to him and him alone. But I don't see this anywhere.

Lastly, (jumping back to oral traditions for a moment) in 1 Cor 4:6 the Apostle Paul commands us '...not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of against the other.' A clear command From Paul to stay away from oral traditions, just as Jesus warned us eight times in the NT.

Benji


And if Peter was the pope, why when Paul and Barnabas brought the question of circumcism to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15), did Peter testify, yet it was James that made the final decision?


Ted,

Consider this....

The Pope speaks....then the bishops say "Here's what you should do....", in accordance with that which the Pope said....

Peter gave the teaching, James provided the "follow thru", the "how to live it."

Matt


Benji,

1) Infallibility doesn't mean impeccability - in that the Pope will never sin or make an error. There have been Popes guilty of sin as much as any others of us. There have also been Bishops of Rome who have made errors while not acting in capacity of the office of Pope.

It must be understood that the infallibility of the Pope does not reside in himself, but in the office of the Church. This distinction must be completely understood in order to approach a further understanding of what infallibility and the Papacy entail.

Now, let's deal with some of the the issues you raise:

> If Peter were truly
> "The # 1 Apostle of the Apostles,
> I wonder why Paul dared 'oppose him to
> his face' as recorded in Gal 2:11?

-- Rather than reinvent the wheel, I offer http://members.aol.com/johnprh/galatians.html as explanation of this apparent problem.

Additionally, you are assuming that "opposing him to his face" means in front of a crowd of people. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

> NONE of the other Apostles flatly
> denied that they knew Jesus like Peter
> did.

Wasn't this part of the fulfillment of Scripture?

> NONE of the other Apostles rebuked
> Jesus except for Peter. Jesus then
> calls Peter 'Satan' something He never
> calls any of the other Apostles!

Jesus also prays for Peter specifically, "that his faith may not fail". He doesn't pray for any of the other Apostles specifically in this way. Even when He prays for the Apostles in Gethsemane, it is for all of them - Peter included.

Jesus asks Peter to "strengthen [his] brethren", something He does not do for all the Apostles.

Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, something He never does to any of the other Apostles.

I would say that these things hold much greater significance over whatever character flaws Peter had. Besides, Jesus didn't choose Peter for who he was...He chose him for who He knew Peter could become (as he does with each of us.) The Church Father's certainly accepted Peter's primacy as well.

> If Peter is Primary among the Apostles,
> why isn't it recorded anywhere that
> Jesus commanded the other Apostles to
> follow and obey Peter?

They were present when Jesus told Peter to "strengthen your brethren." They were present when Peter was given the "keys to the kingdom", etc.

> Surely, if Peter
> was 'The Big Cheese' He should have had
> special authority that was given to him
> and him alone. But I don't see this
> anywhere.

The "keys to the kingdom" is special authority.....along with the other things I've already pointed to.

> Lastly, (jumping back to oral
> traditions for a moment) in 1 Cor 4:6
> the Apostle Paul commands us '...not to
> exceed what is written, in order that
> no one of you might become arrogant in
> behalf of against the other.' A clear
> command From Paul to stay away from
> oral traditions, just as Jesus warned
> us eight times in the NT.

Benji, were Paul's teaching that one should only hold to what is written, and that it had to be from the Apostles even, we would not think that Paul would have praised the Corinthians as he did in 1 Cor 11:2 for "remember[ing] [him] in everything and maintain [ing] the traditions even as [he] has delivered them to [the Corinthians]. Further, he urges the Corinthians [in 1 Cor 4:16] "to be imitators of [Paul]."

Phil 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

2 Tim 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Certainly if they were not to go beyond what was written, there would be no need for "faithful men who will be able to teach others."

1 Thess 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Here, too, we have the first letter to the Thessalonians....clearly they did not receive by what is written, but rather what they heard - AND they accepted this as the word of God, not the word of men. Today, it seems that if someone doesn't believe something is from the Apostles, because it was not written in the Scriptures, it is written off as "words of men." The Thessalonians - and the other communities too - certainly must have had more faith, because they were not learning what was in the Scripture alone, but rather the word of God delivered through the Apostles, both written and orally.

Matt


Continue following this interesting discussion...


Go back to the Church Apologetics Page.

Or Switch to the responses following Gary's...