UPON THIS ROCK, I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH: PETROS/PETRA DEBATE

One of our recent articles, "PROTESTANTS AREN'T PROPER CHRISTIANS," SAYS POPE BENEDICT XVI", has ignited an explosion of comments. It is a real world example what ardent Catholics believe. It has sparked so much attention, Chris has dedicated some of his shows to this topic, addressing the alleged authority of the Pope according to God's Word. Listen now to Show 1 and Show 2.

Chris has also written an article (see below), breaking down the pieces to the Petros/Petra Debate that has gone on for years between Protestants and Catholics.

By Chris Pinto

Since God delivered man from the Dark Ages, a debate has raged among Catholics and Protestants concerning the one true church, and the foundation upon which it is built.  For centuries, the Catholic Church has maintained that Jesus Christ founded His church upon the apostle Peter, and that the papacy represents an “unbroken” line of apostolic succession from Peter to the present day.  Supposedly, all those who do not submit to the authority of Peter (i.e. the popes) are in rebellion against Christ and God.  Even today, this belief keeps many Catholics bound in the Catholic faith.

The debate begins in Matthew chapter 16 where Jesus said, “… whom say ye that I am?”

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven …”
(Matthew 16:15-19)

This is how it reads to us in English, but in Greek (the original language of the New Testament) the words for rock are more specific.  It reads:

“And I (Jesus) say unto thee, That thou art petros, and upon this petra I will build my church …”

The Scofield Study Bible explains it this way:  “In Greek there is a play upon words in this statement: ‘Thou art Peter [petros, a stone], and on this rock [petra, a massive rock] I will build my church.’  It is upon Christ Himself that the Church is built.” (Scofield Study Bible, 1998 Edition, pg. 1206)

 In his epistle, the apostle Peter describes this concept of Christ as the “Living Stone” and believers “as living stones” built upon Him:

“… the Lord is gracious.  To whom coming, as unto a living stone … chosen of God … Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house … by Jesus Christ.”
(1 Peter 2:3-5)

Throughout the Bible, the concept of “the Rock” has always referred to God, and to Christ.  The apostle Paul clearly defined the “Rock” that gave water to the children of Israel in the days of Moses:

“… they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

(1 Corinthians 10:4)

In the Psalms, David continually wrote of the Rock, not as if it represented a man, but clearly as a representation of God:

“The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust …” (Psalm 18:2)

 “For who is God save the Lord?  Or who is a rock save our God? (Psalm 18:31) 

Furthermore, David makes it clear that God only is the true Rock in whom we should put our trust for salvation:

“Truly my soul waited upon God: from him cometh my salvation.  He only is my

rock and my salvation …” (Ps. 62:1-2)

“My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.  He only is my rock and my salvation …” (Ps. 62:5-6)

Along these lines, Paul makes it clear in his letter to the Corinthians as he talks about “God’s building” (i.e. the church, 1 Cor. 3:9) that the only foundation is Jesus Himself and there can be no other:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
(1 Cor. 3:11)

This was the understanding of the early Christians, and there is no record either in the Bible or in early church history that Peter was considered the “infallible” head of the Christian church.  Yet, the question remains: Why did Jesus say what He did to Peter, and give him “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”? 

Author, Dave Hunt explains that “Peter was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews (Acts 2:14-41) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48) …” (Source: Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, pg. 149).  This view makes sense since Peter “officially” introduced the gospel to the Jewish people on the day of Pentecost, and then did the same for the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius (see Hunt’s Scripture references).  As such, we could say that it was given to Peter to open the doors to the kingdom of heaven for all nations; but beyond that, he was not given any special authority above that of the other disciples.

When the church debated the issue of whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised at the first council in Jerusalem, Peter gave an exhortation (Acts 15:7-11), but it was James who gave the final judgment on how they should proceed and instruct the Gentile churches (Acts 15:13, 19).  Peter was later intimidated by James, which caused him to separate himself from the Gentiles, for which he was confronted and reproved by Paul (see Galatians 2:11-14).  When this happened, Peter did not claim some special authority, or suggest that Paul had no right to reprove him. In contrast, consider this statement from Pope Innocent III concerning papal authority:

“Every cleric must obey the Pope, even if he commands what is evil; for no one may judge the Pope.” (Innocent III, 1198-1216)

Even in today’s Code of Canon Law may be found this statement:

“There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
(The Code of Canon Law, 1985, Canons 1404, 1405, and 333, pp. 951, 271)

Many popes have made ridiculous claims to authority, even above the authority of Peter:

“It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the apostle [Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held theplace of God upon earth, the divinity not being able to be judged by any living man.  We are, then, infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves.”
(Pope Nicholas I, 858-67)

The reference to Constantine the Great is very important, because Constantine was the first real pope and true founder of the Roman Catholic Church.  As Caesar of Rome he bore the title Pontifex Maximus (i.e. the pontiff – this meant he was the head of the pagan priesthood); yet when he made himself the head of the Christian church, he gave himself the title Vicarius Christi, the Vicar of Christ.  These titles can be traced directly to Constantine himself, and are held by the pope today. Yet they have nothing to do with Peter, and everything to do with Constantine.

Furthermore, Catholic historian, Ignaz von Dollinger admits that the early church did not view Peter as “the rock” upon which the church was built, or that he had the sort of authority claimed by the popes:

“Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess – Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those who interpretations are collected in catenas – has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!

Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together.”
(J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, pg. 74)

Another Catholic historian, Peter De Rosa, furthers the argument:

“It may jolt them [Catholics] to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it [Matthew 16:18] and the pope.  Not one of them applies ‘Thou art Peter’ to anyone but Peter.  One after another they analyse it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine.  They are not exactly Protestants. 

Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys.  This is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead …

For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith – or the Lord in whom Peter has faith – which is called the Rock, not Peter.  All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.”
(Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy,pp. 24-25)

Dave Hunt continues the argument, explaining why the authority that Jesus gave to Peter is not just limited to Peter:

“When Christ gave Peter ‘the keys of the kingdom ofheaven’ (Matthew 16:19), He explained what that meant: ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’  That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, as it was in John 20:23, with the special application there to forgiveness of sins …. Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all, not just to Peter.”
(Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, p. 148)



Comments

[Paul]

John Gill in his Exposition writes,

"By the rock on which Christ builds his church, is meant, not the person of Peter; for Christ does not say, upon thee Peter, but upon this rock, referring to something distinct from him: for though his name signifies a rock, or stone, and there may be some allusion to it; and he is so called because of his trust and confidence in the Lord, on whom he was built; but not because he was the foundation on which any others, and especially the whole church, were built: it is true, he may be called the foundation, as the rest of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are, Eph 2:20 without any distinction from them, and preference to them; they and he agreeing in laying doctrinally and ministerially Christ Jesus as the foundation of faith and hope, but not in such sense as he is; neither he, nor they, are the foundation on which the church is built, which is Christ, and him only. Moreover, what is said to Peter in these, and the following words, is not said to him personally and separately from the rest of the apostles, but is designed for them, as well as him, as appears by comparing them with Mt 18:18. As he spoke in the name of them all, to Christ; so Christ spake to him, including them all. Peter had no preeminence over the rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted; nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ, who often showed his resentment at such a spirit and conduct, whenever there was any appearance of it in any of them; see Mt 18:1 and though Peter, with James, and John, had some particular favours bestowed on him by Christ; as to be at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, and with him in the garden; and he appeared to him alone after his resurrection, and before he was seen by the rest of the disciples; yet in some things he was inferior to them, being left to deny his Lord and master, they did not; and upon another account is called Satan by Christ, which they never were; not to mention other infirmities of his, which show he is not the rock: and, after all, what is this to the pope of Rome, who is no successor of Peter's? Peter, as an apostle, had no successor in his office; nor was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but here, by the rock, is meant, either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ himself, who points, as it were, with his finger to himself, and whom Peter had made such a glorious confession of; and who was prefigured by the rock the Israelites drank water out of in the wilderness; and is comparable to any rock for height, shelter, strength, firmness, and duration; and is the one and only foundation of his church and people, and on whom their security, salvation, and happiness entirely depend. Christ is a rock that is higher than they, where they find safety in times of distress, and the shadow of which is refreshing to them; and therefore betake themselves to him for shelter, and where they are secure from the wrath of God, and rage of men: he is the rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; and is the sure, firm, and everlasting foundation on which the church, and all true believers, are laid: he is the foundation of their faith, and hope, and everlasting happiness, and will ever continue; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Chris, your article is timely and I hope that this will settle the argument.

God bless!

[gerald]

"Throughout the Bible, the concept of “the Rock” has always referred to God, and to Christ. "

Except of course in Is 51 where it says "look to the rock from which you were hewn. ..... Look to Abraham and to Sarah...".. Interesting the simularities between Abraham and Peter. Abraham had his name changed. His exaltation was based on his faith, he was the father of all. Pope means Father. Very interesting.

No doubt Peter's faith was the basis for his rockness. No doubt Christ is spoken of as the rock. What protestants can never wrap their minds around however is that God does not work in terms of either or. Either Peter or Jesus. God works in and through his people to bring about his kingdom to HIS glory. (See eph 3:20-21). protestants feel the need to put down Peter at every turn, even denying that he was the leader of the 12 apostles even though the facts from scripture show that he was. Here is the short list of which I could add about 40 other items:

1) The evidence I presented was that Peter is ALWAYS listed first in lists of the Apostles.
2) Peter's name (Simon, Peter, Cephas) is mentioned far more in scripture than any of the other 12. Around 200 times to the next closest, John at about thirty and Jesus dialogues with Peter FAR MORE than any of the other 12.
3) Peter is called first in Matt 10 even though we know that Andrew was chosen first.
4) Jesus prays for Peter singularly that he (PETER) will restore the others. This is silly if Peter is not the leader.
5) Jesus preaches from Peter's boat.
6) Jesus pays Peter's tax.
7) Peter always answers when the group of 12 is asked a question.
8) Peter performs the first cure after the resurrection.
9) Peter converts the first gentiles.
10) Peter singulary is given the keys.

Protestants must minimize Peter as much as possible in scripture. They are even willing to call James the leader of the church.

Chris continues to beat around the bush of the question: Why did NOONE for nearly 2000 years deny that Peter was the rock and claim this play on words? EVEN GREEK SPEAKING CHRISTIANS who had a beef against the papacy? Tons of quotes readily available in the first 400 years of Christianity saying that Peter was the rock, yes some pointed to his faith and some pointed to Jesus as the rock in Matt 16:18 (but again these can be explained by God's thinking and his ways rather than the minds of dichotomy that men have). But so many pointed to Peter being the rock in matt 16:18 that you sure would have though someone who knew or spoke greek (and as Chris pointed out there were lots of people in those days who knew greek) would have said, no Peter means little stone and that was just a play on words.

The fact remains that a historical study shows that in Konine Greek, the greek spoken in the Bible, petros was rock, lithos was stone. In Ionic Greek, the greek of poetry, petros was at times used as stone. But that is immaterial to the discussion since common men and not poets wrote the Bible.

Scoffields comments are not scripture. Sorry.

[gerald]

There are all kinds of theories about when the Catholic Church started. Some say seventh Century, Some say Simon Magnus started it. Some say that the Catholic Church was there from the begining opposed to Christ. I say Christ started it in 33AD and the evidence for those with a mind that will listen is overwhelming.

It is silly to say that Constantine was the first pope. We have the writings of Clement of Rome for instance that show that he wielded papal authority when he told the Corinthians to reinstate the leaders they had ousted. This he did from Rome at a time when John the Baptist was still living in Ephuses 200 miles closer to Corinth that Rome. Irenaus tells us that Clement was the third successor of Peter in Rome. There are numerous examples before Constantine of Bishops of Rome settling disputes and making proclaimations for the whole Church. There are numerous examples of the Church throughout the world looking to Rome to settle it's differences. There are the writings of Irenaus and Ignatius that tell us if you are not in union with the Bishop of Rome you are simply not in union with Christ's Church. This in the late first and early second centurey. All Constantine did was call a council to settle the bickering that Christianity was doing over the nature of Christ because of Arianism. From it of coruse trinitarian theology was spelled out. Does Chris deny the trinity? I doubt it.

[Wallace]

Gerald I think your argument fell apart here. How is it that Peter is the supposed first head of the church, the first Pope, and yet you say Clement of Rome wielded papal authority from Rome at a time when John the Baptist was alive? Jesus was living bodily on this earth when John the Baptist was beheaded. How is Clement of Rome the supposed 3rd Pope wielding power before Peter the supposed 1st Pope.

[geraldh]

I meant John the Apostle. Bit of brain lock. Argument stands.

[Kathy A]

IIsiah 42:8 says "I am the Lord: That is my name: and my Glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to to graven images" That means I cannot bow, kiss his feet or ring, pray to the pope or statues of of mary or dead saints. Ephesians 2:8,9, says "For by Grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourself: it is a gift from God. Not of works lest any man should boast. That means I cannot save myself. It is Grace of God. James 2: 17 says "Even so Faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone." That means my faith in Jesus Christ has prompted love, compassion, patience, peace and all spiritual gifts so I want to do good deeds for Him and others and do His will. John 14: 16,17" And I will pray the Father and He shall give you another comforter, that He may abide with you forever:Even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knowth Him:but you know Him for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you." That means I don't need a pope to make new rules that aren't in the Bible, The Holy Spirit gives me guidence. Praise the Lord!

[Gerald]

"kiss his feet "

Kathy, do the scriptures not tell us that the feet of those who preach Christ are beautiful? :).

Catholics don't believe we can save ourselves. Where did you get that straw man? Chris's show. We do see God's bountiful grace in everything in our lives and even in the very fact that we have life itself.

[Kathy A]

According to the Bible I don't have to depend on works, baptism, or anything except faith Alone. My catholic neighbors are depending on works and baptism that will hopefully get them into heaven. ( After purgatory of course)The thief on the cross next to Jesus only had his faith and Jesus accepted him into heaven. No time to do good deeds or be baptized. We do good works because we love Jesus and are baptized because it is a statement of our faith, not as a infant not knowing Jesus. Rereading this just confirmed for me that there is no purgatory as Jesus said to the thief" Today you will be with me in paradise." Praise the Lord!

[Gerald]

Kathy A,

So Paul had it wrong in Romans 2:4-8

4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
[5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
[6] FOR HE WILL RENDER ON TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS:
[7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, HE WILL GIVE ETERNAL LIFE;
[8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

By the way we don't believe in Once Baptized Always Saved so no we don't depend upon our baptisms to get us in to heaven. But Peter did say "baptism NOW SAVES YOU". I..e his point is that at the moment of baptism you become a Christian because as Peter said in Acts 2:38 that those who are baptized receive the Holy Spirit. I would much rather credit the reception of the Holy Spirit with my salvation than my faith.

[Gerald]

Kathy,

as far as purgatory goes I guess you must reject the idea of sanctification as a process. That it happens throughout the life of a Christian or maybe you say that it happens but isn't really necessary to get in to heaven and doesn't have to be completed. Remember however that sanctify means to make holy, so if one is not fully sanctified, i.e. his covered over righteousness is not cleansed then there would be a problem since rev 19 says "nothing unclean shall enter".

The thief does not fit very well with the protestant doctrine of imputed righteousness. His words can easily be understood in the Catholic concept of infused righteousness.

God bless

[defender of christ's church]

Here is what protestants really think this verse says, thou art the holy bible and upon this book I will build my church.