- Oct 8, 2019
- 239
- 82
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm having some discussions with a friend of mine who is a Christian Catholic, in regards to the following verse:
18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.
Was Jesus saying that the whole church was build upon Peter and his successors, and so established the Catholic Church as the One church, with the rest of all denominations being "broken" churches, scattered boats flowing astray from the Ark?
I'm trying to figure out the different interpretations of the the verse above from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view.
The two articles:
Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | CARM.org
Peter the Rock
Carm.com: The author is making the argument that the greek word "petra" (feminine), meaning little stone, and petros (masculine) meaning unmoveable rock.
"...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."
Later Peter is showing himself not as an immovable rock, but one that denies the Lord 3 times. The Catholic claim is that in the context Jesus is referring Peter as The Rock, the protestant however is making the context broader by what is happening later. I hope I'm making some sense, this is quite
new to me.
The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"
‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’
The Catholic defence is that the protestant position is making a wrong interpretation of the Greek word Petros and Petra.
My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?
Your answer is contained in the scripture you cited. Jesus was the one speaking, and Jesus said he was building his church, not Peter's church. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Peter's own writing also shows the church was not built on him, but upon Christ. Peter wrote:
"You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
For this is contained in Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”
and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed." [end of Peter's quote]
The corner stone the rest of the church is built on is Christ.
Christ is the one stone that will not disappoint people if they do believe in him! That's not Peter. (Psalm 146:3)
Christ is the one that was rejected to the detriment of the ones who reject him! That again is not Peter."For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:17-18
This part of Peter's scripture makes the Catholic argument unreasonable if they claim there is a succession of human Popes who are the cornerstone of the Christian church, because the scripture speaks of only one person being the cornerstone, not multiple leaders being that stone. I don't know if that's what they claim, but if they do it's unreasonable because the scripture speaks of one: “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
Now Christ did give Peter the keys to the kingdom, in that after Christ died Peter was the first to offer the good new to the Jews that had not accepted Christ before he died, then to the Samaritans, and then finally to the gentiles. Peter was the first one to do that in each case. And in those incidents when he did it people were converted and were also baptized in Holy Spirit. But the church was not built on Peter. Christ told his apostles when he was here that they only have one leader (teacher), the Christ. For Peter to even accept that position of being leader of Christ's church he would do so in contradiction of Christ's words, and assume Christ's position, thus becoming apostate.
And where in scripture does Christ tell his disciples to take on the leadership title of church Father? The word 'pope' derives from the Latin word 'papa' or father. Instead Christ told his apostles the opposite, not to do that:
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 By this same scripture Christ also told them they only have one leader or teacher, the Christ. "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ" vs 10
Peter never took on that title, he was never the Pope of the church or its leader. That's not in the Bible. It was made up after the apostles died. Arguing over the name Peter meaning rock (which it does), and therefore claiming he must be the rock mass in your scripture cannot help your friend justify the Catholic claim Peter took on the position of Pope (Church Father). That's nowhere in scripture. And it contradicts the direction Jesus gave Peter as cited in the scripture above. If Peter did that he would have been committing apostasy by assuming Christ's position. The scriptures don't show Peter ever did that.
Another bit of evidence you might share showing Peter was no Pope is that the Bible record shows apostle Paul wielded as much authority in Christian congregations as Peter did. Paul even publicly rebuked Peter at least once for sinning. Furthermore, Paul was not directed by Peter or the bunch of Christians in Jerusalem. If Peter was over the Christian congregation as leader certainly all Christians back then would have to follow his directions. If they didn't he could be no leader of theirs because of not leading them. Paul didn't even Go to Jerusalem to meet Peter until 3 years after he had already been preaching the gospel to gentiles-Galatians 1:16-18. He didn't receive permission or directions from Peter or his Jewish group in Jerusalem to do that preaching either. And even after Paul met Peter his activity was still not directed by Peter. So Paul could not have considered Peter his superior. Neither could Peter have considered Paul his subordinate. The only big occasion in scripture that I remember, when decisions about Christian procedures and doctrines were settled over disputes and the outcome was not decided exclusively by Paul, was when Paul and a whole council of Christians in Jerusalem decided the outcome. And their decision went in favor of Paul's council. That decision was not decided solely by Peter. It was over the matter of whether a Christian male must be circumcised to be a Christian?
The Catholic church arose after the death of the apostles, not before their death. So anyone telling you the Catholic church was the first Christian church is incorrect. The first Christian church consisted of Jews in Jerusalem, who then spread their message from there. Once Paul was baptized he immediately preached the truth in Damascus and eventually went out from a Christian congregation already established in Antioch, traveling to spread the gospel-Acts 9. During none of those years did Christians call their church the Catholic church. They were providentially called Christians in the Bible record- Acts 11:26. Sometimes when writing to a specific church in a certain locale they would be addressed in a letter by that locale or a congregation in that specific locale. The Bible never calls them Catholics.
Last edited:
Upvote
0