Peter Is Not The Rock!

[beamishboy]

those who have, effectively, established their own infallible positions are unlikely to relinquish them to another infallible bishop.

My dear Anglian,

The beamishboy has grown somewhat and can now spot sarcasm and understand it! Hehe. I now read between the lines with discernment (even if I say so myself; hehe).

I know you mean to say that Protestants treat our own reading of the Bible as infallible. You very naughtily use the very word we look upon with horror when applied to that one man who claims infallibility in doctrine when he speaks ex cathedra. I think it's time now for us to look at this idea of infallibility more closely.

When Rome claims infallibility, it is not a question of merely interpreting Scriptures. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are doctrines that have nothing to do with the interpretation of Scriptures. They are declared and the stamp of infallibility is placed on them and all RCs shout "Credo!" or face excommunication. Protestants don't do this. We merely obey Scriptures. The only thing you can say about us is that we read and interpret Scriptures. Any reasonable man who reads something must interpret it. It is in this confined space that you accuse us of infallibility and you liken us to the Pope who declares a doctrine that has nothing to do with Scriptures and makes the doctrine infallible.

In the light of what I have said, I hope you can see that your statement that we claim infallibility is invidious, false and offensive. That the Pope claims infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra is true because the RC church expressly speaks of this.

You know perfectly well that everyone who reads anything at all, whether it is the Bible or the Pope's encyclicals will have to interpret it. There's no claim to infallibility in such reading whether he is Protestant or RC or Orthodox. No Protestant will say that his interpretation of a verse is infallible. But when the Gospel says Joseph did not sleep with Mary UNTIL she has given birth to Jesus, we will read "until" as "until" and when the Gospels speak of Jesus' brothers, we will read "brothers" as "brothers". To say that we claim infallibility and to liken this situation to the Pope's infallible declaration of doctrines that are extraneous to the Bible is what I find unjust.

I have read of unspeakable injustice suffered by the Coptics in Egypt and my heart goes out to them. As much as you pray for justice in the world, I'm sure you will be the last to wilfully make unjust statements about others. To liken Protestants' reading of the Bible to the infallible declarations of the Pope (extraneous of the Bible) cannot be just. It's as offensive as the accusation that some churches worship Mary, statues and icons. There was a time when I didn't understand that the word "worship" when used with regard to Mary was offensive. I have since used the term "venerate" even though I honestly believe veneration is just a euphemism for worship but that's a personal opinion which I will shelve away and continue to say "venerate" so as not to cause offence.

Infallibility is an established doctrine of the RC church. No RC would be offended by it. Protestants have traditionally objected to this infallibility and hence, to use it on Protestants is offensive.

We all have our own arsenals of offensive words that can be used. There was a time when my reaction to an offence from an RC or Orthodox was to give back the same offence. I notice I have a knack to offend people and I do try to curb that ability. I'm sure you will agree that a battle between churches which is a very common past time in CF should come to an end. It is for this reason that I decided to reason with you why it is incorrect to accuse Protestants of espousing the doctrine of infallibility.

 

[sunlover1]

The fact is that the early Christians did not deny the reference to Peter, but they interpreted it in two ways - Peter's confession of faith, or Peter's person.

Isnt that exactly what we 'late' Christians are doing?

Not one of those who spoke Greek and lived in a Greaco-Roman culture ever came up with the interpretation modern Protestants do,

Huh?

and really, even to those who believe as I do,

How do you believe and what makes your view superior?

there is an air of desperate semantic fudging about that line of argument. Apart from anything else, it seems to insist its view is the only possible one - which two thousand years of Christian writing clearly contradicts. I am begining to wonder whether Protestants are not far more authoritarian in their reading, because it is their own very personal reading and so any challenge to it is taken personally.

What other sort of reading would it be if not personal?

There is such a lot of misundertanding of the Roman position that I can only, once more, thank you for your patience. Both John Paul II and Pope Benedict have, indeed, made overtures about how the Papacy might evolve to meet the many challenges facing Christianity in the modern world, but those who have, effectively, established their own infallible positions are unlikely to relinquish them to another infallible bishop.

Wow, you're freakin me out anglian.
Has someone/something bewitched you?

 

[narnia59]

Yes of course, he said "you are", but I'm talking about the impersonal pronoun usage following that - "upon this".
Please reconsider & respond.

If there was another ‘rock’ other than Peter being talked about anywhere in the vicinity of the statement, then I think we’d have to ask, exactly which ‘rock’ is meant by ‘this’ rock. But there’s only one ‘rock’ being discussed – Peter himself. Perhaps the usage of “This rock” is more emphatic and that is the reason for Christ’s choice of words. It places more emphasis on Peter’s role as the rock rather than the person Peter (which would be in the case if he had said ‘you’). It places the emphasis on the established office instead of the person – consistent with how Catholics view the papacy.


I do think this view from the Zondervan NIV Bible (not Catholic) is quite pertinent though, because it somewhat addresses the topic of emphasis you also brought up. “The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”

I've used one of the same determinates of Peter's primacy - preponderance of scriptural usage. Jesus didn't emphasize visibility & the family correlates to the body of Christ in only a very limited sense so I wouldn't use that correlation to define a church office...

so maybe that is a "false dichotomy". (I'm not sure what you mean by that - I'm thinking more like "false analogy" is what you meant.) God advised against a (visible)king for Isreal, so I would think He would feel the same way about the Church having one.
​

I think a false dichotomy is when a person creates an either/or choice when it does not exist. If someone said ‘a man cannot be the head of a Christian home because Christ is the only head’ – that is a false dichotomy, because we see in Scripture this is not an either/or choice at all. The idea that Christ could not see Peter as the ‘rock’ because He is the ‘rock’ – I think that is a false dichotomy as well.

I think I posted this quote up above from an Evangelical Bible commentary, but did you consider this part? “As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself.”

In terms of the analogy, no one is suggesting that Peter is a visible ‘king’. He is the visible ‘palace administrator’. Two completely different roles.

And really? You think the family correlates to the body of Christ in only a limited sense? We consider the family to be the ‘domestic church’.

1666 The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called "the domestic church," a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.

2204 "The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason it can and should be called a domestic church." It is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament.

I think that on one level it was irony, Peter being a bit impulsive. Peter's weakness on the other hand, would make him a perfect candidate in that "God's strenth is in our weakness" (we must depend on Him alone).

If God/Christ changing people’s names in the Bible was a common, everyday occurrence that did not pinpoint strategic points in salvation history, I could maybe agree with that.

And consider this viewpoint regarding the ‘weakness’ of Peter from W.F. Albright in the Anchor Bible commentary. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles."

It is a visible organization based on physical, not spiritual pre-requisites.

The institution of the family was already in place. If anything, the Church would follow it's lead, not the other way around; but the Church isn't defined by physical blood relationship, the family (in the classic sense) is.

I would say we are quite defined by a physical blood relationship – united by the quite physical blood of Christ which covers us all.

Then the keys having a symbolic meaning has a point of diminishing returns. That would be the point at which they were unnecessary in assigning the exact same authority to the other apostles. Your over-emphasis is self-serving in this respect.

A valid point in itself (and I was pondering it as it ocurred to me), but it doesn't address the same authority being dispensed to at least a dozen others in Matt 18.

The same authority, with a noteworthy exception – no keys. Another reference from Albright -- . "It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."

It is ignored in the sense that you have presented the view of the papacy in terms of OT kingship, which wasn't a priestly position at all, and in the sense that God provided His own vicar - The Holy Spirit who requires no successor or apologetic (to believers) for infallability, nor apology for lack of impeccability.

I am not presenting the papacy in terms of the OT kingship. The OT kings foreshadow the kingship of Christ. The correlation to the papacy and church authority in general is to how the king established the authority structure within his kingdom, especially in managing affairs in his absence. The papacy is presented in terms of the consistent reference to ‘one’ man who is charged with running the palace -- a palace administrator.

The sending of the Holy Spirit did not remove the apostolic teaching authority we see in the NT. Once a person receives the Holy Spirit, they did not become a peer to the apostles.

I can't assume it, brother. God advised against an earthly king for Isreal. That makes it doubtful that He would use one as a model for His organization.

The people of Israel rejected the authority God had placed over them, which God viewed as rejection of Himself. They basically had a case of “everybody else has a king – how can we not be important enough to have a king”. God used the opportunity to teach them a very valuable lesson – a bad king is much worse than no king. But with the death of Saul, we see God establishing the kingship He desired for Israel in David, with a promise to David that his house and kingdom would endure forever before Him. This is why Christ was to come from the house of David – the continuity of the kingship beginning with David and fulfilled in Christ. So yes, the foreshadowing of Christ’s kingdom we see beginning with David is important, especially when he makes clear references to it in terms of authority. The keys received by the one in charge of the palace in the Jewish kings are the foreshadowing of the kingdom of Christ, the church which manifests the kingdom, and the keys placed in the hands of Peter.

(And pssst.... I'm a sister).

BTW, I'm sorely appreciating your lack of animosity in all this.

Right back at ya.

 

[narnia59]

Actually yes, some of us have thrown some ideas out there,
Why do you believe God/Jesus changed peoples names?
Changing Simon's name to Peter (rock) was a big deal to
be sure, just as changing Saul's name to Paul was a big deal.
Just as the names of places were changed signified a big deal.
Many believe that God gave Peter that name to sort of
memorialize that moment of that revelation. Some
believe that the name changes were prophetic words,
as they were given "ahead" of the events for the men...
(after events for the location name changes iirc).
There were many many names changed in Scripture,
and Peter's is just as important as any others including
Pauls. But as far as this rock that jesus said He'd build
His church upon... See below:


\
Has anyone answered this post yet?

Could you please elaborate on many, many name changes in Scripture where God changes someone’s name? I am aware of Abraham, Jacob and Peter. I think that when God changes someone’s name, it indicates the role of the person in salvation history and the beginning of a new stage. Abraham becomes the father of the Jewish people, Jacob becomes the father of the nation of Israel, and Peter becomes the rock upon which Christ builds the new Israel, his church.

Christ did not change Saul’s name to Paul. Paul had one encounter with Christ, and he left is as Saul. There is really not an indication that Paul’s name was really changed… you are simply reading along in the book of Acts, read that Saul is also known as Paul, and then the switch occurs. Most Bible scholars I have read believe that Paul actually was known by two names due to his dual position within Jewish culture (Saul) and Roman citizenship (Paul). It was his choice to begin using Paul, most likely for two reasons. First, it distanced him from “Saul” who was known for persecuting the Christians. Second, it allowed him to leverage his Roman citizenship to its fullest, which we see being important a couple of different times.

There is nothing in that below which indicates to me there is any other ‘rock’ being discussed besides Peter. There is no reference in any of the surrounding text to any rock besides Peter, which ‘this’ can be referencing.

 

[narnia59]

LAter Peter denied the Lord three times... in the sink or swim inthe waters of life.. Peter was like a rock..

Really? That must explanation his ultimate steadfastness to the end where he died for Christ.

I posted this a couple of posts above, but particularly relevant here:
And consider this viewpoint regarding the ‘weakness’ of Peter from yet W.F. Albright in the Anchor Bible commentary. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles."

Interesting that we see only one disciple who stood at the foot of the cross, but only Peter's decision to be absent is recorded.

And have you ever noticed that in Gethsamane, when Peter, James and John all fell asleep -- Jesus only held Peter accountable. Only pointed out the weakness of Peter. Ignored the other two.

So I would agree with the Protestant scholar Albright, we are told of Peter's weaknesses because they are significantly important due to his unique role.

 

[narnia59]

However, for practical purposes, the church (any church in fact) needs to have some order. So, the local church will have some rules for administrative purposes.

The beamishboy will not baptise or consecrate communion bread and wine not because God forbids it but because the beamishboy wants to have some order in the church. It is not wrong in the eyes of God for the beamishboy to administer the sacraments but it may be a little disorderly. Hehe. Incidentally, the beamishboy holds the candle by the font during baptism and the beamishboy is always by the priest during consecration because the beamishboy is an altar boy.

Is this the Anglican view, or your personal opinion? Because I did find an Anglican cathechism, and it seems the role of administering the sacraments is reserved to the priest, not the laity.

I would be interested in any Anglican documents you have that indicate the purpose of this is simply due to 'order' than any tie to the ordination of the priest.

 

[beamishboy]

Is this the Anglican view, or your personal opinion? Because I did find an Anglican cathechism, and it seems the role of administering the sacraments is reserved to the priest, not the laity.

I would be interested in any Anglican documents you have that indicate the purpose of this is simply due to 'order' than any tie to the ordination of the priest.

Howdy!!!

As I have said in that post, every church will have some rule that gives the vicar the sole right to administer the sacraments. This is to ensure control and possibly, "quality control". The CoE is no different.

 

[beamishboy]

But that does not mean it's a theological thing. It's purely administrative. It doesn't mean a sacrament administered by a lay person is invalid in the eyes of God.

 

[narnia59]

You know perfectly well that everyone who reads anything at all, whether it is the Bible or the Pope's encyclicals will have to interpret it. There's no claim to infallibility in such reading whether he is Protestant or RC or Orthodox. No Protestant will say that his interpretation of a verse is infallible. But when the Gospel says Joseph did not sleep with Mary UNTIL she has given birth to Jesus, we will read "until" as "until" and when the Gospels speak of Jesus' brothers, we will read "brothers" as "brothers".

And we read 'rock' as 'rock'. Claiming that Protestants take a 'plain' reading without layering interpration, context, language and culture as opposed to Catholics just doesn't hold up I'm afraid.

While you say that no Protestant will say their interpretation is infallible, authoritative statements are made all the time. Like the title of this thread -- "Peter is not the rock".

Without any assurance that the faith is guarded, there are no limits as to what defines a Christian. Thus, those who claim that Jesus is really not God based upon their interpretation -- in. The gnostics who claim that Jesus really was not fully man -- in. The nestorians who claimed that Jesus really existed as two persons -- in. Those who today claim that there was not really a physical resurrection -- in. Those who exclude the virgin birth -- in.

You cannot have it both ways. Either scripture belongs to personal interpretation alone in which case there are no defined doctrines that speak for Christianity, or there must be some authority recognized which establishes the doctrines.

 

[narnia59]

Howdy!!!

As I have said in that post, every church will have some rule that gives the vicar the sole right to administer the sacraments. This is to ensure control and possibly, "quality control". The CoE is no different.

I'm just looking for you to provide me with some Anglican theological documents that define this view.

 

[beamishboy]

I'm just looking for you to provide me with some Anglican theological documents that define this view.

That may be hard to come by. You see, we don't have encyclicals and things like that. We are only guided by the Bible actually. And even if there is writing by the Archbishop, etc, such writing is not considered important. We can refuse to attend Lambeth, as you will recall. Hehe. We are Protestants and are only guided by the Bible, not any other document or any man.

 

[StTherese]

That may be hard to come by. You see, we don't have encyclicals and things like that. We are only guided by the Bible actually. And even if there is writing by the Archbishop, etc, such writing is not considered important. We can refuse to attend Lambeth, as you will recall. Hehe. We are Protestants and are only guided by the Bible, not any other document or any man.

Baptists and Lutherans claim the same thing...what makes you an Anglican and not Baptist or Lutheran?

 

[beamishboy]

Baptists and Lutherans claim the same thing...what makes you an Anglican and not Baptist or Lutheran?

Historical. But you see, to me, the Baptist and the Lutheran share the same core beliefs with me even though the practices may be different. In short, I have no doubt at all that the average Baptist and Lutheran believe in the same fundamentals as the Apostles.

That is why an RC can't understand why we have so many denominations and yet we sort of know who "our own kind" are. At an exchange programme in a different school in a different country, I attended the Christian Fellowship. It was a Protestant fellowship and I was surprised that all of us shared the same core beliefs even though a Baptist may only practise adult baptism. We share the same belief rooted to the New Testament that is very special and sacred. It's hard to explain.

 

[sunlover1]

Could you please elaborate on many, many name changes in Scripture where God changes someone’s name?

No, because it's time consuming, but yes, do look into it rather than
taking my word for it. I'm sorry if I said "God" directly btw. There
are many name changes/dual names, some by God, some by Paul etc

I am aware of Abraham, Jacob and Peter. I think that when God changes someone’s name, it indicates the role of the person in salvation history and the beginning of a new stage.

So do I.

Abraham becomes the father of the Jewish people, Jacob becomes the father of the nation of Israel, and Peter becomes the rock upon which Christ builds the new Israel, his church.

Perhaps, dunno for sure

Christ did not change Saul’s name to Paul. Paul had one encounter with Christ, and he left is as Saul. There is really not an indication that Paul’s name was really changed… you are simply reading along in the book of Acts, read that Saul is also known as Paul, and then the switch occurs. Most Bible scholars I have read believe that Paul actually was known by two names due to his dual position within Jewish culture (Saul) and Roman citizenship (Paul). It was his choice to begin using Paul, most likely for two reasons. First, it distanced him from “Saul” who was known for persecuting the Christians. Second, it allowed him to leverage his Roman citizenship to its fullest, which we see being important a couple of different times.

Dual names, name changes, either way, the name signifies something.

There is nothing in that below which indicates to me there is any other ‘rock’ being discussed besides Peter. There is no reference in any of the surrounding text to any rock besides Peter, which ‘this’ can be referencing.

Dunno about that either. All I know is that using the demonstrative pronoun "this"
rather than the personal pronoun "you" is no accident, and makes all of the difference.

However, even if it were Peter himself that Christ chose to build His church
upon, that doesnt have any effect on my salvation or my theology (outside
of it being Peter rather than the revelation, which I doubt)
We all have our own understanding of every passage in the book.
OFten it's not dangerous, but when we build an entire theology on a passage,
that might be.

imo,
sunlover

 

[narnia59]

Historical. But you see, to me, the Baptist and the Lutheran share the same core beliefs with me even though the practices may be different. In short, I have no doubt at all that the average Baptist and Lutheran believe in the same fundamentals as the Apostles.

That is why an RC can't understand why we have so many denominations and yet we sort of know who "our own kind" are. At an exchange programme in a different school in a different country, I attended the Christian Fellowship. It was a Protestant fellowship and I was surprised that all of us shared the same core beliefs even though a Baptist may only practise adult baptism. We share the same belief rooted to the New Testament that is very special and sacred. It's hard to explain.

My thoughts are you haven't explored the differences enough or you would see them more clearly.

For example, the Baptists take a very different view of what Eucharist is than the Anglicans or Lutherans. How can something like whether or not grace is received from the Eucharist through the body and blood of Christ not be 'core' to the faith?

And both the Lutherans and the Baptists would have an extremely negative view that the Anglicans pray for the dead.

The Baptists reject that grace can be received sacramentally. Is that not a little core?

The Baptists reject the creeds accepted by the Anglicans. Again, not core?

Did you mention to them that the Anglicans believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church in the true interpretation of Scriptures?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It is common practice (at least for us) to take (or be given) a new name. Peter made a statement of faith... we all make a statement of faith before we are given our new name... Hmmm....

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

It is common practice (at least for us) to take (or be given) a new name. Peter made a statement of faith... we all make a statement of faith before we are given our new name... Hmmm....

Forgive me...

We take a new name at confirmation as well.

However, I don't see where it is a common practice in Scripture for God to rename someone. The renaming of Peter does not coincide in Scripture with his statement of faith. At his first meeting of all his apostles, Christ does not rename all of them, much less name them "rock". Only Peter. Hmmm......

 

[beamishboy]

My thoughts are you haven't explored the differences enough or you would see them more clearly.

For example, the Baptists take a very different view of what Eucharist is than the Anglicans or Lutherans. How can something like whether or not grace is received from the Eucharist through the body and blood of Christ not be 'core' to the faith?

The Baptists and the Anglicans (I know my vicar at least) don't accept that grace is received through the Eucharist. Grace is received when we received Jesus and appropriated that once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. I think you are confused with the pro-Rome faction of the Anglican church. You see, unfortunately, my church has people with Newman syndrome but unlike Newman who was honourable enough to leave the church and join Rome, some people remain in my church and express their Roman views. Your confusion is understandable.

And both the Lutherans and the Baptists would have an extremely negative view that the Anglicans pray for the dead.

Are you aware how that is done in an Anglican church? The non-pro-Rome group that is. Ours isn't a requiem to shorten the years in purgatory. I think you mistake the CoE for the RC church.

The Baptists reject that grace can be received sacramentally. Is that not a little core?

I was not aware that grace could be received through the sacraments. I don't think that is scriptural. Are you saying that it can be received through the sacraments as opposed to actual faith in Christ? That would be contrary to the Bible.

The Baptists reject the creeds accepted by the Anglicans. Again, not core?

The Baptists don't make it a point to say the Creed but that's purely ritual. They accept the meaning behind the Nicene Creed the way my church interprets it.

Did you mention to them that the Anglicans believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church in the true interpretation of Scriptures?

You've got to tell me what you mean by this. I don't think we agree on all fours. As an RC, your understanding of a lot of Anglican things is tainted by your own understanding of your own religion. Because of that, you misunderstand the Anglican position - that's what I think. So you have to be precise and I can tell you if that is our position.

 

[sunlover1]

We take a new name at confirmation as well.

However, I don't see where it is a common practice in Scripture for God to rename someone. The renaming of Peter does not coincide in Scripture with his statement of faith. At his first meeting of all his apostles, Christ does not rename all of them, much less name them "rock". Only Peter. Hmmm......

I have a new name too.

The renaming might not seem to coincide with his SOF,
but Jesus operates outside of chronological time.
Speaking of rock. It's interesting that He named
him something that means a rock. Can you imagine
naming someone like Peter "rock"? I believe it was
both prophetic (you WILL be more like a rock in the
future) Jesus calling something that is not as though
it were. God creates by His words, He speaks it, it
then 'is".
So perhaps two things were going on at that moment.
Prophetically Peter was becoming a 'rock' ... and
memorially, Jesus was establishing the beginning of the
preaching of the message to the Hebrews, with
peter being the one to open that door. Paul was
the apostle to the gentiles.

musing,
sunlover

 

[AmericanCatholic]

LAter Peter denied the Lord three times... in the sink or swim inthe waters of life.. Peter was like a rock..

Peter only sank after he, uniquely, walked out on water to reach Jesus.