• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by Maniel, Oct 7, 2019.

  1. Yes

    14 vote(s)
    30.4%
  2. No

    32 vote(s)
    69.6%
  1. Maniel

    Maniel Child of God

    52
    +55
    Denmark
    Christian
    Single
    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?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Lost4words

    Lost4words In reality, an old dog! Supporter

    +3,863
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Single
    Get ready to welcome the Catholic bashers! :doh:

    Read:

    Peter the Rock A great article as mentioned in above post.

    Quote:

    “To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.”
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  3. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +2,057
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Scriptures about rock, rocks and related ... pretty clear who the ROCK is ;o)

    What Does the Bible Say About Rocks?
     
  4. Kaon

    Kaon Well-Known Member

    +1,492
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    It isn't about an institution at all - the Church is made up of humans; one point of the Word of God's ministry is that we are living temples. Our bodies in two or more quantity establish Church; He is in the middle of those two+.

    What the Word of God told Peter is that Peter is the foundation for the Hebrews turned Christian Church. And, ultimately, Peter was the "first" stone thrown on the foundation of the "Church" build by bodies of believers. This is a masonry reference: The Word of God is the cornerstone, which is a foundational stone around which the rest of the building (pebbles/petros/Peter et. al) is built.

    By definition, Peter is the first pebble/rock, because he was the first disciple the Word of God met.
     
  5. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +5,164
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    The Gospel that Peter confessed is the rock, Peter was named after it.

    He was given the keys to the Kingdom, and under the Holy Spirit's influence he began opening the Kingdom to the Jews in Acts 2, and to the Gentiles in Acts 10. Binding and loosing however, was not unique to Peter (Matthew 18:18) and there is no Biblical evidence that Peter could have had a successor that inherited any special authority that Peter would have had. No matter, it was no longer needed. Peter's ministry had been done, the Kingdom's gates had been swung open, and they remain open to this day.
     
  6. Rubiks

    Rubiks armchair linguist

    +2,143
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Peter never went to Rome.

    But, yes, Peter is the rock, according to Jesus. CARM is an apologetics website, not a serious academic source.
     
  7. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,471
    Non-Denom
    Single
    The reference you quoted as far as I know is only mentioned in the gospel of Matthew. One occurrence of any idea in the New Testament is insufficient to elevate that idea, to the level of a doctrine.

    Important truth statements (doctrines) in the scripture are always frequently mentioned and emphasized by the apostles.

    One very important point regarding this topic is that Peter actually deferred to the apostle Paul, when it came to understanding the full revelation of the Christ.

    2 Peter 3:15-16
    And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    Paul also rebuked Peter publicly in the church at Antioch.

    Galatians 2:11
    But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

    Never develop an idea or a doctrine from one verse or even one paragraph in the scripture.

    These doctrines, these important truths in Christianity that are mentioned frequently and emphasized strongly by the apostles, are the only doctrines we should follow.
     
  8. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,198
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    No Catholic bashing!

    With respect to my Catholic brothers and sister, this is actually a very simple thing. Which "rock" is the faith built on, Peter or the Chief Cornerstone? The bible very plainly, without question, says that Messiah is the chief cornerstone. By definition the cornerstone is the first stone laid and the stone from which the rest is built.

    With respect to the conversation about Peter, Yeshua did not say, "Upon you, Peter, the rock... I will build my church." The context is very plain. During the discussion Yeshua asked, "Who do the people say I am?" And Peter answered, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” And then Yeshua asked him, "Who do YOU say I am." And Peter answer, "You are Messiah, the son of the Living God." >>ALL<< of the discussion is about Messiah, WHO IS HE??? That is the topic and after getting the answer Peter gave, Yeshua said, "Upon THIS ROCK build my church." What rock? That bit of immovable information... upon the Chief Cornerstone and WHO he is, build the church.

    Peter, in the language he would have heard his own name in, meant stone or pebble, not rock. And again, Yeshua himself is the chief cornerstone upon which it is all built.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  9. Lost4words

    Lost4words In reality, an old dog! Supporter

    +3,863
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Single
    Can you provide evidence that Peter never went to Rome?
     
  10. BBAS 64

    BBAS 64 Contributor Supporter

    +752
    Christian
    Married
    Good Day,

    Not that there has ever been nor will every be a valid interpretation of Scripture by the Roman Church IMHO.

    I agree with them as taught plainly in their own Catechism and Leo got it correct.. Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God

    "424- Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

    As did
    Ambrose

    He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank...This, then, is Peter who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him; the Father revealed it to him. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father, received it from the Father, did not receive it from the flesh. Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies. The day will fail me sooner than the names of heretics and the different sects, yet against all is this general faith-that Christ is the Son of God, and eternal from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary.

    In Him,

    Bill
     
  11. Maniel

    Maniel Child of God

    52
    +55
    Denmark
    Christian
    Single
    There seem to be different claims already, I thank you for all your perspectives.
    New questions arises. Why is this one verse so hard to interpret?
    He is accusing me for being biased towards the protestant interpretations, only looking for ways to disclaim the Catholic authority. He says I need to try and be neutral, searching for the truth that will lead me towards the Catholic faith.
    So he is very sincere, he is wholeheartly trying to convince me about the truth and wants to save me from protestant blindness.

    Is it true indeed, that one can be biased and thus interpret scripture in a wrong way? Along his argument, he is referring to the church fathers, that they was continuing that same tradition, they were catholic and helped shape and develop the Catholic tradition.

    So is the Catholic church standing on this very verse and it's emphasis on the church fathers? Along with the rest of its doctrines and sacremments, making interpretation of the eucharist, Mary and much more.
     
  12. Yeshua HaDerekh

    Yeshua HaDerekh Men can dream of truth, but then cant live with it

    +1,788
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    Peter had the nickname LONG before the above verses. John 1:42
     
  13. BBAS 64

    BBAS 64 Contributor Supporter

    +752
    Christian
    Married

    Good Day, Maniel

    I do think that the Roman Church is formally interpreting the passage...

    Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

    Consider this very closely they are using scripture as reason in thier own mind... but how they come to the reasoning of a conclusion could indeed be flawed ( garbage in... garbage out)

    Try to understand how the Roman Church sees Scripture:

    Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.



    You disclaim Catholic Authority... very big presupposition on his part name Rome's it claim it authority is useless.

    In Him,

    Bill
     
  14. Maniel

    Maniel Child of God

    52
    +55
    Denmark
    Christian
    Single
    My friend however is making the claim that Chepas means Rock, and Jesus is anointing Peter as his earthly successor, building up the Church, The Catholic being the right foundation of biblical truth and interpretation.

    He is putting all his heart towards the church, simply from this verse.

    I'm thinking, that there must be some way to interpret the original meaning of this verse.
    I feel there is good answers already in this topic, but what is the Catholic response? And what would the Protestant counter response be? Where does the misunderstanding/ interpretation lie?
     
  15. BBAS 64

    BBAS 64 Contributor Supporter

    +752
    Christian
    Married
    Good day, Maniel

    You will find the debate useful it is well done.

     
  16. Maniel

    Maniel Child of God

    52
    +55
    Denmark
    Christian
    Single
    Hi BBAS, thank you for this video. I will try and have a look when time gets by. And the reasoning for their interpretation does seem rather questionable as you stated in your previous reply.
    But my friend would say the same as for the Protestant position.
    And so we end up discussing on circles.

    So I'm very interested in how 1 billion could be Catholic if indeed the interpretation and legitmaticy lies on this very foundation. Why is the Bible so hard to interpret, why can't the churches agree on key verses like this?
     
  17. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,471
    Non-Denom
    Single
    You need to enter the lift on the ground floor and not on some higher floor.

    Firstly and this will take some time and research, you must establish what the primary doctrines are in the scripture. What were the apostles actually teaching the disciples, have the apostles themselves defined the good news in a doctrinal sense?

    What did the Christian authors in the first, second, third centuries, e.t.c, declare the primary doctrines of Christianity to be.

    What have church councils decided on over the issue of what really matters to the church?

    Do not rely on any church movement or any Christian author for that matter when you do your research.

    Church movements have vested interests in advertising their own set of beliefs and they always have their own patented method of understanding the scripture.
     
  18. BBAS 64

    BBAS 64 Contributor Supporter

    +752
    Christian
    Married

    Good Day, Maniel

    Then I would suggest he does not know the Protestant position.

    We believe that the Scripture alone is the only infallible authority (God breathed out), Rome claims this infallibility for it's self.

    I am not so sure historically this is a key verse.. for the Roman Church it is, But historically not so much.


    IN Him,

    Bill
     
  19. Lost4words

    Lost4words In reality, an old dog! Supporter

    +3,863
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Single
    1,000 of protestant denominations who 'interpret' scripture uniquely. Differing views and opinions.

    On these very forums you will find non denoms too who believe only they have the correct interpretation/view/opinion on what scripture is saying.

    I prefer to stick with the Catholic church on what scripture is saying. And, after reading scripture, i must say i cannot see anything that turns me away from that view.
     
  20. Lost4words

    Lost4words In reality, an old dog! Supporter

    +3,863
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Single
    Not by Scripture Alone

    Some good info for you my friend
     
Loading...