Protestant Scholars agree - Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

Thank you. Let's see, there are about 400,000,000 Protestants in the world. So, if I"m keeping track of all the zeros in my head, that makes 0.00000025% of them. Okay.


Some points...


1. Protestants do not consider men - even Protestant men - to be our norma normans for theology. We place Scripture in that role.


2. We all know the hermeneutics of this singular verse is disputed. I think we've all been all over it - for centuries. I'm not sure anyone here is going to resolve it once and for all.


3. MY problem with the interpretation offered by some is that it makes Christianity embodied in Peter. He received the "keys" (another controversy), he had all authority. There's zero mention of the other Apostles, nothing about "and you can surrender this to whoever you want" nothing about the Roman Pontiff or any denomination. Nope, with this interpretation, it's all Peter's. Well, Peter died. So, if this interpretation is correct, everything ended when he died, and when Paul and others forgave people, etc., they had no such authority - and none have since 68 AD (or whatever date you give for his death). The apostolic sucession concepts inserted into this text just aren't there and seem to raise many more problems than solutions.

 

[mdSchultz]

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

How is it significant that ten Protestant scholars state as much? Peter being the rock doesn't lead to accepting the claims of Roman Catholicism, and these ten scholars serve as fine examples of that.

 

[BBAS 64]

How is it significant that ten Protestant scholars state as much? Peter being the rock doesn't lead to accepting the claims of Roman Catholicism, and these ten scholars serve as fine examples of that.

Good Day, MdSchultz

, I am quite sure that was the intent of the OP.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

How is it significant that ten Protestant scholars state as much? Peter being the rock doesn't lead to accepting the claims of Roman Catholicism, and these ten scholars serve as fine examples of that.

Excellent point.
Thank you.



.

 

[Yeznik]

Well since the Prostestants, EO and OO all agree that Peter is not the Rock and since we have more scholars state the opposite of these ten individuals, then we are right.

 

[Trento]

I "If Peter is also the foundation of the Church, how was he shown to be the foundation of the Church in history?" Being the bishop or pastor of the church in Rome did not make anyone anything other than the bishop or pastor of the church in Rome. There was no special relevance to that church. .

Only if Christianity was not Historical could a statement like this be made.
Rome, was from the very beginning the center and chief source of power for the "orthodox" movement within Christianity.
At the beginning of the second century. Orthodoxy, , represented the form of Christianity supported by the majority in Rome a Christianity which, still had to contend strenuously with the heretics throughout the entire second century and through the first six centuries of Christianity. Historical writings prove that Popes in conjuction with Councils determined Orthdox doctrine. They rose to the intensity of a life and death struggle, the outcome of which has been of decisive significance not only for Rome but for Christianity in general.Only the church of Rome exhibited the Petrine ministry to preserve unity and orthodoxy within the universal Church. And that was because its bishop was the direct and immediate successor of Peter.

 

[mark75]

Only if Christianity was not Historical could a statement like this be made.
Rome, was from the very beginning the center and chief source of power for the "orthodox" movement within Christianity.
At the beginning of the second century. Orthodoxy, , represented the form of Christianity supported by the majority in Rome a Christianity which, still had to contend strenuously with the heretics throughout the entire second century and through the first six centuries of Christianity. Historical writings prove that Popes in conjuction with Councils determined Orthdox doctrine. They rose to the intensity of a life and death struggle, the outcome of which has been of decisive significance not only for Rome but for Christianity in general.Only the church of Rome exhibited the Petrine ministry to preserve unity and orthodoxy within the universal Church. And that was because its bishop was the direct and immediate successor of Peter.

If this is so, then who was Peter's successor?

From history, the only things the church fathers reveal is that Rome was extremely hostile towards the Jews and Christians until the Council of Contantine in 325. Churches were being spread rapidly throughout the entire East and West. No one was placed in authority over all the churches. Each individual church had its own pastor/bishop. Besides, after Peter's death, the apostle John was still carrying on his church ministry back at Ephesus and was eventually exiled to Patmos by the Roman emperor Domitian.

My point is that if anything, after the time of Nero in the 60's, Rome was actually very hostile towards Christians, and second, Jesus never appointed anyone to supervise all the churches. We see from John's Revelation that this duty was assumed by Christ Himself, who was in the midst of the seven lampstands which we are told represented the seven churches.

Now if we take the course and say that He was only presiding over those seven specific churches, then we have seven churches that are out of the pope's jurisdiction. It makes more sense to recognize that these churches were representative of all churches.

And this supports the view that Peter's confession of Christ as the Messiah and Son of God is what the "rock" refers to, rather than Simon-Peter himself.

 

[Trento]

If this is so, then who was Peter's successor?

From history, the only things the church fathers reveal is that Rome was extremely hostile towards the Jews and Christians until the Council of Contantine in 325. Churches were being spread rapidly throughout the entire East and West. No one was placed in authority over all the churches. Each individual church had its own pastor/bishop. Besides, after Peter's death, the apostle John was still carrying on his church ministry back at Ephesus and was eventually exiled to Patmos by the Roman emperor Domitian.

.

There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement , great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.” Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16)

The first Epistle was read in numerous churches, as being almost on a level with the canonical writings. And its place in the Alexandrian ms., immediately after the inspired books, is in harmony with the position thus assigned it in the primitive Church.

Some of the most respected professional (Protestant) Church historians:support the Catholic thesis that there is exercise of authority from the Church of Rome in this letter that has it's origin from the Apostles!


On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)


​

While Schaff (a 19th century anti-Catholic Presbyterian/Reformed church history scholar) does not accept the Papacy, He is more truthful his History.




As for the primacy given to Rome, Philip Schaff states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)

What is the source of that =instinct= that led the Church of Rome to intervene with the squabble at the Church of Corinth?



Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian--

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'
St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.

Harnack another Protestant exegete/historian remarks,

'This letter to the Corinthians proves already at the end of the first century the Roman Church ... kept watch with the maternal care for the distant churches, and that at that date she knew how to utter the word that is an expression of duty, of love and authority at the same time'
History of Dogma.


Another Protestant scholar T. Jalland



<B>

'Yet it might not be unreasonable to infer from these words that the Roman Church was already conscious of some degree of external responsibility, such as does not appear to have been realized by geographically neighboring churches of Thessalonica or Phillipi...As we shall it will not be long before the thought, which seems to underlie this Clementine consciousness of responsibility, acquires a greater measure of precision in papal correspondence...If it is true to say of the Roman intervention that "the authority is implicit, it being left to subsequent generations to make explicit the reasons which prompted an instinctive reaction"(1st Epis of Clem, Lowther Clark, p 20), we are still left with the question as to the source from which the instinct itself was derived. Instincts are usually traceable to habits of past generations. Was the source in this case merely the habituation of the Roman people to government of others; or was it not rather, as the whole tone of the epistle would suggest, some custom which would claim a sanction apostolic or even Dominical in origin?'​

</B>

T. Jalland 'The Church and the Papacy',p103.




<B>Protestant historian/exegete JND Kelly writes:

'It was a letter of remonstrance addressed c.96 to the Church at Corinth...'​

</B>

Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, pg 8


​

​

 

[mark75]

Ok, so what are you saying through all of these quotes?

 

[FreeinChrist]

How is it significant that ten Protestant scholars state as much? Peter being the rock doesn't lead to accepting the claims of Roman Catholicism, and these ten scholars serve as fine examples of that.

So true!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Ok, so what are you saying through all of these quotes?

I think he believes it supports his belief in the primacy of Rome. As those Protestants do not believe in the primacy of Rome, those snippets really don't support it.

 

[mark75]

I think he believes it supports his belief in the primacy of Rome. As those Protestants do not believe in the primacy of Rome, those snippets really don't support it.

I agree that at the least, these quotes don't prove anything, and I certainly wouldn't place them on par with Scripture even if they did.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Oops!

 

[Yeznik]

Just a couple questions, if “Rome, was from the very beginning the center and chief source of power for the "orthodox" movement within Christianity.” Then how come the first Christian nation is Armenia? Not to mention, that Christians were being persecuted in Rome until Constantine declared Christianity a tolerable religion nearly a decade after Armenia had declared Christianity as the national religion. And if we adhere to the idea of “Firsts and Chosen’s” then since it is historically evident that God chose the Armenians to become the First Christian nation, should that make the RCC and EO Churches subordinate to the OO? Maybe God moved the Rock to Armenia?

 

[cygnusx1]

I think he believes it supports his belief in the primacy of Rome. As those Protestants do not believe in the primacy of Rome, those snippets really don't support it.

Good point!!!

and the OP should have said ;

SOME Protestant Scholars agree-Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Interesting how the human mind works isn't it!

What would be beneficial is to ask what is the position of those Protestant scholars quoted , on the bigger picture being sold here

 

[holeinone]

Good point!!!

and the OP should have said ;

SOME Protestant Scholars agree-Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Interesting how the human mind works isn't it!

What would be beneficial is to ask what is the position of those Protestant scholars quoted , on the bigger picture being sold here

I agree.

Was Peter the rock? Perhaps Luther was God ordained to rescue the church Peter was the rock of

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I think he believes it supports his belief in the primacy of Rome. As those Protestants do not believe in the primacy of Rome......

Actually, it refutes the erroneous interpretations of those verses. Jesus is speaking 1st person singular to a man named Simon bar Jonah, He changes the mans name to Kepha, Peter, Rock when He says to him "You are Kepha (rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build My Church."

The quotations support the plain meaning of the verse by honest scholars who have nothing to gain by the misinterpretation of the verses. These people present very powerful but honest arguments against the primacy without resorting to distorted misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures. This shows that you do not have to resort to contorting the plain meaning of the Scriptures to maintain your honestly held position.

 

[Jerrysch]

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

Let no one be confused as to the intent of this thread... It was posted to convince the unlearnad that the group whose leader sits on a throne in the city of Rome is the rightful leader of the Christian church! It is an old arguement employed by a group which sees little value in the text of the Scripture other than to bolster up the authority of its leaders.

If you are new to the faith, that is you have just been born again, participating in this thread might be to your own spiritual peril! Be it known that those who bring up this "Peter being the rock" discussion have but one intention... to get you to submit to the organization with it's headquarters in Rome.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter[ little rock] and upon this [bedrock=Christ] Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

look up the greek

 

[A Brother In Christ]

2 tim 2:19 the foundation of God standeth sure