How would this work when a Methodist has a disagreement with a Baptist? I think this verse only makes sense if there is a united entity known as the Church, which is what Jesus desired for his followers.
There is a united entity know as the church. It consists of the body of born again believers. I do concede a point in this argument though, that because of todays' society, it is almost impossible for this to have any effect. Let me try to explain what I mean. In the day of Christ and the Apostles in particular, Christianity was new and the church had a different focus than it does today. You didn't go to church for an hour and then go home. It was the focal point of the community, and there was likely only one church in most towns. for someone to be ostracized from their church at that time would have been like being disowned by family or worse. Your business would be affected as well as your personal life. Today, if you got kicked out of your parish, you could drive 2 miles away and find another that might be more lenient towards your views.
So then you agree that his Church, as ambassador to the world, has his authority?
That's right. The fellowship of believers, the body of Christ goes with His authority, it is not restricted to a particular denomination or class of clergy.
Jesus gave the disciples the ability to forgive or not forgive sins. He wasn't giving them instructions for teaching, he was giving them spiritual authority. That's a huge difference. Your interpretation changes the clear meaning of the words in the passage.
Who holds the power of judgment? Was it the disciples? Is it any of us today? No, only one reserves the right of judgment, and that is God. All we can do is tell one that their sins are forgiven if they believe.
By word of mouth or letter. The Catholic Church holds to the apostolic teachings passed on by the Church that may not be explicitly described in scripture, like the Trinity and Infant Baptism. Most protestants reject much of the early Church's traditions even though these traditions were passed on as the truth by the apostles.
The problem with this line of reasoning is the same that I brought up earlier in the thread. There is no way to know whether something passed down orally has been kept faithfully unless backed up by scripture which has not changed. Most protestants reject the traditions that seem to be extraneous to scripture, such as infant baptism, purgatory, prayer to the saints and Mary, etc. It's not that there is something specifically prohibiting these things (although in some cases the arguments can be made that there are prohibitions) but that there is nothing in scripture to support these doctrines. If they were so important, why weren't these written down by those giving the instructions, the apostles?
This is where we probably come to a disagreement. Peter cannot be the rock in this passage upon which the church was built. The contextual scope of this passage is too narrow, you really should include verses 13-23 for the true context to be seen.
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some {say} John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal {this} to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "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. "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." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid {it,} Lord! This shall never happen to You." But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."
Here are just some of the issues with Peter being the rock:
- Petros and petra reflect different gendersthe former is masculine, the latter is feminine; thus a distinction is drawn.
There is no distinction in aramaic, which is the language Jesus spoke. Of course Peter's name will be giving the masculine gender when translated to Latin or Greek. This is a non issue.
Actually, we assume that Christ spoke Aramaic, although most in the Palestinian region at the time were trilingual and spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek as pointed out by Robert Gundry in "Journal of Biblical Literature". But that is beside the point. The real point is that the Gospel was written in Greek, and in the Greek language there IS a distinction. Obviously the author was making a distinction.
- Petros generally is a smaller stone, a fragment; petra is a more massive, bedrock-like substructure.
Again, this is not relevant given that Jesus spoke aramaic.
See above.
- Christ distinguished between petros and petra by the use of pronouns of different person. Petros has a second person pronoun as a companion, while petra is used with a third person pronoun.
Wrong again, sorry.
See above.
- In the symbolism employed by Jesus, Peter is designated as the one who opens the doors to the kingdom (which he did for Jew and GentileActs 2; 10). It is not customary for an object to occupy two roles, e.g., the foundation and door-opener, at the same time in the same metaphorical illustration.
Not accurate. The keys to the kingdom is well understood in Jewish history and a specific reference is found in Isaiah 22. The King in this case gave authority, ie. the keys, to a new sec. of state, more or less. The keys represent the kings authority and succession, because they can be passed on as they are in Isaiah 22.
You missed the point. He cannot be both the foundation upon which the Church rests and the doorkeeper.
- Look at verse 23, Peter is called Satan and a scandal, hardly what one would consider a glowing report from Lord on whom He has just deposited the foundation of the church.
All men are sinners. Peter was reconciled even after denying Jesus three times. Paul killed persecuted and even killed Christians before turning around. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit conveying truth to an individual. We know that God communicated directly to Peter at least twice about major doctrinal matters in the new testament. First, as we read here, regarding the divinity of Jesus. Second, Peter was given the revelation that resolved the issue of gentile circumcision at the first Church council in Acts 15.
No one is denying that we are all sinners. Looking at what I wrote it appears that I did not fully complete my statement. Let me elaborate.
Look at verse 23, Peter is called Satan and a scandal, hardly what one would consider a glowing report from Lord on whom He has just deposited the foundation of the church. It seems clear to me from this last statement of Christ's that Peter's status is dependent upon his orientation towards God. When oriented towards God he is called blessed and when he is in the flesh or turned away from God (or
not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's) he is called Satan and a scandal. The parallel drawn here by Christ, when the entire context is taken, seems to build a much stronger case that the foundation is Peter's confession that Christ is God, and is not Peter himself. How good is a foundation that wavers after all?
- Frequently the church fathers are appealed to as proof that the early Christians believed that Peter was the rock upon which the church was founded. However, as Dreyer and Weller point out in "Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture", Only sixteen out of the eighty-four early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when He said this rock
I'll concede this point for now, although I doubt that it is accurate, but more importantly none of the early church fathers denied the role of Peter and his successors as leader of the Church. This is crucial to the Christian Unity that Jesus wants for us. Without a single point of authority to settle doctrinal disputes you will have a continuing schism, which is what we see in protestantism.
The other problem that you have here is that in the OT, Rock always signified God. Nowhere in the entire Bible (OT and NT), is anyone but God referred to as Rock. If the principle of interpreting unclear passages by using other scriptural passages (scripture interprets scripture) is applied, then the Rock cannot be Peter here either. And although no early church fathers may have denied Peter was the leader of the church, we do have writings from them that identify Christ as rock. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Shepard of Hermas and Tertullian (before his Montanist Heresy Period) all identify Jesus as Rock, so I am not completely convinced that they were all of the same mind that Peter was the rock either.
- If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantage point of Peter, totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30).
Not really. This truth was so ingrained as to be irrelevant. There was no doubt in the early Church about the hierarchy.
How was that truth ingrained? You had people in Corinth claiming they were Paulites, and those in Jerusalem claiming they were of Peter. You had judaizers in Galatia and Rome, and heretics such as the gnostics claiming that the resurrection didn't happen. If nothing else, the Gospels and the epistles of the NT were pretty darn exacting about matters of faith. They didn't leave the big stuff to the imagination, nor do I accept that this would have been just a small matter.
Here are two more quotes related to John 21 that summarizes the early Church understanding:
In 387, St. John Chrysostom writes:
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren,' ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
Another reference to Peter's primacy in John 21, from St. Cyprian, who writes:"....Again He (Christ) says to him (Peter) after His Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were what Peter also was; but a primacyis given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair."
Not to be picky, but these are 250 years after the Gospel was written. I thought we were talking about early church fathers? I do agree with part of the last quote however,
"it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair." There is one church and one chair, the church is the body of Christ and the chair belongs to Jesus, not to man.
