A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[BillySunday1935]

So you are a Baptist then? What denomination?

See my profile...

So there would be no difference, in the days of the Apostles, between what they taught publically and what they sent in letters to the churches.

Correct!

Well, the Apostles are with the Lord now. So how can I know what they taught orally then except by what is left in the letters ?

You can read the writings from the ECF's. Some were personally taught by at least one of the apostles, and many were taught by someone who was only one generation removed from them. Remember, everything in the Bible is true... BUT, not everything is IN the Bible.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Yes Tom, it does seem fruitless. How do you debate with someone who doesn't even believe in the sole authority of the Bible? They can feel free to pick and choose what is truth and what isn't. Opinion reigns supreme with them. On top of that, they can interject teaching from extra-Biblical sources as being authoritative or even above the Bible.

I understand your position here. However, I can't accept scripture as the sole authority when scripture never says that about itself.

Is it sufficient? Well - materially - yes!

Is it inspired? According to the Early Church - yes!

Is it authoritative? Well, since it is inspired it must be authoritative!

Is it the SOLE authority? If it were, it would say that about itself - yet it never does.

Peace!

 

[sag38]

yet it never does.

Yes, it does and it's been pointed out to you. But, you refuse to accept it. Again, how do you debate someone who rejects the sole authority of the Bible? I think its a good example of casting one's pearls before.............

 

[DHK]

That's very weak DHK. Did you even look at my sources? They are Protestant you know and - guess what - they disagree with you as well.

Your sources? I am a Baptist. Lori tried the same trick. She gave me "Dale Moody" as a "Protestant source," a rank liberal, a Barthinian, a Protestant agnostic. It did more to defeat her cause than to support it. Why is it that Catholics try to represent evangelical Christianity by "Protestant liberals"? I don't need to look at your sources. What you need to do is look at the Bible. Again, don't you trust the Holy Spirit and what he has to say? Does God lie? The NT was written in Greek.

Everyone could speak a little Greek precisely BECAUSE it was the language of commerce - Just as today - if you go to Miami, FL you had better be able to speak a little Spanish. However, Aramaic was the spoken form of Hebrew. That's fact there DHK.

No it wasn't the language of commerce; it was the common language of the day which even the slaves--both Gentile and Jewish spoke fluently. Go and study history. The language of commercial transactions was Latin. What kind of coins did they have? Aramaic was not the spoken form of Hebrew. You don't believe what Pilate put on the cross either, or what Paul spoke from the stairs in Acts 22. Why do you deny the Bible's account of history and try to make it say something it doesn't? It specifically states "Hebrew" and you say "no it doesn't." You say the Bible is wrong and you are right. Give me one good reason why I should believe you over the Bible?

And Latin evolved from...

According to you it could have been monkeys.
Greek was the common language of the day, and Latin the language of commercial transactions. Look it up.

And the Hebrew tongue was... ARAMAIC!

Thus saith Billy But that is not what the Bible says.
Check Acts 21:40 and 22:2. The word is Hebrew and the Greek word is Hebrais. Can you guess what the Greek word would mean?

Well, it is historically held to have been the dialect spoken by Jesus. Again, that's fact there, DHK.

No, it is an opinion held by you that is unsubstantiated. You can shout all you want. But your opinions don't hold water. What did Pilate write on the cross that Christ was crucified on? In what languages did he write? Why?

Yes - but Aramaic was the spoken form of Hebrew.

Aramaic was a dialect. Hebrew was the language used.

If "...Greek was the universal language of the day..." and it was "...what virtually everyone in the world of that time spoke.." as you say, then why do you think Latin was the Language of commerce?

It was. Go to the library and find some pictures of Roman coins.
The government in power was the Roman government. It, of necessity, had to use its own coinage and documents for commerce.
But the language of the world had been given to them by the preceding empire of Alexander the Great. He had conquered the world, and left the world with the language of Greek. That was something that Rome could not change on a whim. It was inculcated into the very fabric of the people.

It wasn't. It was simply the official language of Rome. They even adopted their gods from the Greeks for cryin' out loud.

Commerce had to do with the official language Rome. Have you never seen an ancient Roman coin? The name Caesar in Latin.

Prove it!

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--this has been dealt with at length in other threads.

Then why do many - MANY - scholars consider Jesus to have been speaking directly to and about Peter? After all, they are working with the Greek as well, yet they come to a different conclusion than you.

Most of the scholars I read agree with me. Thus, I conclude you are reading liberal commentaries, Catholic literature, agnostics, etc. You don't want the truth. You want to read the literature that agrees with your point of view. Thus you find those books that do. That is not so hard to figure out.

Jesus was also called the cornerstone, the door, the way, the truth, the Lamb of God, the Word made flesh, etc. However, none of this would preclude Jesus from changing Simon's name to Peter. He was, after all, God on Earth - the Word made flesh and, as such, was all knowing.

I am not saying that he didn't change his name. He did. It simply means "stone," as in little rock.

You obviously do not understand the significance of changing someone's name in scripture, nor do you realize the import of giving someone the keys to the kingdom in Jewish culture - both of which Jesus did to Peter in the context of the passage.

You are the one not realizing the context of the passage and the contrast between the two words in the Greek language. You don't see the parody between petros and petra.

 

[BillySunday1935]

yet it never does.

Yes, it does and it's been pointed out to you. But, you refuse to accept it. Again, how do you debate someone who rejects the sole authority of the Bible? I think its a good example of casting one's pearls before.............

Thanks! I am simply stating to you and all here that scripture does not claim to be the SOLE (only) authority - never - nowhere. It is simply not in scripture. Now, everyone who "pointed that out to me", simply gave me their (or someone else's) opinion of what scripture is saying. Historically, this was never taught by the Ancient Church and only became prominent after (and was a product of) the Reformation. If that is uncomfortable, then perhaps you should re-examine your belief system.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Your sources? I am a Baptist. Lori tried the same trick. She gave me "Dale Moody" as a "Protestant source," a rank liberal, a Barthinian, a Protestant agnostic. It did more to defeat her cause than to support it. Why is it that Catholics try to represent evangelical Christianity by "Protestant liberals"? I don't need to look at your sources. What you need to do is look at the Bible. Again, don't you trust the Holy Spirit and what he has to say? Does God lie? The NT was written in Greek.

So you think these sources are bogus? Right...

Sources:
Joseph H. Thayer, “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament” (Peabody: Hendrickson 1996), 507;

D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.

Peace!

 

[Zenas]

We can say Peter was the rock, or we can say Peter’s confession was the rock. I tend to go with Peter’s confession—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”—because it fits with Paul’s characterization of Christ being the foundation of the church. However, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus left Peter in charge of His church.

In 16:19 Jesus says to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . .” This verse is far more significant that the petra/petros controversy. The keys are obviously a symbol of authority. Cf. Isaiah 22:17-23. Peter would be the vicar of Christ after He departed this earth.

In John 21 Jesus tells Peter three times to “Tend my sheep.” Peter would be the pastor of the New Testament church.

Although James presided at the First Jerusalem Council, the debate went on until Peter spoke. When Peter spoke, people listened and the debate ended.

It was Peter who took the position of leadership among the apostles, calling for the appointment of a replacement for Judas, preaching the first sermon of the Christian church, working many miracles and first apostle taking the gospel to the Gentiles.

Peter is mentioned more often than any other apostle except Paul. No one else comes close.

There be no possible reason to deny the fact of Peter’s primacy. Anyone who does so, denies it out of an effort to discredit the papacy and not out of any basis in scripture or history.

 

[DHK]

So you think these sources are bogus? Right...

Sources:
Joseph H. Thayer, “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament” (Peabody: Hendrickson 1996), 507;

D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.

Peace!

First, you gave general references not specific, so no one could look them up. Context means nothing to you.
Second, Thayer is not quoted in post 9. That is the post referred to.
Third, it is post 4 that both of these men are referred to. Perhaps you are confused.

 

[BillySunday1935]

No, it is an opinion held by you that is unsubstantiated. You can shout all you want. But your opinions don't hold water.

And might I add, neither do your opinions.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--this has been dealt with at length in other threads.

Yes - you dealt with it, but never successfully. I'll say this again...Nowhere in that verse or any other for that matter, does scripture claim to be the SOLE authority for christians regarding faith and morals. Hey - it's not my doctrine.

Most of the scholars I read agree with me. Thus, I conclude you are reading liberal commentaries, Catholic literature, agnostics, etc. You don't want the truth.

Then I must concluded that you only read the work of those that espouse your particular point of view. I do want truth - I just don't believe that you posses it.

You are the one not realizing the context of the passage and the contrast between the two words in the Greek language. You don't see the parody between petros and petra.

That lame petros/petra argument was put to bed years ago and only exists in the fringe community of Christianity who's members must necessarily hold onto it lest they be forced to re-examine their own beliefs.

Those mean ol' nasty Catholics!

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

First, you gave general references not specific, so no one could look them up. Context means nothing to you.
Second, Thayer is not quoted in post 9. That is the post referred to.
Third, it is post 4 that both of these men are referred to. Perhaps you are confused.

Possibly - it’s late and I am responding from my office while stomping gnats and slaying dragons.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

1. The Roman Catholic Church does not define what Scripture is. I know these arguments and claims and they are some of the most shockingly arrogant statements I have heard from any non-Christian group.

This is part of history - it is what it is. The Catholic Church called the councils that put together the canon of the New Testament. All Christians who accept that canon tacitly accept their authority.

2. Are creeds subject to error? Is the Scripture subject to error?

Well, not the one that I proposed as it was derived from scripture by one of the early Church councils.

Peace!

 

[1Tim115]

Like I said in the original post...Bible scripture is the best commentary.

I saw a comment in one reply that most of Christiandom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

We can say Peter was the rock, or we can say Peter’s confession was the rock. I tend to go with Peter’s confession—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”—because it fits with Paul’s characterization of Christ being the foundation of the church. However, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus left Peter in charge of His church.

In 16:19 Jesus says to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . .” This verse is far more significant that the petra/petros controversy. The keys are obviously a symbol of authority. Cf. Isaiah 22:17-23. Peter would be the vicar of Christ after He departed this earth.

.

The problem is that instead of calling Peter "Vicar" in Matt 16 - Christ calls him "satan".

1 Cor 3 "No other Foundation (PETRA) can anyone lay than has been laid - Jesus Christ"

1Cor 10 "They all drank from the same spiritual ROCK (PETRA) and that Rock is Christ"

Matt 16 "you are PETROS -- upon this PETRA I will build my church... He turned and said to Peter "get thee behind Me satan" "

Matt 7 "everyone who hears these Words of MINE and ACTS upon them may be compared to a wise man that built his house upon the PETRA"

Christ is "The Rock" in fact the text is clear "NTHER Rock" is allowed 1Cor 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

Like I said in the original post...Bible scripture is the best commentary.

I saw a comment in one reply that most of Christiandom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.

I didn't make the statement so I don't know the source, but the best modern commentary I know of is the New American Commentary. This commentary was commissioned by Broadman Press because the older Broadman Commentary was deemed too liberal. The Matthew volume was written by Craig L. Blomberg, who is very emphatic that Peter is the rock. Here is the first paragraph of his commentary on this subject:

Acknowledging Jesus as the Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname, ”Peter” (Petros = rock) . . . . Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

In view of the conclusions drawn in this very conservative Baptist commentary, I believe it would be correct to say that the majority view is that Peter is the rock. However, I believe the better view, more consistent with other scripture, is that Peter's confession is the rock.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I can't let this absurd reasoning go unchallenged before getting off.

1. There was literature during the period between Malichi and Matthew that kept the distinction between "petros" and "petra" as a smaller versus large stone. The Jews were well read and it would not require current usage to understand this.

2. There is no proof for the Q theory. Greek was the language of the day and Greek was used to express the nuances. The Greek text and its nuances express the mind of God and that is precisely why we have it and not some supposed Aramaic copy.

3. If "kepha" in a generic sense was designed by Christ then he should have said "you art "petros" and upon you I will build" or "you are petros and upon petros" I will build. He said neither but that is exactly what the Aramaic translation argument would demand.

4. See my exposition of the grammar and context in the last post to prove these Roman Catholic arguments are nothing but pure rubbage.

Unfortunately you are gone and I wish you well. But your position isn't sound.
1. Yes the jews would understand terms such as Rock and Pebble and use them in the context of their speach. It would be prohibited to give peter a feminine name in order to make the point. Thus Jesus wouldn't say Petra (f) though art Petra (f). Peter would then have to have a feminine name applied forever. However, the language doesn't support the masculine equivelant of Kepha.
2. There may or may not have been a Q document which were a collection of sayings of Jesus. I believe that communal memory passed down by the Apostles to their disciples were more consistent than we give them credit for. Either way its irrelevant to the discussion.
3. If the translator wanted to use pebble then I will build my church upon this pebble misses the import that a rock or founding stone would have. Petra would have to be used to get the point accross.
4. So unless you can come up with better material it may not be as much "rubbish" as you may suppose.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am well aware of early Christian writings. I am not, however, bound by their authority as you are. It is quite revealing to me when debating papists that their primary appeal is to authority outside Scripture while bible-believers look to the Scripture (today, in large part to Huss, Wycliffe, and others who sacrificed their lives by the papacy to do so).

Yes, we believe and teach that Scripture Alone is the sufficient rule and guide for faith and Christian practice. Yet, even the papacy doesn't deny that Scripture is infallible. Even the papacy doesn't deny its authority...at least in word.

Early Christian writing are always subordinate to the Scriptures. What true Christians have never done, early or late, is submit their conscience and will to men rather than to God. They have always held to the primacy of Scripture over tradition.

The thing about the ECF writings is that its not authoritative however it is a snap shot into the thinking and the beliefs of the people at the time we can from them discover what is was that christians were thinking and doing. That is their value. And where they are consistent we have to give serious consideration.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your not a Roman Catholic? I thought you were. What are you then?

Why would what is taught orally by the Apostles in their day be different from what is written?

You assume difference rather than commentary. The issue is one of commentary rather than difference. And not just commentary but application as well. That is how it is to be viewed.

 

[Zenas]

The problem is that instead of calling Peter "Vicar" in Matt 16 - Christ calls him "satan".

Christ is "The Rock" in fact the text is clear "NTHER Rock" is allowed 1Cor 3.

in Christ,

Bob

The keys, Bob, the keys to the Kingdom. They are a symbol of authority and you have completely ignored them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The problem is that instead of calling Peter "Vicar" in Matt 16 - Christ calls him "satan".



Christ is "The Rock" in fact the text is clear "NTHER Rock" is allowed 1Cor 3.

in Christ,

Bob

The reason Jesus calls peter satan is not so much a personal attack against peter but peter's wrong perseption of his messianic eschatology. He believed with the popular thought Jesus was a secular (present world) leader that would free them from the Roman Empire. I wonder if Jesus would say something similar to the popular belief system held by most evangelicals specifically the pre-trib rapture. I don't know just a curiousity.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Like I said in the original post...Bible scripture is the best commentary.

I saw a comment in one reply that most of Christiandom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.

Certainly! I'm only posting up to the time of St. Augustine, however there is much more after his time.

Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’" [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
"Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . .’" (On the Prescription against the Heretics, 22 [c. A.D. 200])

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
"And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. . ."( Commentary on John, 5:3 [A.D. 232])
"If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Hippolytus
"By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established." *(Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 [ante A.D. 235]

Cyprian
"‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . It is on him that he builds the Church and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. . . . If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" (De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 [A.D. 251])

Ephraim
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose
"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Gregory of Nyssa
“The leader and coryphaeus of the Apostolic choir…The head of the Apostles.” (Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 371, Alt. Orat. De S. Steph. tom. iii. p. 730, 4, in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri – The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879), 51.

Pope Damasus
"We have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’ . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it." (Decree of Damasus, 3 [A.D. 382]

Jerome
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine
"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." (Against the Letter of Mani, 5 [A.D. 395]).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” (To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 [A.D. 397]).

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Here Augustine lists the actual apostolic order of succession:

“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2, [A.D. 412])

Peace!