Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

[Thinkingstuff]

So you interpret the specific and complex by the non-specific and general? If you position had any validity whatsoever, Matthew would have simply stuck with the second person singular "YOU are peter and upon YOU I will build my congregation...."

Gender was forced upon him by the necessity of Language he translated to. John 1 makes it clear Jesus named Peter, Cephas, not Petros.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So you do not believe "all SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration" since "ALL" Scripture certainly did not originate from the Apostles or their witness!

BTW what "apostolic witness"? According to Peter "scripture" is "MORE SURE" than apostolic verbal witness (2 Pet. 1:17-19)! Scripture is given in written WORDS!

I believe all scripture is inspired. Not the language. Greek is not a plenary language. But the idea's, witness, conveyed in Greek and Hebrew is inspired. Your view would make Greek Necissarily a plenary language. It is not. The Apostolic witness is. Even if that witness is transmitted by Mark (not an apostles) or Luke, or the writer of Hebrews. It also allows that the prophetic, or scribal witness is inspired for the OT. Hebrew is itself not a inspired language. The thoughts, tallents, instructions, etc conveyed by the writers of the scripture who were orchestrated by the hand of God are inspired. The language itself is not.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe all scripture is inspired. Not the language. Greek is not a plenary language. But the idea's, witness, conveyed in Greek and Hebrew is inspired. Your view would make Greek Necissarily a plenary language. It is not.

I have never advocated any "langauge" as in German, Dutch, English, Greek, etc. being inspired! I have no clue where you even get such an idea?

The Bible is written in WORDS placed in a syntactical arrangement with each other according to laws of grammar apart from which it is impossible to convey thoughts! Hence, thoughts depend upon syntax or there are no thoughts expressed that anyone can understand. The words in their syntactical arrangement is inspired by God whether Hebrew words and grammar is used or Greek words and grammar is used. I am speaking of the autographs and even the most liberal scholars admit that our copies convey over 98% of what the original autographs contained.

What good is Paul's statement "all scripture is given by inspiration" and Peter's statement that scripture is "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral tradition if tradition out lasts scripture or scripture is proven to less dependable than oral traditions? Does not that make Paul a fool and Peter a liar?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe all scripture is inspired. Not the language. Greek is not a plenary language. But the idea's, witness, conveyed in Greek and Hebrew is inspired. Your view would make Greek Necissarily a plenary language. It is not. The Apostolic witness is. Even if that witness is transmitted by Mark (not an apostles) or Luke, or the writer of Hebrews. It also allows that the prophetic, or scribal witness is inspired for the OT. Hebrew is itself not a inspired language. The thoughts, tallents, instructions, etc conveyed by the writers of the scripture who were orchestrated by the hand of God are inspired. The language itself is not.

BTW could you illustrate conveying a thought without words being in a precise sytactical arragnement according to that language and its laws of grammar? I would like you to provide me with a thought conveyed any other way!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have never advocated any "langauge" as in German, Dutch, English, Greek, etc. being inspired! I have no clue where you even get such an idea?

The Bible is written in WORDS placed in a syntactical arrangement with each other according to laws of grammar apart from which it is impossible to convey thoughts! Hence, thoughts depend upon syntax or there are no thoughts expressed that anyone can understand. The words in their syntactical arrangement is inspired by God whether Hebrew words and grammar is used or Greek words and grammar is used. I am speaking of the autographs and even the most liberal scholars admit that our copies convey over 98% of what the original autographs contained.

What good is Paul's statement "all scripture is given by inspiration" and Peter's statement that scripture is "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral tradition if tradition out lasts scripture or scripture is proven to less dependable than oral traditions? Does not that make Paul a fool and Peter a liar?

I disagree with the bold and underlined statement. Thoughts do not depend on syntax. The syntax should convey the expression of the thought. However, sometimes syntax is insufficient to adiquately provide a vehicle to express the thought. I don't know if you have experience living in other countries using other languages. I do. Often times you will hear this phrase. I cannot translate that into english or vis-versa. I know of this one Indonesian tribe that has no consept of time and to express and ideas in relation to time is meaningless to them. All things are centered in the present. Imagine how to express certain bible consepts to them?
You are the one suggesting that the greek writing by chance of it being in greek is inspired indicating it to be a plenary language. I beg to differ. Greek was the language used because it was the common tongue of empire. By the way you may not suggest such thing but KJO people do or must at some point. I believe that as much as possible the greek convey's things as it can with its limitations. And such is one case where converting a non gender word from a non gendered language into a gendered language can give misapplication such as I mention with Kephas. Matthew was limited by the translation into Greek of a discussion that took place in Aramaic.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I disagree with the bold and underlined statement. Thoughts do not depend on syntax. The syntax should convey the expression of the thought. However, sometimes syntax is insufficient to adiquately provide a vehicle to express the thought. I don't know if you have experience living in other countries using other languages.

I am not talking about translating one language into another. I am talking about expressing yourself in the language of the people just as the scriptures were written in the langauge of the people. Thoughts depend upon proper syntax when it comes to writing in your own common language. If you think not then illustrate it with English in your next response.

You are the one suggesting that the greek writing by chance of it being in greek is inspired indicating it to be a plenary language.

I am suggesting no such thing! I am not suggesting anything! I am DEMANDING that it is impossible to express thoughts to other people of the SAME COMMON LANGUAGE using THE SAME COMMON LANGUAGE without proper syntax in the SAME COMMON LANGUAGE. Proof? Please attempt to do so by your next response to what I have said in this post!

And such is one case where converting a non gender word from a non gendered language into a gendered language can give misapplication such as I mention with Kephas. Matthew was limited by the translation into Greek of a discussion that took place in Aramaic.

First, you do not know the DETAILS of that discussion other than what John supplies.

Second, you are assuming that John's discussion was the same as Matthew's behind his use of "petros" and "petra"when a comparison of context shows it is not the same.

Third, you are denying the real author is the Holy Spirit in Matthew and He is perfectly capable of expressing through GREEK what he means and does not mean as GREEK is a much more precise language with greater nuances than Aramaic.

Bottom line - you got nothing to base your theory upon except pure imagination and pure imagination NEVER trumps the context and the grammar that is provided for us by the Holy Spirit.

 

[DHK]

My point is that its not speculation when we see John one it is clear. So then remust go back to aramaic understanding.

Actually John's gospel works against you. They spoke Greek, the common language of the day. When an occasional Hebrew word was thrown in the conversation John made sure that his intended audience understood it by translating it. Hence we have all the Hebraisms translated for us in the Gospel of John. This is especially true on the cross.

Matthew occasionally does the same thing:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

The phrase is translated for the benefit of us all or we would have no idea what it means. John does the same thing. But all the NT is otherwise written in Greek, with Hebraisms translated into Greek.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not talking about translating one language into another. I am talking about expressing yourself in the language of the people just as the scriptures were written in the langauge of the people. Thoughts depend upon proper syntax when it comes to writing in your own common language. If you think not then illustrate it with English in your next response.

I am suggesting no such thing! I am not suggesting anything! I am DEMANDING that it is impossible to express thoughts to other people of the SAME COMMON LANGUAGE using THE SAME COMMON LANGUAGE without proper syntax in the SAME COMMON LANGUAGE. Proof? Please attempt to do so by your next response to what I have said in this post!


First, you do not know the DETAILS of that discussion other than what John supplies.

Second, you are assuming that John's discussion was the same as Matthew's behind his use of "petros" and "petra"when a comparison of context shows it is not the same.

Third, you are denying the real author is the Holy Spirit in Matthew and He is perfectly capable of expressing through GREEK what he means and does not mean as GREEK is a much more precise language with greater nuances than Aramaic.

Bottom line - you got nothing to base your theory upon except pure imagination and pure imagination NEVER trumps the context and the grammar that is provided for us by the Holy Spirit.

It comes down to one thing. and Sorry DHK John doesn't work against me. John explicitly says Jesus calls Simon: Cephas. If, as you and Dr. Walter are suggesting that Jesus and his disciples commonly spoke Greek to each other this verse would disprove that theory as John says Jesus gave Simon an Aramaic name of Cephas. Having experience of other countries I know for a fact that people speak their native tongue primarily and an adopted tongue secondarily. Aramaic is the Native tongue of that Region where Jesus and the disciples lived. Logical conclusion #1: Jesus spoke regularily and commonly Aramaic in the company of his disciples as John 1 clearly indicates. Logical conclusion #2: If following standard practice which we know about the native primary tongue is communicated commonly and the adopted tongue is communicated secondarily. In the region of Galilee and amoung Jesus and his disciples Aramaic would be the primary tongue and Greek would be the adopted second tongue primarily used in trade. Logical conclusion #3: The first two being true we can suppose then that discussions between Jesus and his Aramaic speaking disciples would primarily have been in Aramaic and thus an Apostle relating discussions between them and Jesus would have to be translated into Greek for it to be written into Greek. Two Gospels are acorded to have been writen from Non-Apostles: Luke and Mark. Thus their writings were reliant on verbal faithful accounting of the apostles translated into their secondary language of Greek. Logical conclusion #4: Aramaic and Greek differ significantly and thus the Apostle would have attempted to communicate as best as they could into a language that has different modes and syntax than their native tounge and would at times be required to use a close equivelant since languages do not always have exact equivelants. As in the cast of Petros. Jesus did not name Simon Petros but Cephas. Petros is the closest equivelant maintaining the Greek requirement of mascline word formation. Thus with the initial writing (in the autographs) we have a divergence. Simon's name is Cephas as noted in John.

 

[WestminsterMan]

I disagree with the bold and underlined statement. Thoughts do not depend on syntax. The syntax should convey the expression of the thought. However, sometimes syntax is insufficient to adiquately provide a vehicle to express the thought. I don't know if you have experience living in other countries using other languages. I do. Often times you will hear this phrase. I cannot translate that into english or vis-versa. I know of this one Indonesian tribe that has no consept of time and to express and ideas in relation to time is meaningless to them. All things are centered in the present. Imagine how to express certain bible consepts to them?
snip...

Hence the necessity of Tradition. The Church always understood this.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

The Aramic "kepha" is capable of application to either a small rock or a larger rock. Hence, the meaning of the term does not prove anything. John simply relates the Aramaic "kepha" without any specification but Matthew does not refer the reader to the Aramaic "kepha" because Jesus made an intentional play on the words "petros" versus "petra" that the Aramaic cannot convey. Most in that day were capable of conversing in two or three dialects (Latin, Greek, Aramaic) while Hebrew was the language of the temple and synoguoge.

Bottom line is you cannot use what is NOT PROVIDED to overturn the inspired language that is provided.

1. Two different terms - Petros versus Petra

2. Two different genders - Masculine gender verses feminine gender

3. Two different persons - Second person singular pronoun modifes Petros, third person singular demonstrative pronoun modifies Petra

4. Nearest antecedent for third person singular "this" in verse 18 is third person singular "it" in verse 17 which in turn modifies his confession in verse 16

You cannot take IMAGINATION and overturn solid grammatical facts that are INSPIRED by God.

Oh - here we go again. Alright - I'll bite.

Let's look at the "petra/petros argument which I will address from three different aspects.

1) Language

First, the linguistic argument you are using regarding the Greek text's use of the terms petros and petra is flawed. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew's Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson's treatment of the passage in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

Second, you are overlooking the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday spoken language, but Aramaic. Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17--19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus' statement in Aramaic—"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for the interpretation.

Additionally, if you do further study on Matthew 16:17--19 you will notice several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus' speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" The third is also a blessing: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—"And I tell you, you are Peter"— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

However, if you want to argue over "petros" vs. "petra" you have a very weak position as even Protestant Greek scholars admit that there's no difference between the two in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. See 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 Rapis: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.

Another Greek word for small stone is "lithos". While "lithos" can also be used for a large bolder (cf. Matt. 28:2), it was used to denote a small stone as well. For example, in Matthew 4:3, the devil tempts Jesus to transform some stones, "lithoi" (the Greek plural for "lithos") into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up "lithoi" with which to stone Jesus. In 1 Peter 2:5, St. Peter describes Christians as living "lithoi", which form a spiritual house. If Matthew had wanted to distinguish between a big and a little rock he would have used "lithos", but he didn't. The Rock is Peter!

Further, note that Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun "taute", which means 'this very,' when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: "You are Peter and on 'taute petra,' [this very rock] I will build my Church. Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for 'and' which is "kai" , the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, "You are rock and on this rock I will build my Church", the second rock to which he refers has to be the same rock as the first one. Thus, Peter is the rock in both cases.

Jesus could have gotten around this if He'd wanted. He didn't have to say "And [kai], on this rock I will build my Church." He could have simply said, "But [alla] on this rock I will build my Church" meaning another rock. However, he would have then had to explain who or what the other rock is/was. But, He didn't do that!

continued...

 

[WestminsterMan]

continued...

2) Historicity

How did Christendom view the Primacy of Peter? Let's look at the writings of the Early Church.

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]).

"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 sl 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]).

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]).

continued...

 

[WestminsterMan]

continued...

3) Protestant Thought

ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: 'Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, 170].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter's confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in verse 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" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

"By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. 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" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter's confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church's foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the nor word for 'rock.' . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, 303].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, with all that behind us, let's dissect Matthew 16:13-20.

Whether from New Testament Greek, or from the Aramaic, this is the historically correct and widely accepted translation:

Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In context, Matthew 16:13-20 is about Jesus, and it describes how Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him [PETER] full authority on Earth in anticipation of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In other words, Peter will be Jesus' representative (look at the significance of a King giving the keys to someone in Jewish culture.) Remember this - "feed my sheep" , "tend my flock"?

Here is the proper and clear order of events:

1. Jesus blesses Simon Bar-Jonah
2. Jesus tell Simon Bar-Jonah that God the Father has revealed Christ's identity to him [Simon]
3. Jesus tells Simon Bar-Jonah that he is the Rock [Peter] (significant name change)
4. Jesus [now using Simon's new name ROCK] tells Peter [Rock] that he [Jesus] would build his Church upon him [Peter -- Rock]
5. Jesus promises [Peter - Rock] that the gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church]
6. Jesus gives Peter [Rock] the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. (More cultural significance there)
7. Jesus tells Peter [Rock] that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in heaven. (The power to forgive sin.)

Ka-Ching!

WM

 

[DHK]

Your commentaries don't say what you think they say; some of them disprove your point entirely. You need to read more carefully.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Your commentaries don't say what you think they say; some of them disprove your point entirely. You need to read more carefully.

Hardly a well thought out response...

WM

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ka-ching!

WM

Well, for a start, here are 47 church fathers who state that it is Christ that is the true rock, and Peter's confession of Him is that on which the true Church is built. http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html The fact is that with a little effort, you can get the fathers to say anything you want.
Just as a little hors d'oevre, here's Augustine:

Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer

.

Christ is the Rock, not Peter (1Cor 10:4).

Ka-ching!

Steve

 

[Dr. Walter]

Archbishop Kenrick (1806-1897)

This next item is from a speech prepared by Archbishop Peter Kenrick of St. Louis, also to be given at the first Vatican Council (1870),

[p. 107] The rule of Biblical interpretation imposed upon us is this: that the Scriptures are not to be interpreted contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. It is doubtful whether any instance of that unanimous consent is to be found. But this failing, the rule seems to lay down for us the law of following, in their interpretation of Scripture, the major number of the fathers that might seem to approach unanimity. Accepting this rule, we are compelled to abandon the usual modern exposition of the words, “On this rock I build my church.”

In a remarkable pamphlet “printed in fac-simile of manuscript,” and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, we find five different interpretations of the word rock, in the place cited; “the first of which declares” (I transcribe the words) “that the church was built on Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seventeen fathers—among them, by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Augustine.

The second interpretation understands from [p. 108] these words, ‘On this rock I build my church,’ that the church was built on all the apostles, whom Peter represented by virtue of the primary. And this opinion is followed by eight fathers—among them, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret.

The third interpretation asserts that the words, ‘On this rock,’ etc., are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed—that this faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the living God is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East, are Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.

The fourth interpretation declares that the words, ‘On this rock,’ etc., are to be understood of that rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ—the church was built upon Christ. This interpretation is followed by sixteen fathers and doctors.

The fifth interpretation of the fathers understands by the name of the rock, the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built.”

Thus far the author of the pamphlet aforesaid, in which may be read the words of the fathers and doctors whom he cites.

From this it follows, either that no argument at [p. 109] all, or one of the slenderest probability, is to be derived from the words, “On this rock will I build my church,” in support of the primacy. Unless it is certain that by the rock is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infallibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Well, for a start, here are 47 church fathers who state that it is Christ that is the true rock, and Peter's confession of Him is that on which the true Church is built. http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html The fact is that with a little effort, you can get the fathers to say anything you want.
Just as a little hors d'oevre, here's Augustine:
.

Christ is the Rock, not Peter (1Cor 10:4).

Ka-ching!

Steve

Well Steve, that would be true except for one little fact... I didn't base my position soley on the EFC's now did I. I used them as a historical source to buttress my other two points.

Ka-Ka-Ka-Ka-ching!

WM

 

[Matt Black]

Well, for a start, here are 47 church fathers who state that it is Christ that is the true rock, and Peter's confession of Him is that on which the true Church is built. http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html The fact is that with a little effort, you can get the fathers to say anything you want.
Just as a little hors d'oevre, here's Augustine:
.

Christ is the Rock, not Peter (1Cor 10:4).

Ka-ching!

Steve

Or Peter's confession of faith is the Rock.

You see, we have come up with three different interpretations between all of us on just one verse! Taking us full circle then to the OP, this alone demonstrates that sola Scriptura simply cannot work.

QED, people.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Archbishop Kenrick (1806-1897)

This next item is from a speech prepared by Archbishop Peter Kenrick of St. Louis, also to be given at the first Vatican Council (1870),

[p. 107] The rule of Biblical interpretation imposed upon us is this: that the Scriptures are not to be interpreted contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. It is doubtful whether any instance of that unanimous consent is to be found. But this failing, the rule seems to lay down for us the law of following, in their interpretation of Scripture, the major number of the fathers that might seem to approach unanimity. Accepting this rule, we are compelled to abandon the usual modern exposition of the words, “On this rock I build my church.”

In a remarkable pamphlet “printed in fac-simile of manuscript,” and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, we find five different interpretations of the word rock, in the place cited; “the first of which declares” (I transcribe the words) “that the church was built on Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seventeen fathers—among them, by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Augustine.

The second interpretation understands from [p. 108] these words, ‘On this rock I build my church,’ that the church was built on all the apostles, whom Peter represented by virtue of the primary. And this opinion is followed by eight fathers—among them, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret.

The third interpretation asserts that the words, ‘On this rock,’ etc., are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed—that this faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the living God is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East, are Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.

The fourth interpretation declares that the words, ‘On this rock,’ etc., are to be understood of that rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ—the church was built upon Christ. This interpretation is followed by sixteen fathers and doctors.

The fifth interpretation of the fathers understands by the name of the rock, the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built.”

Thus far the author of the pamphlet aforesaid, in which may be read the words of the fathers and doctors whom he cites.

From this it follows, either that no argument at [p. 109] all, or one of the slenderest probability, is to be derived from the words, “On this rock will I build my church,” in support of the primacy. Unless it is certain that by the rock is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infallibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.

Sure there was some disagreement with amoung the EFC's (on many topics), yet that's no reason to disregard them. Additionaly, I presented plenty of Protestants theologians who hold to the Catholic interpretation as well as scriptural support. It's a three tiered approach - take that in toto.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Or Peter's confession of faith is the Rock.

You see, we have come up with three different interpretations between all of us on just one verse! Taking us full circle then to the OP, this alone demonstrates that sola Scriptura simply cannot work.

QED, people.

Hence.... Tradition!

WM