First, he alleges that Peter is declared to be the foundation of the Church. But who does not see that what he applies to the person of a man is said in reference to Peter's faith in Christ?
Origen (Homilies on Exodus, 5, 4), Hilary (The Trinity, 6, 20), and Cyril of Alexandria (IV Commentary on John), among others, didn�t see it.
There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words Pe>trov (Peter) and pe>tra, (petra, a stone or rock,) 10 except that the former belongs to the Attic, and the latter to the ordinary dialect. But we are not to suppose that Matthew had not a good reason for employing this diversity of expression. On the contrary, the gender of the noun was intentionally changed, to show that he was now speaking of something different. 11A distinction of the same sort, I have no doubt, was pointed out by Christ in his own language; 12 and therefore Augustine judiciously reminds the reader that it is not pe>tra (petra, a stone or rock) that is derived from Pe>trov, (Peter,) but Pe>trov (Peter) that is derived from pe>tra, (petra, a stone or rock.)
I find it interesting that John Calvin, who ReformedApologist has quoted several times throughout this debate, disagrees with him and says that petros and petra mean the same thing. If this is so (as I myself have shown in this debate and as John Calvin says), then why did Matthew not use the Greek word lithos, which is not a synonym for petra? That would�ve made more sense, but he didn�t do that. I have already explained why Matthew used two different Greek words; as Stephen Ray says,
�Rock� is feminine in Greek, and when the Aramaic Kepha was translated into Greek, Petros (masculine) was used for Peter�s name.1But not to be tedious, as we must acknowledge the truth and certainty of the declaration of Paul, that the Church can have no other foundation than Christ alone, (1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20,) it can be nothing less than blasphemy and sacrilege when the Pope has contrived another foundation.
According to 2 Samuel 22:32, God is our only rock, but Isaiah 51:1-2 calls Abraham a rock. Do these two passages contradict each other? No, the metaphor of a rock is being used in two different senses. Similarly, the metaphor of a foundation is used in two different senses when applied to Jesus and Peter. In addition, Scripture says that the household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles, prophets, and Jesus (Ephesians 2:20, which Calvin actually cited), another example of the same metaphor being used in two different ways.
Besides, as I have already hinted, that part does not refer to Peter's public office, but only assigns to him a distinguished place among the sacred stones of the temple.
Calvin is just assuming this without any proof. As the keys and the connection with the prime minister of Israel show, Jesus WAS assigning Peter to a special office separate from that of an ordinary apostle.
The commendations that follow relate to the Apostolic office; and hence we conclude that nothing is here said to Peter which does not apply equally to the others who were his companions, for if the rank of apostleship was common to them all, whatever was connected with it must also have been held in common.
Again, Calvin just asserts this with no proof whatsoever. Jesus was speaking only to Peter, and to suggest that what He said was applicable to all of the apostles is mere speculation. There is absolutely nothing in the text that would suggest this; it is merely a result of Calvin�s aversion to Catholicism.
But it will be said, Christ addresses Peter alone: he does so, because Peter alone, in the name of all, had confessed Christ to be the Son of God, and to him alone is addressed the discourse, which applies equally to the rest. And the reason adduced by Cyprian and others is not to be despised, that Christ spake to all in the person of one man, in order to recommend the unity of the Church.
Again, Calvin just asserts this without proving it. He mentions Cyprian but doesn�t give any quotes or citations. In The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, which I cited in my first rebuttal, Cyprian uses this passage as a proof for Petrine primacy.
They reply, 13 that he to whom this privilege was granted in a peculiar manner is preferred to all others. But that is equivalent to saying that he was more an apostle than his companions; for the power to bind and to loose can no more be separated from the office of teaching and the Apostleship than light or heat can be separated from the sun.
No, it�s not equivalent to saying that he was more an apostle than the others. Granted, the apostles could bind and loose by themselves, but only Peter was given the keys, which symbolize his position as leader. Calvin�s argument can actually be used to support papal succession. Since there was no reason to give Peter the power to bind and loose separately from the other apostles (since they could all do it), it makes sense that he was given it not for himself, but for his successors. Only his bishopric carries with it a singular power to bind and loose, while the others only have a collective power to bind and loose, which was given in Matthew 18:18 (the apostles could all bind and loose individually, but in Matthew 18:18, they only received the collective power).
And even granting that something more was bestowed on Peter than on the rest, that he might hold a distinguished place among the Apostles, it is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.
Peter alone received the keys, which indicates his position as leader, he alone was charged with shepherding Jesus� flock (John 21:15-17), he alone was called to strengthen the other apostles (Luke 22:31-32), and he acted as head of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles, as I showed in my opening statement. I think it�s safe to say that Scripture testifies to his role as leader.
And in fact, Christ laid no heavier burden on him than he was able to bear. He is ordered to be the porter of the kingdom of heaven; he is ordered to dispense the grace of God by binding and loosing; that is, as far as the power of a mortal man reaches. All that was given to him, therefore, must be limited to the measure of grace which he received for the edification of the Church; and so that vast dominion, which the Papists claim for him, falls to the ground.
Again, Calvin just asserts things without proof. The keys of the kingdom represent his leadership over the whole Church, and binding and loosing, as I said in my opening statement, were rabbinical terms which meant to prohibit or allow, which means that Peter was given a singular gift of infallibility in his official teachings. Thus, he had to have been given the graces he needed to lead the Church.
For no man in his senses will admit the principle which the Papists take for granted, that what is here granted to Peter was intended to be transmitted by him to posterity by hereditary right; for he does not receive permission to give any thing to his successors.
I already explained that this passage also teaches papal succession, and the Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans 1:1), and the connection between the papacy and Israel�s prime minister do too.
Finally, though the uninterrupted succession were fully established, still the Pope will gain nothing by it till he has proved himself to be Peter's lawful successor. And how does he prove it?
Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-3), Eusebius of Caesarea (The Chronicle), and Opatus (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2), among others, testify to the fact that Peter was the bishop of Rome.
Calvin�s last argument in the first quote doesn�t work because Scripture has examples of God working through ungodly men (Matthew 23:2-7, John 11:49-53). In addition, it assumes that God can�t, but we know what God can do whatever He wants.
In the second quote, Cyprian discusses one way in which the Church is united, but that doesn�t mean he disregarded all other ways. In The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, he says, �On him [Peter] he builds the Church�and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.�
Endnotes
1) Stephen Ray, Upon This Rock