Tertullian
In his book Upon This Rock, Steve Ray responds directly to Webster�s use in his book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History of that quote from Tertullian:
There is actually a reference to Peter as the �rock� twenty years earlier, made by Tertullian himself while in his orthodox period��Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called �the rock on which the church should be built,� who also obtained �the keys of the kingdom of heaven,� with the power of �loosing and binding in heaven and on earth�?� We also find Tertullian referring to the Church as �built upon him [Peter]� [Monogamy 8, 4]�Second, Webster neglects to alert his reader to the fact that the passage cited is from the depths of Tertullian�s Montanist period�his descent into heresy. Webster himself would recoil at Montanist extremes and would shun Montanist theology�Is it not curious that Webster, in rejecting the orthodox teaching of the early Church on Peter�s primacy (as reflected in Tertullian�s orthodox writings), sides with the heretical Tertullian in the interpretation of this Scripture passage?
Webster�s claim that the early Church didn�t consider communion with Rome to be the standard for orthodoxy because Tertullian left the Catholic Church to become a Montanist is ridiculous. Tertullian was a heretic; he changed his belief regarding the standard of orthodoxy. If I leave the Catholic Church tomorrow, does that mean that Catholics today don�t consider union with Rome the ultimate criterion for Orthodoxy? No, of course not. All that would mean is that I have changed my beliefs. If a Christian becomes a Buddhist and no longer believes in the authority of Scripture, does that mean that we Christians don�t believe that Scripture is an infallible source of God�s revelation? Of course not, and it�s the same principle with Tertullian�s becoming a heretic.
Origen
Before I explain the quote that ReformedApologist gave, let me give some more from Origen.
Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.1Look at the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? �O you of little faith,� He says, "why did you doubt!�2
So, why does Origen seem to contradict himself in the passage that ReformedApologist quoted? Again, Steve Ray has an answer for us:
There could be several reasons. Origen viewed the Scriptures as a chest full of spiritual treasures, the preserve of a few privileged Christians�.�This conviction led Origen into what we usually call the �allegorical interpretation of Scripture�. He held that there are three levels of meaning in the Bible: the literal sense; the moral application to the soul; and the allegorical or spiritual sense� (Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language [Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982], 100). Does Origen intend to slight the literal sense of Matthew 16? Intentionally or unintentionally, through his allegorizing, he does not address the literal and historical sense but �digs deeper� for a personal and spiritual application.3
Matthew 16:17-19
We�ve gone over this passage several times in this debate, and I�d like to go over it one more time. I think we�ve discussed the issues of petros/petra and the keys of the kingdom enough, so I would like to highlight a few other points that didn�t receive as much attention.
Simon�s name was changed to Peter, and, as I said in my opening statement, name changes were significant in Jewish culture. Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, and Simon to Peter. Each of these name changes is important, so let�s examine each one to see what significance it has.
�As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God.� � Genesis 17:4-8
Here, God changes Abram�s name to �Abraham� to mark the event of the giving of the sign of the Covenant, circumcision, which He gives in verses 9-14. Abraham was to become the father of the chosen people, the Israelites.
�God said to Abraham, �As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.�� � Genesis 17:15-16
Here, God changes Sarai�s name to �Sarah� to signify the fact that she would be the mother of the chosen people.
�Then he said, �Let me go, for the day is breaking.� But Jacob said, �I will not let you go, unless you bless me.� So he said to him, �What is your name?� And he said, �Jacob.� Then the man said, �You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed.� Then Jacob asked him, �Please tell me your name.� But he said, �Why is it that you ask my name?� And there he blessed him.�� � Genesis 32:26-29
Here, Jacob�s name is changed to Israel to signify the fact that he was able to win a struggle against this man (who was apparently a heavenly being) and to go along with the blessing he received.
What do these three name changes all have in common? They are all connected to blessings given to the one whose name is changed (and only the one whose name is changed), so why not the same with Peter? What special blessing is Peter being given if nothing in Matthew 16:18-19 is directed towards him alone? Sure, you can argue that Peter was blessed because he received a special revelation from God (verse 17), but verses 18-19 flow from verse 17 and are all blessings that Peter received on this occasion. Therefore, it makes sense that the keys of the kingdom and the singular power to bind and loose were special blessings that only he received and that the Church was built on him.
From here, we can go right into my next point. Even without taking into account the name change, the context of Matthew 16:17-19 is the blessings that Jesus is giving to Peter, so to argue that the rock upon which the Church is built is anything other than Peter is to rip the verse out of context. ReformedApologist argued against this by pointing out that Scripture says that the household of God is built on all the apostles, but that�s irrelevant. As I said in my third rebuttal (after refuting his claim that all the apostles are equally foundations), this doesn�t deal with the issue. One can give proofs all day long that all the apostles are equal, but that�s not the same as actually dealing with arguments in favor of the papacy.
In addition, Jesus said, �You are Peter, and on this rock,� which indicates that the two statements are connected and that the two rocks are the same. Had he wanted to indicate that Peter was not the rock, He would�ve said, �You are Peter, but on this rock.�
Forgotten Passages
Unfortunately, certain important passages seem to have been neglected in favor of Matthew 16:18-19, which, even though it is the most important passage, is not the only one that we need to look at. Therefore, I would like to go over those �forgotten passages� again.
I brought up Matthew 10:2-4, in which Peter is called the first apostle (the same Greek word is used elsewhere to mean �chief�) and, as in every other passage where all the apostles are listed, is named first. Similarly, in that and every other passage where all twelve apostles are listed, Judas is listed last. As we can see from Paul�s explanation of God�s promise to Abraham, the Holy Spirit chooses His words very carefully (Galatians 3:16), so we must not neglect this seemingly coincidental point. If Judas, who betrayed Jesus, is always listed last, then it makes sense that Peter, who is always listed first, was preeminent among the apostles.
The next passage I brought up was Luke 22:31-32, but ReformedApologist doesn�t understand the relevance of Jesus� prayer. Satan demanded to sift all the apostles, but Jesus prayed specifically for Peter and only for Him. He prayed that Peter�s faith would not fail and that he (and he alone) would strengthen the other apostles. By His prayer, Jesus was indicating that Peter was to be the leader of the apostles. Think about it. In times of crisis, who is supposed to stay strong and strengthen and reassure everyone? Our leaders. Let me give a concrete example. On September 11th, who rose to the occasion and strengthened and reassured the American people and specifically those who were affected by the attacks? Was it Fred who lives down the street? Was it some stranger who hijacked the airwaves and was able to speak on national TV? No, it was President George Bush and New York�s Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It was the leaders who didn�t buckle under the pressure. It was the leaders who turned and strengthened us, their brethren. Similarly, when the crisis of the crucifixion came, who did Jesus want to strengthen the apostles? Was it John, the only one who was at the cross and didn�t run away? No, it was Peter, the only who denied knowing Jesus. Why did Jesus choose the one who barely fell short of Judas� betrayal? Why didn�t He choose the only one who wouldn�t leave Him? Because Peter, not John, was the rock upon which the Church is built. Peter, not John, was to be the Vicar of Christ and temporal head of the Church on earth.
Next, I brought up John 21:15-17, in which Jesus actually gives Peter charge over His flock, the Church. As I showed in my opening statement, the metaphor of a shepherd was used in the ancient world to denote authority. In addition, I explained why this passage is most likely more than just Jesus reinstating Peter as an apostle. John�s Gospel was the last of the four to be written, and it was most likely written in the latter part of the first century. John had a lot of time to think and reflect on what Jesus said and did, so he had a deep understanding of His life. In addition, since the other Gospels were already written and were most likely in circulation throughout the Church, there would have been no reason for John to include this incident in his Gospel if it merely showed that Peter didn�t lose his apostleship. Everyone already knew that. Also, as I already said, Scripture is worded very carefully, so the events it records must also have been chosen very carefully. With these points in mind, it�s reasonable to conclude that John 21:15-17 is, at the very least, another passage that is consistent with Petrine primacy and that, taken together with the rest of Scripture (and not merely in isolation), paints a very Catholic picture of Peter�s role as head of the Church. Before we move on, I would like to clear up a possibly ambiguous comment that I made in my second rebuttal. I said that it�s untrue that God is our only ruler, which can easily be misinterpreted. In one sense, God is our only ruler. Only He has authority over us by rights, and He is our only ultimate ruler. No temporal religious leaders possess their own authority; rather, they are just channels through which God exercises His authority. However, God has delegated His authority to the apostles and their successors, the bishops, and especially Peter and the subsequent popes, so there are other rulers and leaders below Him (Hebrews 13:17).
Next, I gave an outline of Peter�s leadership in the early Church. Throughout the first half of Acts, whenever Peter was with any of the other apostles, he constantly took the role of leader. This is especially evident in the Council of Jerusalem, where Peter�s authoritative decision ended the debate and settled the matter. This is the only issue regarding Peter�s leadership in the early Church that ReformedApologist dealt with, but he didn�t take into account all the relevant information. He dealt with James� statement at the end of the council but not Peter�s. Because he provided no explanation of why Peter�s declaration ended the debate, his interpretation must be viewed as inadequate, and the Catholic interpretation still stands.
So, what do these passages add to the case for the papacy? Do they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter was the first pope? No, they don�t. However, taken together as a whole with Matthew 16:17-19, they paint a very Catholic picture of Peter�s role in the early Church. Like strands of a rope, they come together to form a cumulative argument that is much stronger than any one taken in isolation.
Closing Remarks
Finally, I would like to thank ReformedApologist for agreeing to do this debate with me and giving me a chance to defend the papacy. This is an extremely important issue dividing Catholics and Protestants, and only through prayer, charity, and constructive dialogue will we be able to overcome this obstacle to Christian unity and finally be one as Jesus and the Father are one (John 17:20-23). I hope that God can use this debate to help us and all who read it, whether Catholic or Protestant, to understand the other side and work towards uniting all Christians rather than winning arguments.
Endnotes
1) Origen, Commentaries on John 5, 3
2) Origen, Homilies on Exodus 5, 4
3) Stephen Ray, Upon This Rock