For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein. 1
Throughout this debate, my opponent has made the constant assertion that Peter held the place of primacy in the fledgling Church. However, he did make some concessions. He conceded that we have no extant Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew. He stated that we are not sure what the language Matthew was originally written in, and yet he constantly asserted that the Greek was an interpretation of the Aramaic that Jesus spoke. As I had noted throughout my statements in this debate, this is nothing more than conjecture and eisegesis. Given that Matthew was originally inspired and written in Greek, my opponent could not provide one lexical source that could substantiate his constant assertion that �petros� and �petra� were synonymous. My opponent also conceded that my exegesis of Acts 15 is plausible, and that he could not contend against it.
In summing up my position, I cite from John Chrysostom:
Upon this rock - He did not say �upon Peter� for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? �You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.�� 2
With these words of John Chrysostom, we see the well-attested position of the ancient Church; a position that is far better attested to than the position being promoted by my opponent: the position of Rome. Having considered some of my opponent�s concessions, the remainder of my closing statement will be a final denial of the primacy of Peter.
Peter�s Confession in Matthew 16
Peter was not the first to utter the words �thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.� Nathanael, in John 1:49 said; �Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." Simeon as well confessed that the child Jesus was the Christ (Luke 2:25-35). Martha confessed that our Lord was the Christ (John 11:27). It was on this confession of true saving faith that Christ�s Church will be built. Notice, it is Christ�s Church, which is built on the confession of His Deity and Messiah-ship.
Isaiah 22:22 � Revelation 3:7
Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this.
We see here that it is Christ, and Christ alone who has the key (singular) of David. In Matthew 16, Peter (the other apostles as well), and in Matthew 18, the apostles are given the keys (plural). They are given the authority over the Church as ministers of the Word, which is able to open the way to heaven or shut it. He who is holy, who is true. Who is that is Himself Holy and Himself True? Christ our Lord is the only one that is Himself Holy and Himself True. He alone is the Omnipotent one. He will open, and no one will be able to shut the door, and He will shut and no one will be able to open the door. He turns the key either to unlock the door or to lock it.
William Webster poignantly stated:
In an attempt to find some biblical sanction for the Roman Catholic teaching that the �rock� of Matthew 16 refers to Peter, his successors and the establishing of a papal office, some contemporary Roman Catholic apologists appeal to the key of David mentioned in Isaiah 22:20-22:Then it will come about in that day, that I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah and I will clothe him with your tunic, and tie your sash securely about him, I will entrust him with your authority, and he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open.
Roman apologists assert the following: First, the position Eliakim was put into was a dynastic position, i.e., one that had successors. Second, usage of the term �key� connects this passage with Jesus� statement in Matthew 16:19, and Jesus may even be quoting Isaiah 22:22. They then parallel the �opening and shutting� of Isaiah 22 with the �binding and loosing� of Matthew 16. Peter, they assert, is the �prime minister� of the Church. There is no tension or �tug-of-war� between Peter and Jesus, just as there was none between the king and prime minister in the Old Testament. Since the passage in Isaiah refers to an office that has successors, then Jesus must mean Peter to have successors as the �prime minister� of the Church. 3
But the Lord Jesus Christ has already given the correct interpretation and application of the Isaiah 22 passage: in Revelation 3:7 Jesus quotes from Isaiah 22:22 and applies it to himself: �And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this . . .� Who is the one who holds the key? (note the present tense � since this is spoken after the resurrection, and, it would seem probable, after the death of Peter). The Lord Jesus Christ, and nobody else. (James White, Pros Apologian, Papal Pretensions (Phoenix: Alpha and Omega Ministries, 1991), pp. 2-3.
Augustine commenting on Matthew 16 stated:
But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, �Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.� One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, �Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.� Then He added, �and I say unto thee.� As if He had said, �Because thou hast said unto Me, �Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God,� I also say unto thee, �Thou art Peter.� For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. �Therefore,� he saith, �Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock� which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, �Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;� that is upon Myself, the Son of the Living God, �will I build My Church.� I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, �I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,� who is Peter. But others who did not wish to build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, �But! am of Christ.� And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, �Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?� And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. 4
William Webster goes on to say:
The great twelfth-century Orthodox theologian, Theophylact of Bulgaria, in his comments on Matthew 16:18, follows the patristic tradition and reveals how the East could speak of the Church being founded on Peter and yet interpret this in a completely non-Roman sense 5:The Lord favours Peter, giving him a great reward, because he built the church upon him. For since Peter had confessed Jesus son of God, Jesus said that this confession which Peter uttered would be the foundation of future believers, just as every man should be about to raise up the house of faith and should be about to lay this foundation. For even if we put together innumerable virtues, we, however, may not have the foundation � a proper confession, and we build in vain. Moreover since Jesus said my church, he showed himself to be the lord of creation: for all realities serve God. . . .Therefore if we shall have been confirmed in the confession of Christ, the gates of hell, that is, sins, will not prevail against us. 6
As we have seen throughout this debate, the Roman Catholic position that Peter held the primacy in the early Church is found to be without support, and in fact, if anyone held the primacy in the early Church, it would have been James from the Council in Jerusalem or Paul, for he called himself someone�s �father.�
To conclude, I once again cite William Webster:
Thus, as with the interpretation of Matthew 16, we find the Roman Catholic Church interpreting Scripture completely contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the overall church throughout the centuries. Vatican I teaches that this was the view of the Church from the very beginning. If so we would find this view expressed in the patristic interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21. And yet we do not find such a view. Prior to the fourteenth century there is not one word from a Father, doctor, theologian or canonist in the interpretation of these foundational passages of Scripture, which supports the teaching of papal infallibility. 7
I want to thank my opponent for debating this issue with me. I did not enter this debate for the purpose of changing my opponents� mind, but, first of all, to defend the truth, and lastly, for the sake of the audience; that they may ponder the things said in this debate, and I pray that the audience will choose the side of truth. I leave it up to the audience to decide who won this debate. I did not engage in this dialogue to win, but to set forth what I believe to be the truth from the God Breathed Scriptures.
I submit to you that the Roman Catholic Apologist�s interpretation of the passages throughout this debate has been nothing less than a commitment to the traditions of men, rather than to the Word of God. I also submit to you, that by the revelation given to us by God, namely His Word (being breathed by the Sovereign Lord) is crystal clear on the issue of the primacy of Peter; he did not hold such a position, because whether Paul or Cephas or Apollos, all were ministers of the Word, and that equally. The Apostle Paul warned against division in the early New Testament Church, and warned against exalting one man above another, wherein he states:
Each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
Peter can be included in the context throughout as well, for he was a servant of the Lord through whom men believed on Christ for everlasting life. As our Lord said:
But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They *said to Him, "We are able." He *said to them, "My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father." And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. (Matthew 20:22-27)
The notion of primacy is foreign to our Lord. Whoever wishes to become great among us, they will become our servants. Whoever wishes to be the first among us will be our slaves. Quite the opposite idea from that my opponent set forth throughout this debate. I pray that all who followed this debate, and all who will read it afterwards, that the Lord Himself give you the Spirit of wisdom in the complete knowledge of Him in order that you may know the truth, and that, the truth will set you free.
Word Count: 2,300
1.NPNF1: Vol. IV, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapters 1-2
2. In Pentecosten, Migne 52.806.75-807.1
3. William Webster, The Papacy and the Rock of Matthew 16, http://www.the-highway.com/papacy_Webster.html
4. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, Saint Augustin, Sermons on New Testament Lessons, Sermon 26.1-2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 340.
5. . William Webster, The Papacy and the Rock of Matthew 16, http://www.the-highway.com/papacy_Webster.html
6. Cited by John Bigane, Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth-Century Roman Catholic Exegesis (Washington D.C.: University Press, 1981), pp. 31-32.
7. . William Webster, The Papacy and the Rock of Matthew 16, http://www.the-highway.com/papacy_Webster.html
