It is not my intention in this final rebuttal to rehash the answers I have given to my opponent throughout this debate. Nor is it my intention to address any secondary issues. However, since we have discussed Matthew 16:16-19 and other pertinent passages surrounding this controversy, I wish to cite two Early Church Fathers and other notable theologians throughout Church History to substantiate the Reformed and Protestant position.
Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built:
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 earth? 1
However, Tertullian did not mean this in a pro-papal sense, for we read on:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, �Upon this rock I will build My Church,� �to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;� or, �Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,� you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? �On thee,� He says, �will I build My church;� and, �I will give thee the keys�...and, �Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound�...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: �Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,� and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ�s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are �loosed� the sins that were beforetime �bound;� and those which have not been �loosed� are �bound,� in accordance with true salvation. 2
William Webster states:
It is a common practice of Roman Catholic apologists to omit part of the quotation given above by Tertullian in order to make it appear that he is a proponent of papal primacy. A prime example of this is found in a recently released Roman Catholic defense of the papacy entitled Jesus, Peter and the Keys.
The authors give the following partial citation from Tertullian:
I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, �On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven� [Matt. 16:1819a] or �whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven� [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? On 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. 3
When comparing this citation with the one given above it is clear that these authors have left out the last half of the quotation. The part of the quotation that is omitted defines what Tertullian means by the statement that Christ built his Church on Peter and invested him with authority. Again, what he means by these words is that Christ built his church on Peter by building it through him as he preached the gospel.
This is a meaning that is clearly contrary to the Roman Catholic perspective. To omit this is to distort the teaching of Tertullian and to give the impression that he taught something he did not teach. So, though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock, he does not mean this in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does. Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men. This is similar to the view expressed by Maximus of Tours when he says: �For he is called a rock because he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations' (Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1989), The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, Sermon 77.1, p. 187).
Not only do we see a clear denial of any belief in a papal primacy in Tertullian�s exegesis of Matthew 16, but such a denial is also seen from his practice. In his later years Tertullian separated himself from the Catholic Church to become a Montanist. He clearly did not hold to the view espoused by Vatican I that communion with the Bishop of Rome was the ultimate criterion of orthodoxy and of inclusiveness in the Church of God. 4
Origen
And if we too have said like Peter, �Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,� not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, �Thou art Peter,� etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, �The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,� hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, �Upon this rock I will build My Church?� Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, �I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,� be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
�Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.� If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname �rock� who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, �Thou art Peter� etc., down to the words, �prevail against it.� But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock . 5
James McCue states:
When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18f, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be...(His) is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18f. and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church. 6
These few citations corroborate the Reformed understanding of this controversy. These citations also prove that the Reformed position is the position of the Historic Church.
Word Count: 1,494
1.Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume III, Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 22).
2.Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).
3.Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), pp. 216-217).
4.William Webster, An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
5.Allan Menzies, Ante�Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
6.Paul Empie and Austin Murphy, Ed., Papal Primacy in the Universal Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 60-61).