Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[mfbukowski]

I have noticed that in arguments between Catholics and Mormons on apostolic succession, sooner or later the Catholic will bring up the “gates of hell” prophecy, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

This scripture seems to be the cornerstone to the Catholic belief that there would never be an apostasy of the Catholic church.

But Mormons typically have no problem “getting around” that view.

One answer a Mormon might give is “That prophecy is right. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the true church, the LDS church”.

Another Mormon answer is that the “rock” being referred to is not Peter at all, but the “rock of revelation”.

Still another Mormon answer I have seen is the belief that this prophecy has nothing to do with apostasy or apostolic succession, but is in fact referring to ministry for the dead which Catholics see as prayers for those in purgatory, and Mormons see as vicarious ordinance work for the dead, including baptism for the dead as mentioned in 1Corinthians 15:29.

Those who take this position hold that when Jesus “descended into hell” (as per the Apostles Creed, and other scriptural references) He in fact, smashed the “gates of hell” and so these gates did not prevail against His church.

But as I recall, I have not heard a word from Protestants on their view of this scripture. From a Protestant perspective, what does it mean?

Did the reformation show that the Church had apostasized and thus that the “gates of hell” DID prevail? Or was the prophecy about Christianity in general, and so the gates did NOT prevail?

What do you think?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One answer a Mormon might give is “That prophecy is right. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the true church, the LDS church”.

The problem with your “logic”, would be approximately 1800 years the Church did not exist because of the Mormon “theory” that a great and total apostasy occurred, so great and total as to invalidate the priesthood. Had this really occurred, Christ’s Church did not make it one year before the acts of “men”, let alone the gates of hell, prevailed against it.

Another Mormon answer is that the “rock” being referred to is not Peter at all, but the “rock of revelation”.

And that “rock of revelation” had the power to bind and loose on earth? Seems to be major differences in interpretations here.

Still another Mormon answer I have seen is the belief that this prophecy has nothing to do with apostasy or apostolic succession, but is in fact referring to ministry for the dead which Catholics see as prayers for those in purgatory, and Mormons see as vicarious ordinance work for the dead, including baptism for the dead as mentioned in 1Corinthians 15:29.

Those who take this position hold that when Jesus “descended into hell” (as per the Apostles Creed, and other scriptural references) He in fact, smashed the “gates of hell” and so these gates did not prevail against His church.

Mormons do that. That is, you could ask a roomful of Mormons questions and get just as many answers.

**1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them? **

More interpretational differences. St. Paul did not say that he or any part of the Church baptized for the dead. He asked, what shall THEY do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all. It’s bad to pull one verse out to try and support an argument, it’s even worse to pull out a piece of a verse.

I think you will find that even with our differences, Protestants and Catholics are pretty much in agreement when it comes to the Church of Joseph Smith.

 

[Snow]

Yep - this is a pretty rote piece of rhetoric. It usually goes something like this:

‘If you believe in the apostasy, then you believe God is a liar.’

The answer goes something like:

‘Nope, I don’t think God is a liar, and I believe there was an apostasy and I don’t think that the gates of hell have prevailed.’

There’s not to much more to it than that… unless you say the only possible definition of 'will not prevail" is that there will be no interuption of eccessiatical authority… and of course the answer to question whether one can prove what the original author had in mind when he wrote the word ‘prevail,’ which certainly one cannot.

It’s a nothing argument engaged in by those that want to disagree on something but are running out of topics.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Yep - this is a pretty rote piece of rhetoric. It usually goes something like this:

‘If you believe in the apostasy, then you believe God is a liar.’

The answer goes something like:

‘Nope, I don’t think God is a liar, and I believe there was an apostasy and I don’t think that the gates of hell have prevailed.’

There’s not to much more to it than that… unless you say the only possible definition of 'will not prevail" is that there will be no interuption of eccessiatical authority… and of course the answer to question whether one can prove what the original author had in mind when he wrote the word ‘prevail,’ which certainly one cannot.

It’s a nothing argument engaged in by those that want to disagree on something but are running out of topics.

If the church fell into apostacy almost immediately, why is that so many mormons like to use quotes from theological texts by the early CHURCH fathers to prove their cases?

What was the purpose of even having apostles, or appointing ANY authority, if pretty much the minute Jesus left everything was shot to the netherworld er… I mean not shot to the netherworld but 'waiting for restoration" ?

And why would He bother instituting an authority on Peter, the Rock… knowing it wouldn’t last more than a year without giving the church prophets until after 1800???

Why bother asking peter and the apostles to “feed my sheep” if He really knew they would just let the sheep starve?

Why would God ever let the church fall into apostacy? Was the early church so corrupt, so close to Christ’s time? If we could not even tend to the sheep when the good shepherd was still so near, why would everything suddenly be so “clear” 1830 years later?

And if the church was truly “restored” and you like to use the “earch church fathers” as examples of the basis for your restoration, why does NOTHING in the LDS church resemble what the ECF believed?

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s a nothing argument engaged in by those that want to disagree on something but are running out of topics.

your entire religion is based on this “nothing argument”

 

[mfbukowski]

Yep - this is a pretty rote piece of rhetoric. It usually goes something like this:

‘If you believe in the apostasy, then you believe God is a liar.’

The answer goes something like:

‘Nope, I don’t think God is a liar, and I believe there was an apostasy and I don’t think that the gates of hell have prevailed.’

There’s not to much more to it than that… unless you say the only possible definition of 'will not prevail" is that there will be no interuption of eccessiatical authority… and of course the answer to question whether one can prove what the original author had in mind when he wrote the word ‘prevail,’ which certainly one cannot.

It’s a nothing argument engaged in by those that want to disagree on something but are running out of topics.

Well, I agree, but Catholics still keep on making the same argument over and over, like a litany. It seems they cannot hear that there could be other interpretations because the magesterium has told them that one interpretation. And what is sad is their whole scriptural claim to authority is based on that one verse with their very questionable interpretation.

But where are the protestants? I guess they also take the catholic interpretation, which is inconceivable to me.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Well, I agree, but Catholics still keep on making the same argument over and over, like a litany. It seems they cannot hear that there could be other interpretations because the magesterium has told them that one interpretation. And what is sad is their whole scriptural claim to authority is based on that one verse with their very questionable interpretation.

But where are the protestants? I guess they also take the catholic interpretation, which is inconceivable to me.

If it seems we make the same argument repeatedly, it’s because this very argument is at the HEART of all the debates swarming around these boards lately.

Everyone wants to claim an authority for their beliefs. Protestants will claim personal autonomy when it comes to Scripture. Catholics hold to the promise of Christ that the Church would be the authority… That it is the “Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.” And mormons want to claim their own authority as the “restored” church.

If you can’t sort out this question, nothing else will fall into place.

 

[zaffiroborant]

But where are the protestants? I guess they also take the catholic interpretation, which is inconceivable to me.

Just an off the cuff thought, but maybe they don’t have a vested interest. Generally Protestants don’t invest in “authority” the way the LDS and Catholics do.

I’ve also heard/read that concerning the passage under discussion is interpreted as Peters faith being the rock the church is founded on.

As to Catholics using one verse to argue their point, the same could be said of the LDS with baptism for the dead.

 

[mfbukowski]

If the church fell into apostacy almost immediately, why is that so many mormons like to use quotes from theological texts by the early CHURCH fathers to prove their cases?

What was the purpose of even having apostles, or appointing ANY authority, if pretty much the minute Jesus left everything was shot to the netherworld er… I mean not shot to the netherworld but 'waiting for restoration" ?

And why would He bother instituting an authority on Peter, the Rock… knowing it wouldn’t last more than a year without giving the church prophets until after 1800???

Why bother asking peter and the apostles to “feed my sheep” if He really knew they would just let the sheep starve?

Why would God ever let the church fall into apostacy? Was the early church so corrupt, so close to Christ’s time? If we could not even tend to the sheep when the good shepherd was still so near, why would everything suddenly be so “clear” 1830 years later?

And if the church was truly “restored” and you like to use the “earch church fathers” as examples of the basis for your restoration, why does NOTHING in the LDS church resemble what the ECF believed?

This is another straw man Catholics put up.

What was lost were many “plain and precious” doctrines, as well as apostolic succession.

As an ex catholic, I recall what I thought about “the protestants” when I was a Catholic. They weren’t evil, just misguided. It would be better to be a protestant than not believe in Jesus at all. Certainly, I thought, protestants are good people, but it was a tragedy that the reformation ever happened.

Now I feel about catholics the same way I used to feel about protestants. It’s not that their church is “totally corrupt”, it’s just that they do not have apostolic succession. The catholic church has done a good job of spreading the word that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God for 2000 years.

But I think the apostasy was a tragedy just as I thought the reformation was a tragedy.

So if you are interested, Catholics, in truly understanding what Mormons feel about the apostasy, examine your own feelings about the reformation. I would suggest those feelings are quite similar to how we feel about the apostasy.

So it’s not that God’s people were not “fed” at all – it’s just that the full banquet was not available. Amazingly, there were spiritual giants who blossomed on that paltry diet, like Francis of Assisi, etc. But there were those times when the famine was devastating like the Crusades and inquisiton.

So I would not say that Christianity was “abandoned” for 1800 years, it was just scraping by on the bare miniumum of truth that was available.

I personally believe (not mormon doctrine) that this was a preparatory period where the seeds of the gospel were allowed to survive on a low level in times without freedom of religion with primitive communication systems so that the name and central message of the messiahship of Jesus could be spread unencumbered by detailed doctrine which would easily be confused and misrepresented.

Through the Lord’s providence and foresight, that seminal gospel was spread to a land separated by two oceans from the warzones of the world, where freedom of religion set up the conditions for the restoration of the gospel in its fullness, and the burgeoning techologies of the railroad, telegraph and now modern technology allowed that gospel to be disseminated and recorded in a way not possible 2000 years ago.

Long story short, I think the Catholic church did the best it could with what was available in those times. But it was practically inevitable given the primitive conditions, that the gospel would be altered in many particulars. Yet if the savior had not lived in those times, the groundwork for the start of the gospel would never have worked. If the savior had come for the first time in 1800, he would just be regarded as another crackpot. There would be no christian tradition to re-illuminate and restore. It just wouldn’t have worked

That’s my opinion.

 

[mfbukowski]

If it seems we make the same argument repeatedly, it’s because this very argument is at the HEART of all the debates swarming around these boards lately.

Everyone wants to claim an authority for their beliefs. Protestants will claim personal autonomy when it comes to Scripture. Catholics hold to the promise of Christ that the Church would be the authority… That it is the “Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.” And mormons want to claim their own authority as the “restored” church.

If you can’t sort out this question, nothing else will fall into place.

And that is why I wanted to examine this scripture which is the cornerstone for your argument. What is it really saying here?

 

[RebeccaJ]

What do you think?

They you’re rattling the gates.

 

[mfbukowski]

Matthew 16 - King James

**13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. **

I do not speak greek, nor am I a scriptural scholar,- any expertise I have lies in the area of philosophy - but I do have some questions. There are a couple of things which strike me as peculiar here.

Why is Peter “Simon Bar-jona”, and why does the savior emphasize his name? Yes, I know that he is calling him by his full name which translates to “Simon son of Jonah”. But what is interesting to me is that doesn’t “jona” mean “dove”? Is another interpretation “Simon, son of the dove”? If the holy Ghost is symbolized by the dove, could he be saying something like “Simon son of the revelator” giving credence to the intepretation that the later line, “upon this rock I will build my church” is that the “rock” is revelation?

But on the other hand we have the Cephas and Petrus thing which of course is the implication of “little rock” and “big rock”- he is the “chip off the old block”!

It seems that both interpretations are intertwined with puns and deliberate ambiguities?

And then we get to the subject of the gates-- those are passive things, which don’t attack.

An analogy might be a discussion today about say, Iran attacking Israel with nukes.

We might say something like “Tehran will not prevail against Jerusalem”, but we would not say “the GATES of Tehran will not prevail against Jerusalem”. IE the defending side is the one with the gates, not the attacker.

Gates are something which ARE attacked, not something which DO attacking. They are defensive in nature.

So it seems that the “gates of hell” are what was BEING attacked, not the other way around.

So what’s wrong with the interpretation that “the gates of hell will not prevail against (the church)” means that when the church attacks the gates of hell, the gates of hell will not hold the church back, and the church will instead prevail against the gates? (and the gospel will be preached to the dead) ?

It seems to me that if we look at just what is being said, that is not only a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but the only interpretation that really makes sense.

But if that is the case, what happens to the supposed authority of the Catholic church “proved” by a wrong interpretation?

Yes I know your magesterium doesn’t agree. Think for yourselves and answer!

And why did Jesus want no man to know He was the Christ? Secret doctrine? Seriously-- the world wasn’t ready for it?

 

[mfbukowski]

Just an off the cuff thought, but maybe they don’t have a vested interest. Generally Protestants don’t invest in “authority” the way the LDS and Catholics do.

I’ve also heard/read that concerning the passage under discussion is interpreted as Peters faith being the rock the church is founded on.

As to Catholics using one verse to argue their point, the same could be said of the LDS with baptism for the dead.

Peter’s faith? That’s an interesting one.

I think your point about them not having much invested in authority might be right. It’s also amazing to me they accept the Nicene creed, but that’s for another thread

Interesting point about baptism for the dead. There is a big difference once you think about it.

Yes we use that verse to justify baptism for the dead, just as you use the gates of hell to justify authority. Yes in both cases, I think it is the one verse that fits those purposes. Also in both cases, we both use further “tradition” in your case and “revelation” in our case to amplify the doctrines without further scriptural evidence.

But the big difference is that we claim the reason for the lack of scriptural evidence is the apostasy. The evidence was “stolen” from our point of view, and had to be restored. We have lots of doctrines that have NO biblical evidence, just modern revelation – and we have no problem with that.

But where did further scriptural evidence for apostolic succession go from your point of view?

Why is it not all the way through the New Testament, but found only in one questionable interpretation of one verse? Especially as you are so fond of telling us, since the bible is a Catholic book?

 

[mfbukowski]

They you’re rattling the gates.

No, just your cage

But your cage isn’t prevailing against me, because I am rattling it. If it was going to prevail, it would be “unrattleable”

You might prevail against me, but your cage has not!

(ratttle rattttttle rattttttle)

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, just your cage

But your cage isn’t prevailing against me, because I am rattling it. If it was going to prevail, it would be “unrattleable”

You might prevail against me, but your cage has not!

(ratttle rattttttle rattttttle)

You sure like to make things complicated.

 

[SimonArizona]

The Catholic Church in its infancy wrote the Scripture, assembled it into the Inspired Canon, and gave it to the world. How can anyone argue that their individual interpretation opposing the Catholic Church has a chance of being right?

It isn’t even plausable. Convincing but not true:thumbsup:

 

[RebeccaJ]

Peter’s faith? That’s an interesting one.

I think your point about them not having much invested in authority might be right. It’s also amazing to me they accept the Nicene creed, but that’s for another thread

Interesting point about baptism for the dead. There is a big difference once you think about it.

Yes we use that verse to justify baptism for the dead, just as you use the gates of hell to justify authority. Yes in both cases, I think it is the one verse that fits those purposes. Also in both cases, we both use further “tradition” in your case and “revelation” in our case to amplify the doctrines without further scriptural evidence.

But the big difference is that we claim the reason for the lack of scriptural evidence is the apostasy. The evidence was “stolen” from our point of view, and had to be restored. We have lots of doctrines that have NO biblical evidence, just modern revelation – and we have no problem with that.

But where did further scriptural evidence for apostolic succession go from your point of view?

Why is it not all the way through the New Testament, but found only in one questionable interpretation of one verse? Especially as you are so fond of telling us, since the bible is a Catholic book?

re: gates…

John 10:

So Jesus said again, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 6 All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. 10 A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them. 13 This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,

Jesus is the gate, the way. This is not the same gate as He is describing at Caesari Phillipi. As Jesus is the way to life, not to death.

Death and sin are often tied together, by Jesus Himself, but in the OT as well. Sin is death. The gate that will not prevail against His Church is the gate that leads to death. Sin. Also, Jesus describes Satan as the ruler of death and sin. So this gate, is not only the gate to hell, who leads people through this gate is not Jesus, but Satan. Satan, sin, death, the adversary to all things will not prevail against Jesus’ Church. This is the promise that Christ is making.

Further into John 21:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Jesus described Himself as the Good Shepherd. And here he is, turning over His flock to Simon Peter. The same Simon Peter who He said His Church would be built on.

 

[SimonArizona]

I don’t think “the gates of hell” is the most acurate translation. What Jesus is saying is that He is building His Church upon Peter and it will never fail. That is devestating for a church self-proclaiming to be the restored christian chuch

 

[mfbukowski]

re: gates…

Jesus is the gate, the way. This is not the same gate as He is describing at Caesari Phillipi. As Jesus is the way to life, not to death.

Death and sin are often tied together, by Jesus Himself, but in the OT as well. Sin is death. The gate that will not prevail against His Church is the gate that leads to death. Sin. Also, Jesus describes Satan as the ruler of death and sin. So this gate, is not only the gate to hell, who leads people through this gate is not Jesus, but Satan. Satan, sin, death, the adversary to all things will not prevail against Jesus’ Church. This is the promise that Christ is making.

Further into John 21:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Jesus described Himself as the Good Shepherd. And here he is, turning over His flock to Simon Peter. The same Simon Peter who He said His Church would be built on.

I don’t disagree. I think, as you know we do, RebeccaJ, that Peter was the first “president” or “pope” of the church. I don’t doubt that.

And regardless of what you think, I have resolved not to be argumentative. I am really looking to clarify my own understanding of this scripture.

I agree that Jesus is the gate to salvation. I agree that that gate is not the same gate as at Caesari Phillipi.

But it doesn’t say that SATAN will not prevail against the church, it says that the gates will not hold against the church’s attack against the gates.

If the Lord meant that satan would not prevail against the church, why didn’t he say so instead of saying that the gates would not prevail (hold) against the church’s attack?

Gates prevail by being impenetrable, not by getting up and attacking. People attack, not gates. So not prevailing, for a gate, means that it WAS penetrable.

The gate (as a barrier) did not prevail-- it opened up and allowed people through.

If satan was to come out of the gates, then it should say that satan would not prevail. It doesn’t say that.

I agree that the Lord turned the flock over to Peter.

 

[SimonArizona]

I don’t disagree. I think, as you know we do, RebeccaJ, that Peter was the first “president” or “pope” of the church. I don’t doubt that.

And regardless of what you think, I have resolved not to be argumentative. I am really looking to clarify my own understanding of this scripture.

I agree that Jesus is the gate to salvation. I agree that that gate is not the same gate as at Caesari Phillipi.

But it doesn’t say that SATAN will not prevail against the church, it says that the gates will not hold against the church’s attack against the gates.

If the Lord meant that satan would not prevail against the church, why didn’t he say so instead of saying that the gates would not prevail (hold) against the church’s attack?

Gates prevail by being impenetrable, not by getting up and attacking. People attack, not gates. So not prevailing, for a gate, means that it WAS penetrable.

The gate (as a barrier) did not prevail-- it opened up and allowed people through.

If satan was to come out of the gates, then it should say that satan would not prevail. It doesn’t say that.

I agree that the Lord turned the flock over to Peter.

Gates isn’t the best translation. Don’t pit your argument on the KJV “gates.” Is is not “the nether world” will not prevail against it?

Of course it means the devil, evilo, wickedness, etc.

If you want the correct translation, then it is best to learn how the early Christians understood it to mean. Jesus will be with his Church “all days” until the end, and the Holy Spirit will lead us into “all the truth.”