Challenges to Peter's authority

  • Thread starter Thread starter wyam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wyam

Guest

I was recently sent a number of posts from another forum concerning the authority of Peter. If anyone wishes to help me answer these charges, any advice would be appreciated.
Here is the first post:​

Let’s look at the “binding and loosing” authority you’ve been told was given only to Peter and then handed off to your popes.

Rome bases this doctrine on Matthew 16:19 where Jesus said “…and I will give unto thee the keys OF (not to) the kingdom of heaven”. These keys were to be given at a future unspecified date. These weren’t physical keys to heaven. They were keys OF or about the kingdom.

First, Peter was not alone with Jesus at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus was speaking to the group to which Christ had addressed his initial question, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?” At the end of the episode our Lord admonished ALL the disciples to keep secret His identity. He was also speaking to ALL of them when he promised the keys and dispensing of binding and loosing authority.

In Mark 4:11 He told His Apostles “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without (the religious Jews) all these things are done in parables.” Peter refers to this mystery in 1 Peter 1:12. Acts 1:6 shows us that Jesus purpose was still shrouded in mystery even after he’d Risen from the dead. The Apostles asked Him if he was now going to “restore again the kingdom of Israel”. They still didn’t understand that Jesus wasn’t a political Messiah as the Jews had been expecting. The keys to understanding were given as promised at Pentecost. The fulfillment came when Peter and 119 OTHERS assembled and all were indwelt and filled with Christ’s Holy Spirit. They then understood the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and used them to bring at least 8000 souls to Christ. They brought 5000 more to Christ 3 days later. Rome’s claim to exclusive ownership of them are exposed as mere boasts and bluster by the pronoun “WHOSOEVER” fou!
nd in John 3:16, John 11:26, Acts 2:21, etc. The keys to the kingdom of heaven are not hanging on a gold chain around the Pope’s neck. They are in the hearts of all believers who have a burden for saving souls.

Matthew 16:19 goes on to say “…whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Rome says this gives Peter exclusive powers to bind and loose. What Rome ignores is that Peter was not the only one present, nor was he the only one being spoken to. Jesus was speaking to all those gathered there.

This is confirmed in Chapter 18 in Capernaum in Galilee. The Lord instructs his disciples how to deal with a brother who has committed a trespass against another. He gives several steps to go through, the last being to take the matter before the whole church. If that fails, Jesus says “…if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.

Rome stops reading here and they shouldn’t.

Matthew 18:18 “Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Clearly, Peter was not the only one given the binding/loosing authority, and neither was it limited to our Lord’s immediate disciples. Verse 20 extends the authority to any two or three individuals who assemble in Christ’s name and in His spiritual presence. Each Christian fellowship enjoys the right to bind and loose in accordance with sound biblical doctrine and practices.​

Thanks for any help

wyam
 
Jesus established His Church on earth. Scripture lets us know in no uncertain terms who was put in charge. Rather than answering each redundant point, let’s let Scripture answer the question. First, go to a Bible web site, make sure it is Non Catholic site (we don’t want a slanted view), use www.bible.com, it has a fairly good search engine and is most assuredly non-Catholic. Do a bible search for the names of the ORIGINAL Apostles. Do not include Paul; since in the early days he was not only not an Apostle, and could not have been the first “leader”, he was persecuting the Church. Type in each name of the original Apostles (keep in mind same names) and write down how many times each name appears in the NT, leave Peter for last. When you search for Peter, you will find he is in more passages than all the others combined, but, that just means he was more important, not necessarily the leader. So, read those passages about Peter, every one of them. There is no doubt who the first leader was. Who did Paul come to when he went to the Church for acceptance? None other than Peter, but no, Peter wasn’t the leader… much… LOL
BTW understand why this is so important to the protestant, if the pope is in fact the leader of the Church Jesus established ALL of their authority is false. it’s a really big deal, they are in the wrong Church if the pope is who we, Scripture, and history, say he is.
 
40.png
wyam:
Matthew 16:19 goes on to say “…whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Rome says this gives Peter exclusive powers to bind and loose. What Rome ignores is that Peter was not the only one present, nor was he the only one being spoken to. Jesus was speaking to all those gathered there.
Click to expand...
If one looks carefully at the underlying Greek, this “thou,” is singular, not plural.
This is confirmed in Chapter 18 in Capernaum in Galilee. The Lord instructs his disciples how to deal with a brother who has committed a trespass against another. He gives several steps to go through, the last being to take the matter before the whole church. If that fails, Jesus says “…if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.
Click to expand...
…where the “you” is plural.
 
OK Here goes: Your interlocutor’s statements in italics, mine in regular type. I will have to submit in two segments because of the length.

Let’s look at the “binding and loosing” authority you’ve been told was given only to Peter and then handed off to your popes.

The expression, “handed off,” betrays an antecedent hostility rather than an open and objective mind. But we’re used to it, and your misconceptions are common enough and dangerous enough to require careful answers; I hope I can help clarify the Catholic position.

*Rome bases this doctrine on Matthew 16:19 where Jesus said “…and I will give unto thee the keys OF (not to) the kingdom of heaven”. *
The distinction between “of” and “to” escapes me in this context; please clarify.

*These keys were to be given at a future unspecified date. *
Would this affect the case? If Jesus is God, we can presume that he will do what he says he will do, and since in this passage he promises to build his Church (not “churches”) upon the rock of Peter, the “keys” are part of the plan for his church. So the “future” is Pentecost.

*These weren’t physical keys to heaven. *

Exactly. Such a claim would be fatuous.

They were keys OF or about the kingdom.

Exactly. You seem to be arguing my side of the question.

First, Peter was not alone with Jesus at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus was speaking to the group to which Christ had addressed his initial question, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?” At the end of the episode our Lord admonished ALL the disciples to keep secret His identity. He was also speaking to ALL of them when he promised the keys and dispensing of binding and loosing authority.
No. The Greek word is in the dative singular. “To thee” – and since Jesus is speaking to Peter, it can only be Peter to whom this particular privilege applies. It has nothing to do with admonishing all of them to keep his identity secret.

In Mark 4:11 He told His Apostles “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without (the religious Jews) all these things are done in parables.” Peter refers to this mystery in 1 Peter 1:12
I am mystified by this quote and the reference to I Peter 1:12; please clarify their relevance here and how they explicate the matter of the keys?

*Acts 1:6 shows us that Jesus purpose was still shrouded in mystery even after he’d Risen from the dead. The Apostles asked Him if he was now going to “restore again the kingdom of Israel”. They still didn’t understand that Jesus wasn’t a political Messiah as the Jews had been expecting.

*Another red herring.

*The **keys to understanding were given as promised at Pentecost.

*Nowhere in my Bible does any statement of this kind appear. On what grounds (other than the a priori rejection of the Catholic Church) does one accept this interpretation of Pentecost?

*The fulfillment came when Peter and 119 OTHERS assembled and all were indwelt and filled with Christ’s Holy Spirit. They then understood the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and used them to bring at least 8000 souls to Christ. They brought 5000 more to Christ 3 days later. *
Why do you assume that the spiritual gifts of Pentecost are the same as the gift of the Holy Spirit in John 20:23? The spiritual gifts of John 20:23 relate to the disciples assembled on Easter Sunday. Why would there be two events for the same thing?

*Rome’s claim to exclusive ownership of them are exposed as mere boasts and bluster by the pronoun “WHOSOEVER” fou! *

Here you challenge the authority of Scripture. The King James Translation says “Whose so ever.”

(to be continued)
 
*and in John 3:16, John 11:26, Acts 2:21, etc.

*Please demonstrate how these scripture citations have anything to do with the issue. For example, Acts 2:21 is actually in apparent conflict with Mt. 7:21 "not every one who says to me "lord, lord . . "

*The keys to the kingdom of heaven are not hanging on a gold chain around the Pope’s neck. *
Has anyone ever said they were?

They are in the hearts of all believers who have a burden for saving souls.
We all share in the burden of saving souls. Why is it necessary to appropriate the specific power of the keys as warrant for this?

*Matthew 16:19 goes on to say “…whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Rome says this gives Peter exclusive powers to bind and loose. What Rome ignores is that Peter was not the only one present, nor was he the only one being spoken to. Jesus was speaking to all those gathered there*.

This is addressed above. The pronoun “to you” is singular.

**This is confirmed in Chapter 18 in Capernaum in Galilee. The Lord instructs his disciples how to deal with a brother who has committed a trespass against another. He gives several steps to go through, the last being to take the matter before the whole church. If that fails, Jesus says “…if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”*.

*Very good point. But the Church has always taught that the power of the keys, entrusted to Peter, is shared by the whole Church through the Apostles (bishops) in union with the bishop of Rome:

CCC #553: Jesus entrusted this authority [to bind and loose] to the Church** through the ministry of the apostles **and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (Emphasis added)

Rome stops reading here and they shouldn’t.

Statements of this kind seriously undermine your credibility. It can be asserted without reservation that Rome actually reads the Bible more globally, with far greater particularity, and with greater humility than any other ecclesial body. I would guess that you are unaware that the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy originated in the Catholic Church.

**Matthew 18:18 “Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.*”

*The subject in this passage is prayer. The Lord is present to us in many ways. Our discussion is about the power of the keys.

*Clearly, Peter was not the only one given the binding/loosing authority, and neither was it limited to our Lord’s immediate disciples.

You are correct that the power of the keys resides beyond the person of Peter, although not because of the the Scriptural passages you cite. The power of the keys is handed on through the church via the apostles* in communion with Rome** as stated in the Catechism and cited above.

Verse 20 extends the authority to any two or three individuals who assemble in Christ’s name and in His spiritual presence. Each Christian fellowship enjoys the right to bind and loose in accordance with sound biblical doctrine and practices.
If this is so, then why are there 30,000 different Protestant denominations, each claiming to preach the true gospel, each claiming authority to interpret scripture? How does this answer our Lord’s prayer that “they all might be one?”
 
The Pope represents Christ on Earth,

The Pope’s authority is real and binding,

Unity rests on acceptance of the Pope’s authority,

Every break from papal authority is a break from the Church

Check out: The Papacy and Infallibility

ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS4.HTM
 
The significance of Jesus’ words to Peter in Matt 16:18-19 are properly understood in light of Isaiah 22:15-25.

Isaiah: “I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David.”
Matthew: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

Isaiah: “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
Matthew: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah: “I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.”
Matthew: “I tell you, you are Peter [Greek: Rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Because of these parallels, one can to see that in Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus was clearly alluding to Isaiah 22:15-25. And in Isaiah 22, the Lord was talking about the office of chief steward, the “steward …who is over the household”, in King Hezekiah’s kingdom. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that Jesus was making Peter his chief steward, the steward over the household of God, the Church. This conclusion is confirmed in Luke 12:41-47, when Jesus tells Peter that he “is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time,” another clear allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25.

An interesting aside…Isaiah 22:21 says of the man in the office of chief steward, “he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” The chief steward of Jesus’ kingdom is affectionately called “Holy Father” or “Pope” by Catholic Christians. Pope is from papas (Greek: father).
 
40.png
wyam:
Let’s look at the “binding and loosing” authority you’ve been told was given only to Peter and then handed off to your popes.

Rome bases this doctrine on Matthew 16:19
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking the Church doesn’t “base” any teaching on the bible since her teachings predates the bible. For a teaching to be based on the bible the bible would have to predate the teaching, which we know of often the case in Protestantism.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
" on this rock i will build my church", “the gates of hades will not overcome it”, “i will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”,“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” these four promises are in the second person singular.nowhere else does jesus extend all four of these promises to the other disciples. bless you :amen:
 
You may also want to remind them that that Jesus told the Apostles that He would always be with the Apostles (Matthew 28:20); that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth and be with them always ((John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13); that they speak with the authority of God (Matthew 10:20; Luke 10:1; Luke 10:16); they will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26; Luke 21:33); they will never teach erroneous doctrine (John 17:17-19); they would be one in the doctrine they teach (John 17:20-23), that they have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23); that God will give them whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16).

And then invite them to see what the guys who learned the faith directly from the Apostles said about the authority of the sucessor to St. Peter.

This is a great trap. Once I started reading the early church fathers, being a Protestant was history for me.
 
Let me start out by saying that the post you shared with us was so rediculous that I could not even stand to read anymore than the first few paragraphs! I don’t mean to be rude or uncharitable but that post showed nothing but pure ignorance!

“these arent physical keys” - well who said that they were, the mere mention of this as an argument against Catholicism is laughable. So according to him nothing was given to Peter, Jesus was just joshing! Ok that is pretty compelling exegeses.

“Jesus wasn’t just talking to Peter, the other disciples were around” -Yes He was OBVIOUSLY just talking to Peter, He had just finished saying " you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Not to mention the fact that “I will give unto thee” is singular and not plural.

This guy has a long way to go before he is going to be winning any apologetics debates!! 🙂
 
40.png
martino:
This guy has a long way to go before he is going to be winning any apologetics debates!! 🙂
Click to expand...
Sometimes we can be impatient with what, to us, appear to be fatuous challenges. But it isn’t about winning debates. It is about winning souls to the full embrace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ in his Holy Church.
 
You know the catholic postion is right in any cartoon Peter is holding the keys to heaven.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Sometimes we can be impatient with what, to us, appear to be fatuous challenges. But it isn’t about winning debates. It is about winning souls to the full embrace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ in his Holy Church.
Click to expand...
I sort of think that it is about winning debates, but only ***if you are in a debate! ***That is sort of the idea behind debating. Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you are saying in a general sense, but when we are debating non-Catholics it is reasonable that we try and win.

Don’t forget that although some things are matters of debate that should be discussed with openness towards others differing perceptions, some other things are actually matters of fact and should be treated as such. To allow someone to ignore an obvious truth because it doesn’t fit his or her theological ideology would be rediculous. I realize that I may sound narrow minded or whatever but I have not yet become so politically correct that I am afraid to expose a lie as a lie or a false statement as false. If someone tells me the sky is green I wouldn’t say, “oh, well it doesnt’ really look green to me but I could be wrong and since it appears so to you then I think maybe it just could be green after all.” Since I have 20/20 vision I instantly know that this person is either lying or color blind, but either way, it does neither of us any good to accept his claim and leave him in ignorance.

I know that probably wasn’t the best analogy in the world but heck, it’s all I got right now! 🙂
 
Todd Easton:
The significance of Jesus’ words to Peter in Matt 16:18-19 are properly understood in light of Isaiah 22:15-25.

Isaiah: “I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David.”
Matthew: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

Isaiah: “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
Matthew: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah: “I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.”
Matthew: “I tell you, you are Peter [Greek: Rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
Click to expand...
Because of these parallels, one can to see that in Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus was clearly alluding to Isaiah 22:15-25. And in Isaiah 22, the Lord was talking about the office of chief steward, the “steward …who is over the household”, in King Hezekiah’s kingdom. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that Jesus was making Peter his chief steward, the steward over the household of God, the Church. This conclusion is confirmed in Luke 12:41-47, when Jesus tells Peter that he “is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time,” another clear allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25.

An interesting aside…Isaiah 22:21 says of the man in the office of chief steward, “he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” The chief steward of Jesus’ kingdom is affectionately called “Holy Father” or “Pope” by Catholic Christians. Pope is from papas (Greek: father).

In Genesis 45:8, “Not by your council was I sent hither, but by the will of God: who has made me as it were a father to Pharoa, and lord of his whole house, and govenor in all the land of Egypt”.
The idea of having a steward over the whole household is an ancient middle eastern tradition. In Genesis 15.2, “And Abram said,”: Lord God, what will thou give me? I shall go without children: and the son of the steward of my house is this Damascus Eliezer’ " and 24.2 "And he said to the elder servant of his house, who was ruler over all he had: ‘Put thy hand under my thigh’ ". The household of Abraham prefigures the “Household of God”, which is the Church, 1Tim 3:15. Of all the people professing to be “children of Abraham” , there is only one institution on the face of this earth that has this steward over it. The Jews don’t have it neither do the Muslims or the Orhtodox churches, certainly not the Protestants. Not even so-called “tradionalist Catholics” have it. Only the Catholic Church has this “steward”, and he’s out there for the whole world to see, in the person of John Paul II.
 
There’s a James White fan in the “Jame White Debate” thread who says that Peter “doesn’t” have “the keys of the kingdom” because our Lord has them as He himself says in Rev. 3:7 “‘To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: “The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this…”’”

How do we respond to that?

Shalom, amen.
 
40.png
martino:
I sort of think that it is about winning debates, but only ***if you are in a debate! ***That is sort of the idea behind debating. Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you are saying in a general sense, but when we are debating non-Catholics it is reasonable that we try and win.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it more about planting seeds than winning debates?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Anybody notice that WYAM appears to have posted his question and then disappeared? What’s with that?
 
40.png
preyoflove:
There’s a James White fan in the “Jame White Debate” thread who says that Peter “doesn’t” have “the keys of the kingdom” because our Lord has them as He himself says in Rev. 3:7 “‘To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: “The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this…”’”

How do we respond to that?

Shalom, amen.
Click to expand...
Since the keys are not physical keys but rather symbolic of authority (Isaiah 22:22) I’d ask him to demonstrate from scripture that Jesus cannot give the keys to someone while still, untimately, retaining them himself.

I’d also ask him to demonstrate from scripture that Jesus sometimes fails to keep his promises. Jesus SAID that he was going to give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter, therefore we can know that he DID give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter because he always keeps his promises.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top