Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[Randy_Carson]

From your post #8

How can any of the things you posted deny the facts of what I am saying?

Simple.

The supremacy of the papacy was present all along. For example, Peter asserted that Judas must be replaced. Peter overturned circumcision. However, the fullness of the papacy did not come into view until circumstances required it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I see that you are. Here’s what you are missing:

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.”

Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

I’m familiar with this argumentation:

2 things are clearly missing:

1. James did not say: “Therefore, in accordance to Peter…”
2. Peter did not enter the judgement.

The rest is mental gymnastics.

The Western Church Bishops have spoken and we all agree with Dictatus Papae (~1090). There is no reason for me to jump hoops and try to present something that was just not there.

So I disagree with you.

 

[Denise1957]

Assuming He chose that imagery intentionally, how does that translate into papal supremacy that isn’t extant in the Church in Scripture (Acts, for example), or the early Church of the centuries following?

Even Nicaea 325 in canon 6 doesn’t come close to an implication of the supremacy we see claimed in the second millennium.

Jon

From Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma:

"(Pope) St. Clement I 90 (?)–99 (?)

The primacy of the Roman Pontiff

[From the letter to the Corinthians]

1. BECAUSE of the sudden calamities that have followed one another in turn and because of the adverse circumstances which have befallen us, we think, brethren, that we have returned too late to those matters which are being inquired into among you, beloved, and to the impious and detestable sedition…which a few rash and presumptuous men have aroused to such a degree of insolence that your honorable and illustrious name…is very much reviled…In order to remind you of your duty, we write…You, therefore, who have laid the foundations of this insurrection, be subject to obedience to the priests and receive correction unto repentence…But if some will not submit to them, let them learn what He (Christ) has spoken through us, that they will involve themselves in great sin and danger; we, however, shall be innocent of this transgression…Indeed you will give joy and gladness to us, if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union."

---

(Pope) St. Stephen I, 254-257

The Ecclesiastical hierarchy

[From the epistle to Fabius, bishop of Antioch 251]

“Therefore did not that famous defender of the Gospel [Novation] know that there ought to be one bishop in the Catholic Church [of the city of Rome]? It did not lie hidden from him (for how could it be concealed?) that in this there were forty-six priests, and fifty-two exorcists and lectors together with porters and more than a thousand five hundred widows and needy eunuchs.”

---

(Pope) St Julius I, 337-352

The primacy of the Roman Pontiff

[from the epistle to the Antiocenes, in the year 341]

“For if, indeed as you assert, some sin has risen among them, a judicial investigation ought to have been made according to the ecclesiastical canon, and not in this manner. Everyone should have written to us, in order that thus what was just might be decided by all; for the bishops were the ones who suffered, and it was not the ordinary churches that were harassed, but which the Apostles themselves governed in person. Yet why has nothing been written to us, especially regarding the Alexandrian church? Or do you not know that it is the custom to write to us first, and that here, what is just is decided? Certainly, if any suspicion of this nature did not fall upon the bishop of that city, the fact should have been written to this church.”

To be continued in another post…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Simple.

The supremacy of the papacy was present all along. For example, Peter asserted that Judas must be replaced. Peter overturned circumcision. However, the fullness of the papacy did not come into view until circumstances required it.

Like I said before, you have a compelling argument. I’d rather stay with the facts and not theories and presumptions.

The supremacy was not there all along, on the other hand - the primacy was. I have given you the documents and circumstances that enabled the supremacy. You, on the other hand, have presented compelling arguments in regards to why the Bishop of Rome did not exercised this supremacy as delineated in Dictatus Papae. That is my argumentation. Not against Primacy.

If you want to argue that the supremacy was present but not exercised, that is a compelling argument. But it does not go against the facts and documents I have presented.

 

[Denise1957]

Council of Serdicia 343-344

The primacy of the Roman Pontiff

“[Authentic text][Can.3] (isid.4) Caius the bishop said: That also, that a bishop may not cross from one province into another province, in which there are bishops, unless perchance on the invitation of his brothers, lest we seem to have shut the door of charity.–That too should be provided; if perchance in any province some bishop has a dipute with another bishop, let no one of the bishops summon a bishop from another province–But if any bishop has been judged in some case, and he thinks he has a good case, so that a new trial may be given, if it seems good to you, let us honor the memory of the most holy Apostle, PETER: either let those who have examined the case or the bishops who reside in the next province write to the Roman bishop; and if he should judge that the judicial investigation ought to be repeated, let it be repeated, and let him appoint judges. But if he should determine that the case is such, that what has been finished should not be reopened. Is this agreeable to all? The synod relied: It is agreeable.”

“4. Gaudentius the bishop said: If it is decided, we ought to add to this decision which you have offered full of pure charity: that, if a bishop has been deposed by the judgement of these bishops who are in the neighborhood, and he alleges that the business of defense will again fall upon himself, another may not be ordained to his office unless previously the bishop of Rome has come to a decision concerning him and has published his judgment.”

(Pope) St. Siricius 384-398

The primacy of the Roman Pontiff

[from the epistle (l) “Directa ad decessorem” to Himerius, bishop of Terracina, Feb. 10, 385]

“…To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed Apostle PETER bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs.”

 

[JonNC]

Thanks Jon.

Now, Im not sure how to articulate my question, but this is what im wondering…

In contrast to the beliefs of Confessional Lutheransim being closer to that of Eastern Orthodox, it seems that Luthernism is focussed more on eccumenical resolve with the Western Rite in Communion with the Papacy.

…or is this not an accurate impression I have?

It might be somewhat accurate. Anecdotally, it seems confessional Lutheran theologians/clergy, when they do convert, go east. Ex.: Jaroslav Pelikan.
When liberal leaning Lutherans convert, they seem to go to Rome. Ex.: Fr. Neuhaus

At the same time, however, we are western Christians. Our practices and traditions, as Lutherans, are western, and I think we just feel closer in terms of our roots.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12399019]Yes, I see that you are. Here’s what you are missing:

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

Is it ok for me to disagree with both positions?
Christ made it clear to the disciples that there was no “pecking order”. I do’t think James was in a superior position, any more than I believe the Catholic view of Peter as supreme. Isn’t conciliar the term the Orthodox use?

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Continued, from Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma:

(Pope) St. Innocent I 401-417

The Primacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff

[From the epistle (29) “In requirendis” to the African bishops, Jan. 27, 417

“In seeking the things of God…preserving the examples of ancient tradition…you have strengthened the vigor of your religion…with true reason, for you have confirmed that reference must be made to our judgment, realizing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle, from whom the episcopate itself and all the authority of this name have emerged. Following him we know how to condemn evils just as (well as how) to approve praiseworthy things. Take this as an example, guarding with your sacerdotal office the practices of your fathers you resolve that (they) must not be trampled upon, because they made their decisions not by human, but by divine judgment, so that they thought that nothing whatever, although it concerned separated and remote provinces, should be concluded, unless it first came to the attention of this See, so that what was a just proclamation might be confirmed by the total authority of this See. and from this source (just as all waters proceed from their natal fountain and through diverse regions of the whole world remain pure liquids of an uncorrupted source), the other churches might assume what [they ought] to teach, whom they ought to wash, those whom the water of clean bodies would shun though defiled with filth incapable of being cleansed”

---

(Pope) St Zosimus 417-418

The primacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff

[from the epistle (12) “Quanvis Patrum traditio” to the African bishops, March 21, 418

“Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, it has always preserved this [judgment] by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended…; since therefore PETER the head of the head of is such great authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified…by human as well as divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decisions, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters…not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing…”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m familiar with this argumentation:

2 things are clearly missing:

1. James did not say: “Therefore, in accordance to Peter…”
2. Peter did not enter the judgement.

You mean other than:

Acts 15:7-11
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

The rest is mental gymnastics.

Gymnastics which some of the greatest minds in human history have practiced. But whatever.

THIS thread is about the re-establishment of the office of the Royal Steward by the heir to the Davidic throne, Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like I said before, you have a compelling argument. I’d rather stay with the facts and not theories and presumptions.

The supremacy was not there all along, on the other hand - the primacy was. I have given you the documents and circumstances that enabled the supremacy. You, on the other hand, have presented compelling arguments in regards to why the Bishop of Rome did not exercised this supremacy as delineated in Dictatus Papae. That is my argumentation. Not against Primacy.

If you want to argue that the supremacy was present but not exercised, that is a compelling argument. But it does not go against the facts and documents I have presented.

Fine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is it ok for me to disagree with both positions?
Christ made it clear to the disciples that there was no “pecking order”. I do’t think James was in a superior position, any more than I believe the Catholic view of Peter as supreme. Isn’t conciliar the term the Orthodox use?

Jon

No, Jon, that isn’t really an option, and here’s why: Jesus never said that no one would rule in the kingdom of God (Church).

What He said was that the one who does rule must do so as a servant.

Human frailty being what it is, we both know that not all popes have served as well as they should (though to be fair, I think we’d have to concede that a good number of them have worked VERY hard on behalf of and in the service of the Church).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You mean other than:

Acts 15:7-11
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Still absent.

Gymnastics which some of the greatest minds in human history have practiced. But whatever.

Whatever!?

Precisely why they can perform better routines than you and me

THIS thread is about the re-establishment of the office of the Royal Steward by the heir to the Davidic throne, Jesus.

Au revior

 

[rcwitness]

Another straw man.
Where did I say the Pope wasn’t there?

What we need to focus on is the facts. The fact is that there has been developments that didn’t exist for a thousand years. Us, as Catholics, tooting the Pope as if it’s something that has always been present since the beginning is as naive as Protestants tooting Sola Scriptura. We are both wrong to that effect.

 

[JonNC]

No, Jon, that isn’t really an option, and here’s why: Jesus never said that no one would rule in the kingdom of God (Church).

What He said was that the one who does rule must do so as a servant.

So, the conciliar model, which seems to have been the early Church’s model isn’t an option, Randy? That seems to be an untenable position.

In the Orthodox Church, however, conciliarism is both ancient tradition and vigorously current. Conciliarism is the belief that the Church did and should govern herself via synods of bishops (including ecumenical councils, when necessary) rather than the authority of a single bishop. This decentralized polity directly opposes the Pope’s claim to supremacy as well as challenges Rome’s reading of Church history. According to Roman Catholics, the pope is the sole head of the Church, mouthpiece of God, and as vicar Christi the arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy. Rome’s claim is that the pope always acted above and independently of the Church even during the first millennium, and the rest of the Church obeyed his direction. This claim is both historically and theologically unsound, for reasons we shall cover here in brief, but of course could be detailed far more voluminously.

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/06/18/the-conciliar-mystery-the-orthodox-theology-of-polity/

Human frailty being what it is, we both know that not all popes have served as well as they should (though to be fair, I think we’d have to concede that a good number of them have worked VERY hard on behalf of and in the service of the Church).

ISTM this is precisely the reason why the councils should be, as it was, the authority, not one single bishop, even the one who clearly has primacy.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Universal supreme immediate jurisdiction is not there. Acts 15 clearly demonstrating its absence. The first 7 ecumenical councils also attest to this.

Just because Peter didnt NEED to use his authority to the extent of “supremacy” does NOT equate to its absence.

Peter happened to be a “faithfull and wise steward” who did not abuse his office. To excessively lord his possition over the council in Acts 15 would have been wrong and caused ill feelings among his brothers. What he did say, however, was that Jesus chose him to speak vicariously for Jesus. He distinguished his appointing among them all as being authoritative over them. This is in a way, alluding to a “certain kind of” supremacy. Its not that he himself is supreme, by his own virtues. No that would be a terrible mistake. Peter as a human man was in equal standing with all believing Christians.

Peter’s office contains supreme, with immediate and universal jurisdictional authority. The man sitting in this office posseses these charisms while he is in this office.

I look at things this way. The authority of the chief steward among the apostles has always had the power to excecute immediate UJ over the whole Church. In the first generation, there were 12 core Apostles who were with Jesus from beginning to end. These men had a primary work of establishing the “foundation” of the whole Church. Other generations would contribute in the developing body of Christ on earth in their times. Peter, as chief steward, excersized his office in as much was necessary to build up the Church. Remember, the early Church was under strong persecution. If certain depths of the papacy were delivered, dont you think that the enemy would have siezed on the leaders all the more? Yet, it wasnt until Constantine that Christianity was delivered from political and physical persecution. Then the Church was able to openly and constructively formulate doctrine regarding many things, including the office of Pope. But, before ramming the doctrines of supreme, universal jurisdiction into doctrine, other stabalizing doctrines were important, so as not to allow the pope to undo what was already established. The Church herself meanwhile, has developed into something quite different, in some ways, as the mere numbers which existed during Peter’s reign. So with greater distance and numerous parishes, and diocesese came the important reminder to bind the Church Universal to “a Universal Teaching”.

All this being said, there are probably very few instances (and as we all have tended to agree, much better in these later times) which the pope has acted in complete solidarity, outside the core (agreed majority) of Bishops. The days of a political charged Church were the most complicated, i suppose.

I really dont think this is mental gymnastics, but my simple way of looking at a larger picture.

I might even use this verse to show the point…

**Isaiah 45:9 **(RSVCE)

9 “Woe to him who strives with his Maker,
an earthen vessel with the potter![a]
Does the clay say to him who fashions it, ‘What are you making?’
or ‘Your work has no handles’?

The Church can be seen as the vessel, which in the early days did not have the same form as today, and maybe during certain times looked awkward. But do we say to the potter, “Why does your steward look like this?”

 

[rcwitness]

In The Council of Jerusalem, we do not see a rejection of Peter’s office. Instead, we see that after much debate, apparently even among the Apostles, Peter did not ask for a vote, but drew on his appointing as the steward of the Church to deliver what was to be the direction of the Church concerning the matter at hand. Then, everyone fell silent.

St James gave his assent and “judgment” (which in context is more his opinion that he agrees with the decision Peter made) to write in letter the decision, and what to refrain from.

I believe this council leans more in support of supreme authority regarding Peter, than a collective (name removed by moderator)ut which ultimately resolved the debate.

St James did not seem to need Peter’s supreme, immediate and universal authority to believe, yet the council certainly did. There may have been a split in the Church at this point otherwise. (BTW, im a huge fan of James… his epistle is extremely wise and a breath of fresh air after reading so much St Paul. He speaks plainly, yet from above:thumbsup

It also raises the question, “Why didnt Jesus give them all this simple Teaching while with them for 3 yrs?” Or after His resurrection for that matter. Why establish it through Peter’s mouth?

In part, I think He did, but not in a direct manner.

Also, the Teaching of papal supreme, immediate and universal jurisdiction should not be cause of scandal, because it does not mean that all faith and divine revelation comes through this office. Nor does it mean that what the Church Teaches as part of the official Deposit of Faith came through the popes only. But it means the pope’s place in the leadership of the Universal Church, has a supreme charism of Confirmation to all the faithfull.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, the conciliar model, which seems to have been the early Church’s model isn’t an option, Randy? That seems to be an untenable position.

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/06/18/the-conciliar-mystery-the-orthodox-theology-of-polity/

ISTM this is precisely the reason why the councils should be, as it was, the authority, not one single bishop, even the one who clearly has primacy.

Jon

What verses do you have to support a conciliar model that we can compare with my verses that support the Royal Steward model?

Jesus didn’t say, “No one should want to be first.” Instead, He describe HOW anyone who wants that position should behave.

Mark 9:35
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Again, Jesus did not say, “No one should want to be great or first”; instead, He taught us what true greatness and true primacy looks like:

Matthew 20:25-28
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Thus far, no one has offered a single substantive argument against my position that the perpetual office of Royal Steward was re-established by Jesus who conveyed the keys of that office to Peter.

Maybe no one can.

 

[Kliska]

What verses do you have to support a conciliar model that we can compare with my verses that support the Royal Steward model?

Jesus didn’t say, “No one should want to be first.” Instead, He describe HOW anyone who wants that position should behave.

Mark 9:35
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Again, Jesus did not say, “No one should want to be great or first”; instead, He taught us what true greatness and true primacy looks like:

Matthew 20:25-28
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Thus far, no one has offered a single substantive argument against my position that the perpetual office of Royal Steward was re-established by Jesus who conveyed the keys of that office to Peter.

Maybe no one can.

I don’t have a dog in the fight in this thread, but some questions for you, just for interest sake so I can understand your position, Randy;

1. Do you contend the only keys referenced in scripture were “David’s Steward’s keys?”
2. Do you contend that Jesus is right now sitting on David’s throne?
3. The Keys given were going to be used to open and shut and open and shut and open and shut and open an shut on and on throughout the history of the church?
4. What precisely do you think the keys were opening and shutting and for whom?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

rcwitness:
In its present form Michael. Let’s stay within context please.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t have a dog in the fight in this thread, but some questions for you, just for interest sake so I can understand your position, Randy;

1. Do you contend the only keys referenced in scripture were “David’s Steward’s keys?”

I contend that Jesus intentionally invoked the passage from Isaiah 22 when he conveyed the keys of the kingdom to Peter in Matthew 16. In doing so, Jesus used language with meaning that would have been unmistakable to his Jewish audience.

1. Do you contend that Jesus is right now sitting on David’s throne?

I contend that scripture records the following:

Luke 1:30-33
30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

1. The Keys given were going to be used to open and shut and open and shut and open and shut and open an shut on and on throughout the history of the church?

As long as we agree on what “open and shut” means, yes.

1. What precisely do you think the keys were opening and shutting and for whom?

I will answer this question in a separate post due to the length of my response.