Matthew 16:18 controversy

[Gingersnaps4]

Then Bible says that Jesus said more things outside of the Bible that Couldn’t be contained in a book, and that we are to hold to the teachings taught by word as well as in writing. I don’t understand why some are so hung up on what the Bible says, when the church predates it by a long shot.

From the very beginning, the people in the early church created the structure we still have today, including the fact that whoever occupied the chair of Peter, and his successors, were the head of the Church. Have you read the writings of ignatius and others of the early church? Do you think that right after Christ died, people that were taught directly by Him, or taught by an apostle of His, were already disobeying Him and just doing whatever they wanted? Or is it more likely that they were doing what Christ had instructed them to do??

I could be mistaken about this but wasn’t the Primacy of the seat of Rome/Peter recognized by other churches by the 1st century? Christianity was illegal (thus underground) in Rome until Constantine legalized it around the year 300 and they could Worship openly. I believe that if Peter had ended up somewhere else, the head of the church would be somewhere else, so “Rome” is incidental in all of this. The head of the church being in Rome was there from the very humble, beginning.

 

[Zaccheus]

AugustTherese:

Want to become like God?.. God really didn’t say you would be cut off. Rather, your eyes will be open.

Isn’t that what the serpent said to Eve? Hmmm.

I’m pretty sure that was AugustTherese’s point.

 

[po18guy]

As to the assertion int he thread title, there is no - has never been - “controversy” regarding Petrine primacy. There was none in the first 400 years of the Church. Even after that, the Church was unified until a few blunders caused the east-west schism.

I note that “controversy” is distinctly similar to “contrived.” Rightly so.

 

[Gorgias]

Well if you are still talking about Matthew 16:18, the text says nothing about any office to do anything.

Psst… open your Bible for a second, and turn to Mt 16:19. “I will give to you the keys to the kingdom.” Now, take a look at the footnote citation on that verse, and look at the bottom of the page to see what verse is being referenced. (It’s Isaiah 22:22, in case you don’t have a Bible handy right now.)

Take a look at Isaiah 22:22 – the ‘key’ is the symbol of authority for the king’s prime minister. That’s the position Jesus is creating for Peter… and not only the Biblical text, but Jesus’ own words testify to it!

Eliakim was the grandson of the master to Hezekiah: house in the line of Judah. I don’t get it.

Clearly. In Isaiah 22:22, the Davidic king gives “the keys to the kingdom” to Eliakim, who (by virtue of this grant of authority) becomes the Prime Minister.

That’s precisely the claim we make about Peter (and therefore, about the papacy).

 

[spina1953]

Matt. 16:18 shows Jesus spoke to the Apostles asking “ho do people say I am?” They said different things, then Jesus asked them “who do you say that I am?” Peter responded by say to Jesus “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” And Jesus said to Peter:“No man revealed this to you but my heavenly Father I for my part declare to you, you are Rock and on this rock I will build my CHurch and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will intrust to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Now non-Catholic’s say Peter is not the head of the Church nor a Pope. Or that the Church is just people gathered together not a building or authority. That the Bible never says anything about Peter being the Pope or the head of the Church. Now when the Apostles began to preach and teach the Good News, there was not New Testament that had been written for them to rely on. They did use the Old Testament Scriptures to show how Christ fulfilled what the Old Testament contained. If Matthew 16:18 is wrong then logic says that the Apostles misunderstood what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 which in turn makes all that is written in the New Testament suspect.

Consider this: if Jesus did not mean what the verse said in Matthew why then did not the rest of the Apostles say anything about it that is why Peter and not the rest of us? If it was meant for all of the Apostles to have what Jesus gave to Peter, why then did Matthew say to Peter alone instead of saying Jesus wanted all of the Apostles to be the rock that His Church would be built? There is nothing in Scripture: new Testament that contests Peter being given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven to bind and loose, and Matthew wrote it for a reason, to show that Peter is the leader and all of the Apostles were to defer to Peter, that it was to Peter alone to be the foundation stone, the Rock Christ’s Church would be built on with the rest of the Apostles supporting it.

The Gospels were written long after Christ ascended into heaven and were being passed around to the various Churches they founded. Also only a few of the Apostles ever wrote anything and most of the Apostles never wrote anything at all. Jesus never commanded the Apostles to write anything and the Apostles preached and taught orally for the most part Just as Jesus did. it was only in time that the Church decided what had been written and passed around was inspired writings and which were not. Otherwise we would have all sorts of writings saying all sort of different things.

Lastly, if Paul and other Apostles could make priests and Bishops to succeed them why not Peter?

 

[spina1953]

In Matthew 16:18 where Jesus named Simon Peter; Rock and that he was going to build His Church upon Peter to bind and loose, Jesus was giving Peter the authority over all the Churches because the Churches would be built on the foundation of Peter, giving him the keys to bind and loose. Now in John 21:21 Jesus had rose from the dead and appearing to the Apostles he told them “As the Father has sent me so I send you” “Then he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit, If you forgive men’s sins they are forgiven them, If you hold them bound they are held bound.” Now if the keys were to be given to all of the Apostles and not just to Peter in Matthew 16:18 Would not Jesus have said so and not just say only to Peter? Jesus did give the Apostles the authority to give the sins of men in John 21:21 but Jesus said nothing about giving them the keys that he had given to Peter.

I think here in Matthew Jesus is saying that Peter is to be the leader and foundation of the Churches that would be built, while in John 21:21 Jesus is saying something different in the way of authority, that authority is to forgive sins or retain them, it has nothing to do with being given keys of authority to build Churches on them meaning that it is to Peter that all that Jesus taught and preached remained the same guiding the rest of the Apostles in what Jesus taught them. This does not mean that the rest of the Apostles had no authority at all or that they could not do anything without Peter, only that Peter had the final authority. It does seem to me in Acts that the Apostles deferred often to Peter and they also supported what Peter said as well as having their own authority granted them from Jesus separate from Peter’s that is while they all had the same authority to teach and preach and to forgive or retain the sinss of men to build Churches etc. Peter was the foundation on which all the Churches would be founded on supporting all the rest. So it seems clear to me that Peter was given a special role separate from the rest of the Apostles.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay… if this sinning brother is a brother in the Lord who had membership in a local Church, then take him before his Church and pastor. If he has no spiritual covering at all, then the passage does not apply to him. The passage is a general statement and does not offer specific answers to specific details.

 

[tgGodsway]

How exactly?.. here’s the problem. Peter’s instructions concerning the faith does not include what Rome says it includes. There is a glitch between what Peter has said and what Rome, years later said that Peter said. This is a huge discrepancy.

 

[tgGodsway]

I have no problem with Peter’s keys. But since this small metaphor is nowhere else in the entire bible, including the key of David passage, it is unwise to form such emphatic conclusions about what the keys mean as Rome did. I suspect that these keys have more to do with unlocking the kingdom of God through binding on earth and loosening on earth, as it is in heaven.

To unlock a kingdom truth was and still is accomplished by more than just Peter. But it is a stretch to read anything more into its meaning without qualifying words in the passage to support it. All of the disciples were commanded to bind and lose. In other words all of them were commanded to use these keys, though Mt. 16 doesn’t say that, Mt. 18 implies it.

 

[AugustTherese]

Okay… if this sinning brother is a brother in the Lord who had membership in a local Church, then take him before his Church and pastor. If he has no spiritual covering at all, then the passage does not apply to him. The passage is a general statement and does not offer specific answers to specific details.

Where can I find this “Church”? Can you give me a physical location; an address, or perhaps longitude and latitude?

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes, I was banned for two weeks for expressing theological opinions. I threatened no one. I used no fowl language toward anyone. I used no mockery towards anyone. I simply expressed a theological point of view. By the way, I have been on the receiving end of all of the above, but it seems to go unnoticed. If using the word ROME is a pejorative term to you, I will try to remember that, and not use it. I apologize if my use of the word has caused offence.

May God’s rich love and blessing be yours,
tgGodsway

 

[tgGodsway]

This is the problem with email and text messaging. You cannot read one’s intent or attitude through the words on the page.

I answer to many authorities over me and willingly submit to their guidance. This is not difficult for me because serving the body of Christ is enjoyable and fulfilling. I have not departed from the Apostolic Church. I spend much time on this site quoting from their writings trying to bring their point of view back into each theological discussion. Where is my humility? Humility should not be mistaken for gullibility. I can serve you with my whole heart, yet disagree with your view. When I serve you, I serve my Lord and savior.

 

[tgGodsway]

exnihilo, you said,

Jesus changes Peter’s name. He then says he will build his church on what? The rock. The rock could be the confession of faith. But it makes more sense that it is Peter, who Jesus just so named.

Why did you begin with Peter’s name change?.. This is not the beginning of thought in the context. Begin at verse 13 and read it through verse 20 the ending of the narrators thought. Jesus asked the question, who do men say that I, the son of men, am? This small element of thought was all about the identity of Christ. Peter just happen to know the right answer, "You are the Christ!.. to which Jesus responded “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father…” Then Jesus transitions back, almost to suggest giving Peter a reward for his enlightenment. “And I ALSO say to you…” in other words, Peter is not the only one who has something good to say, but because He is the Christ and Peter knows it, this will also effect Peter in a big way, "You are Petros, and upon this Petra (of truth and revelation just spoken) I will build MY Church.

To suggest that Christ would build His Church upon Peter (a sinful man) is a stretch and doesn’t fit the entire context of thought, seeing that verse 20 is a strict command to “NOT TELL” this profound truth!

What profound truth, that the Church is built on Peter?.. NO… that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[tgGodsway]

exnihilo, you said

How many times must Jesus say something before it becomes true? Think about the Bread of Life discourse. Jesus did say over and over that my flesh is real food which you must eat. And yet many turned away and even today many don’t accept this. So would repetition really matter if you have a firm belief that prohibits a particular understanding

No… I wasn’t talking about Jesus repeating himself. I was talking about other witnesses repeating what Jesus said. There is a difference. Other people, (from the same N.T.) repeating the words of Christ actually establishes what He said and confirms what He meant. The phrase, “keys to the kingdom” is NOT repeated by anyone in the entire New Testament, and, the entire bible. This narrow point matters when you are trying to find solidarity of doctrine.

If you build doctrine on an obscure and difficult passage without biblical confirmation, you have not arrived at a truth. Read Psalms 119:160, “The SUM of Thy word is Truth.” The word SUM there is an accounting term to mean “all the added parts.” When we add biblical voices to a particular passage, without contradiction, we arrive at a divine truth.

Lifting a passage out of its context and running to the goal line with it alone, is cheating, in God’s football game of divine truth. The Catholic Church did this, probably because they were not of a biblical mindset. They were Romans citizens far removed from biblical thought.

 

[Mintaka]

Seriously? The Catholic Church was Biblically-minded enough to provide you with the whole Bible, and to write and preserve the New Testament… but she wasn’t Biblically-minded enough to understand her own books?

Waaal, garsh, I guess we just had to wait around sucking our thumbs, until all the really smart people came around. On the Internet. Yup.

As it happens, there has been tons of discussion in the Catholic Church, from the earliest times on, about the connection of keys to the prime ministership of Israel, of keys to doors that are open or shut, of keys to chambers, and so on. There isn’t a subject of discussion or a story to be told that isn’t illustrated with a mosaic of Bible verses, demonstrating the connectivity of every part of the Bible.

If you were really interested, you could just start reading it all. Look under “patristics,” for example.

 

[MichaelP3]

Not to bud in but you are assuming the person you are conversing with accepts that premise. You should check why some people refer to that time as the EARLY church.

What do all of us know of the Bible authors… well what they wrote in the Bible. So there is no challenges there. As soon as you state a thing like The Catholic Church wrote the Bible you assume a premise and think you can carry on with the discussion. Now whether true or not, you can’t use that as proof of anything further before that has been agreed.

Get what I’m saying? Something like “proving” Mary was assumed to heaven wouldn’t have a proof that she was born without sin? You see that would first need to be discussed then.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m interested in finding the root of a matter. It is easy to ride the coattails of Apostolic authorship while centuries later contradict those same authors by adding either extra-biblical revelation, or poor hermeneutics to the old. You dismiss my point without addressing it. The issue of “Keys” is an obscure metaphor to which the Roman Catholic Church built an entire system of theological doctrine and religious order. This is a huge blunder in my humble opinion and violates the checks and balances required from scripture. 2nd Peter 1:20 and 2nd. Tim. 2:15 But if this does not matter to you, we don’t need to have any further conversation about it.
blessings.

 

[MichaelP3]

“Keys” is an obscure metaphor to which the Roman Catholic Church built an entire system of theological doctrine and religious order.

AND as I have heard. They don’t even need this book from which this verse comes which is quoted too many times and everything is based on. (Well even if it was true we have the Orthodox interpretations (what one would call the Petrine Controversy), the historical contradictions, was Peter ever in Rome, Papal elections and the Papal Veto, the dove on the shoulder election etc.)

 

[Debbie_Kono]

To unlock a kingdom truth was and still is accomplished by more than just Peter.

Hence 10’s of thousands of conflicting “denominations” and doctrines? Truth cannot, by it’s very nature be divided.

I was introduced to Christ by a Protestant ex-missionary. He knew the Bible really well and ignorant as I was in such things, mistook his knowledge for holiness. I remember early on asking him which “Church” had it right? OSAS or lose your salvation? And more importantly, how do we know? He said it didn’t matter. I asked him about Peter and the rock…wasn’t that the Catholic Church? Suddenly it mattered…because for certain, it was NOT the Catholic Church. The world hates the Catholic Church tg. And why shouldn’t it? She teaches we cannot divorce and remarry, we cannot contracept, we are under the pain of mortal sin to skip Mass, that there is no salvation outside the Church. And then take a look at Satan worshipers…their prize of all prizes is to get their filthy hands on the Holy Eucharist. Why? Because it’s true.

 

[MichaelP3]

Why do everyone (or a lot considering this site) think the world hates the CC. The CC claims to have 1/7 th of the world (about). The other 6/7th have muslims who hate a lot of things and probably Christians in general so th CC isn’t spacial here. The Hindus and Buddhists well I am inclined to think they dont care. So does this hate come all from the Protestants who most of them dont even know how to spell Catholic. Really what is with this hate talk? You have people here and there who hate stuff but really; claiming the entire world’s vengeance? That’s a bit over the top!