Protestants: What do you think of Matthew 16:18?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Read Matthew 16:19 reveals Jesus “I will give YOU (Peter) the keys to the Kingdom of heaven” with authority to use these keys “What YOU bind and bind and loose on earth”.

Now you relate Jesus making a promise here, not giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter from this text. Sola Scriptura teaches here from Jesus own words “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”.

Can you provide a scripture when Jesus never gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven? If there is can you provide Jesus never giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

I understand your interpretation as relating this to a promise from Jesus, but promise is never mentioned here, only “I will give you the keys”.

What is difficult from your interpretation is that you have not given an answer to when the keys are given to Peter from Jesus, giving the false impression as if Jesus never gave Peter any keys just a promise to do so?

So would you agree Jesus after He resurrects from the dead and is going to prepare a place for you and me, stops and visits with Peter and the apostles and gives Peter “alone” while all apostles present, a command three times to “feed, tend, and teach His flock here on earth”. (See John 21;15-17) is placing the same authority over His (Jesus) Church on earth before Jesus ascends into heaven?

Let us deal with God will bind and loose in heaven what Peter binds and loose on earth.

“Matthew relates the Kingdom of God as to the Church to be the interim arrangement which mediates salvation in the time between the earthly ministry of Jesus and future coming of the kingdom” (See St. Jerome biblical commentary pg. 659, par.105).

The binding and loosing are biblical rabbincal terms used for one having the authority to bind the devil in excorcism (see R.H. Hiers, journal of biblical literature 104 (1985) pg. 233- 50). The first glimpse of this comes from verse 23, when Jesus teaches Peter’s own will conflicts with the will of God, and that to humble himself from pride, calling his pride “Satan” to “get behind Me”. We have Jesus already instructing the one whom he gave the keys and the authority to bind the evil one.

This binding and loosing continues in the (office) Chair of Peter who has (past tense) been given this power to conduct juridical acts of excommunication and definitive decision making within the confines of the Catholic “universal” Church.

Yes this power is also given to the other apostles, but it is to Peter alone is given over the whole flock of Jesus (John 21:15-17)

I have to thank you for your insights, I have never come across your interpretation before and am delighted to entertain such a mystical thought of a promise.

Peace be with you

SemperReformada;7691040]I’m not pretending. There is no verse that shows Peter actually receiving the keys is there? If there is provide it

.

 

[Sneakypete]

Maybe it’s a small point but in verse 19 we see the promise to give Peter the keys not the actual giving. The promise is in the future tense.

The power to bind and loose was given to all the apostles in Matt 18:18 so I’m not sure I see anything unique to Peter with the power to bind and loose.

I don’t doubt Peter’s primacy and actually am considering conversion but…still have a ways to go.

Hello Semper, I feel that I must join in here. First I pray that your consideration to convert is realized and that your consideration is aided by the answers to your questions here on this forum. It seems that things are getting a little heated in this discussion. However passion voiced by my fellow Catholics for the love of the Church has been stoked by the incessant attacks upon the Church by many of our non-Catholic brethren. We are called idol worshipers, Bible haters and unchristian to name a few. We have for a long time been non responsive to theses attacks and have prayed for those who attack us. Too often we as Catholics have been lax in studying the Bible as well as the Sacred Traditions which the Church has upheld for 2000 years. Now many of us are studying and we are addressing those who take pride in attacking the Church. We are opening their eyes to heretofore unknown facts and revelations of what the Church has stood for since its founding by Christ.
Ironically,many non-Catholics who made a regular habit of attacking the Catholic Church have come to a real revelation at the fullness of the truth that the Catholic Church has to offer and has taken that swim across the Tiber. Many of these converts have brought their extensive knowledge of Sacred Scriptures to a newer and more meaningful passion for Christ’s Church.
Sorry for the wordy background but I noticed that no-one has mentioned your interest in conversion. I am sure all my brothers and sisters here are praying for you. We just need to do a little more work on some things you may be misunderstanding. You specifically stated that the Bible does not state when Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Do you doubt that He did? Would Jesus have made such a statement if He hadn’t intended to do what He said He would do? No it is not stated but we believe Jesus did what He promised to do. So should you.
Does the Bible tell us that St Peter and St Paul were martyred? It gives us a hint that they would be martyred but the actual event and the mode of execution were never revealed. Does that invalidate the events? We know how they died and the manner in which they died from eyewitnesses and recorded by the Early Church Fathers. Does the fact that the events of their martyrdom are questionable because they are not mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures? Are we not comparing apples to apples here?
God bless you on your journey

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi, Sufjon, sorry for the long post, but there is so much to relate to these topics that are in need of clarification such as what are the **biblical meanings **of Church = body of Christ, Kingdom of heaven = Church both on earth and in heaven as one, binding and loosing = excorcism, and excommunication powers with juridical acts, definitive decision making and authoritative teaching office through legislation.

This has been revealed, recorded in all of Catholic history these past 2000 years since the resurrection.

I understand your comments from your view of the scripture. The view I hold is not my own, the interpretation of the Rock = (aramaic Kepha, Greek Cepha, Latin Petros, English Peter) dates back through history back to biblical times when the Words of our dear Lord spoke them.

The term Rock from other scriptures relate it directly to Jesus, to the Church as the Pillar and foundation of Truth (see 1Timothy 3:15), and all the apostles (see Ephesians 2:20), but it is here only in Matthew 16 that Jesus renames Simon bar Jona “Rock” = Peter. And it is upon This Rock = that Jesus is only referring to new named Rock = Peter that Jesus will build His Church.

This revelation of Jesus renaming Simon = Rock = Peter does not take away the fact that Jesus is the Rock of our salvation. Some fear, if they take Jesus at his words by renaming Simon to Rock, leads to the wrong impression that they have to deny Christ and follow the Peter, which this is never the interpretation. Jesus remains the Rock of our salvation.

Vs. 23, has Jesus teaching Peter humility although, Jesus just gave him power and authority with the keys in the kingdom from heaven. Peter responds to Jesus passion and death with pride in denouncing the Will of God by Peter’s own will to stop it. Jesus teaches Peter by calling his pride of “Satan” to “get behind me”, which opposses the Will of God. I believe and a good great many of scholars also, contend that Jesus reveals to Peter by humbling himself to the will of God, Peter is able to function with the keys in the kingdom of God by binding satan, and loosing his pride.

This teaching goes into much more depth in that, the Church continues to be persecuted not by the flesh we battle but by spirit against the evil powers and principlalities.

To note, there is nothing wrong with having a personal or private interpretation to scripture. Jesus reveals to us that it is Peter that teaches, tend and feeds the flock of Jesus Church is the teaching that I hold to.

Peace be with you

Sufjon;7691482]

Hi again Gabriel:

This is a rather long response, and of course you know from being on this forum that I cannot reply to each point because I will run our of room. Because f that, I will try to simplify back to my point. My observations were very simple. The OP asked what protestants thought of Matthew 16:18, which of course is the verse where Christ tells Peter about the rock on which He will build His Church. I am not new to CAF, so I am pretty sure that I know where the OP was going with that question. I simply stated that you could read it to mean that Peter was the Rock or you could read to to mean that what Peter said was the rock. Pretty simple. My reasoning for mentioning verse 23, which is only five verses after verse 18 of the same chapter is that if we are going to assume that the dialog in these are about the significance of Peter rather than what Peter said, then perhaps we should consider what else He had to say about Peter. If we take the meaning that Peter himself was the rock, then should we not look with some puzzlement on verse where He tells Peter to “get behind me Satan” ? If we want to build a lot of conclusions on one verse, then why do we ignore the other verse in the same chapter? I guess I always find that sort of thing puzzling, but I am an outsider looking in.

In regards to the branches of one tree, I was speaking about the broader context of all Christian sects being branches of one tree. One may have been the trunk, others may be branches, but together they are one tree.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[elvisman]

Very colorful but, sorry, I just can’t feel the love.

You establish a “Non-Catholic Religions” section, lure us with a thread entitled “Protestants: What do you think…” and then proceed to slice and dice our beliefs. Oddly, on another thread you wonder if others don’t like you! Poor form, really poor.

james

**I didn’t establish the Non-Catholic forum - the people at Catholic Answers did. I neither lured you in nor did I ask you to respond. I merely gave a response to another poster.

I’m only speaking from experience. This is, after all, a discussion board . . .

 

[pablope]

a.) I am not many anything, I am me so if you want to discuss something with me limit yourself to what I have said or don’t bother discussing anything with me.

b.) As you know there are different senses of scripture. from the literal to the allegorical and I have no idea why you bring this up. Why this bothers you is beyond me espcially when in another post you admit that it makes no difference when Peter receives the keys.

** Matthew 16:19 contains the promise to Peter, not the actual giving of the keys.**

We Catholics do not need it to be stated elsewhere in the Bible as to the actual giving of the keys. why? Because we have faith in Jesus’ promise and statement. He is God and He always fulfills whatever He promised. It does not have to be stated. We know it was fulfilled.

As for those who question this, it is because they have no faith in Jesus fullfulling His promise to Peter. By questioning this, you are actually then putting into question the divinity and God-hood of Christ. You are making demands of God, therefor, you are putting yourself above God. Jesus did not have to say anything else, it is there for everyone to read and believe.

If you do not believe, then everything Jesus said and promised is put into question by you.

That is why we Catholics have no need of any further proof, we have faith in what Jesus promised and it is fulfilled.

 

[SemperReformada]

We Catholics do not need it to be stated elsewhere in the Bible as to the actual giving of the keys. why? Because we have faith in Jesus’ promise and statement. He is God and He always fulfills whatever He promised. It does not have to be stated. We know it was fulfilled.

I didn’t realize a simple statement based on nothing but the information at hand would generate so many comments. I never said Jesus didn’t fulfill his promise, only that based on the text there is no reason to believe that Peter received the keys in Matthew 16:19. The promise is given but no reocord of its fulfillment.

As for those who question this, it is because they have no faith in Jesus fullfulling His promise to Peter.

Horse hockey. There are many reasons one could come to a different understanding of the verse than you so it is unwarranted to call into quesiton someones faith because they disagree with you.

By questioning this, you are actually then putting into question the divinity and God-hood of Christ. You are making demands of God, therefor, you are putting yourself above God. Jesus did not have to say anything else, it is there for everyone to read and believe.

If you do not believe, then everything Jesus said and promised is put into question by you.

That is why we Catholics have no need of any further proof, we have faith in what Jesus promised and it is fulfilled.

All this because I simply stated that the text of Matt 16:19 contains only the promise of the keys and not the fulfillment of the actualy giving?

 

[SemperReformada]

Read Matthew 16:19 reveals Jesus “I will give YOU (Peter) the keys to the Kingdom of heaven” with authority to use these keys “What YOU bind and bind and loose on earth”.

Now you relate Jesus making a promise here, not giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter from this text. Sola Scriptura teaches here from Jesus own words “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”.

Can you provide a scripture when Jesus never gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven? If there is can you provide Jesus never giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

Gabriel, all I said is that, based on the information at hand, there is no reason to conclude that Jesus gave Peter the keys in Matthew 16:19. I never said Jesus didn’t give Peter the keys, only that Matt 16:19 does not describe the actual giving and only contains the promise. The promise is for some time in the future. Maybe the actual giving occured in Matt 18 maybe earlier…maybe later…maybe it did occur in Matt 16:19 but the text does not force one to understand it that way.

I understand your interpretation as relating this to a promise from Jesus, but promise is never mentioned here, only “I will give you the keys”.

What is difficult from your interpretation is that you have not given an answer to when the keys are given to Peter from Jesus, giving the false impression as if Jesus never gave Peter any keys just a promise to do so?

Maybe you are correct. It seems obvious that Jesus promsied the keys to Peter, we agree on that. When did that occur…i.e. when did Peter receive the keys? I don’t know precisely when it happened.

So would you agree Jesus after He resurrects from the dead and is going to prepare a place for you and me, stops and visits with Peter and the apostles and gives Peter “alone” while all apostles present, a command three times to “feed, tend, and teach His flock here on earth”. (See John 21;15-17) is placing the same authority over His (Jesus) Church on earth before Jesus ascends into heaven?

Let us deal with God will bind and loose in heaven what Peter binds and loose on earth.

“Matthew relates the Kingdom of God as to the Church to be the interim arrangement which mediates salvation in the time between the earthly ministry of Jesus and future coming of the kingdom” (See St. Jerome biblical commentary pg. 659, par.105).

The binding and loosing are biblical rabbincal terms used for one having the authority to bind the devil in excorcism (see R.H. Hiers, journal of biblical literature 104 (1985) pg. 233- 50). The first glimpse of this comes from verse 23, when Jesus teaches Peter’s own will conflicts with the will of God, and that to humble himself from pride, calling his pride “Satan” to “get behind Me”. We have Jesus already instructing the one whom he gave the keys and the authority to bind the evil one.

This binding and loosing continues in the (office) Chair of Peter who has (past tense) been given this power to conduct juridical acts of excommunication and definitive decision making within the confines of the Catholic “universal” Church.

Yes this power is also given to the other apostles, but it is to Peter alone is given over the whole flock of Jesus (John 21:15-17)

I have to thank you for your insights, I have never come across your interpretation before and am delighted to entertain such a mystical thought of a promise.

Peace be with you

.
Yup, I would agree.

 

[SemperReformada]

Absolutely not.

There are so many different flavors** of Sola Scriptura out there - just as there are so many different flavors of Protestantism. I personally know 5 different Protestant people who have 5 different views about Sola Scriptura. After all - they don’t have to see eye to eye with you on essentials. Since they’re Protestant - it’s t*heir *perogative to cherry pick what they want to believe.

**Isn’t the slogan of Evangelicals, “Reformed and *always *reforming" (Semper Reformada)?
It should be "Splintered and always splintering” . . .

We aren’t discussing sola scriptura, stay on task.

 

[SemperReformada]

I’ll tell you why it’s so troublesome. It’s troublesome whenever somebody completely disregards the sacred Church Traditions that go hand in hand with Scriptures (2 Thess. 2:15). The keys being given to Peter are not only recorded in Scripture but are attested to by the Early Church.

It’s troublesome when the writings of Fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine are totally disregarded by Protestants because they, in the 21st century believe that *they *understand better than those who lived so much closer in time to the Apostles.

Finally - it’s troublesome because what you are doing is precisely what Peter himself warned against by twisting the scriptures which the ignorant and unstable do to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

What scripture am I twisting? Is it Matthew 16:19?

Let’s have a look at Matthew 16:19 and the surrounding verses and see if you have a point.

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. **19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” ****20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Can you please pick the verse above that describes Jesus actually giving Peter the keys? It isn’t there is it? We have Jesus promising the keys to Jesus but no description of Jesus actually giving the keys in Matthew 16.

Out of curiosity, is there a dogmatic statement from your church that interprets Matt 16:10 as the precise point where Peter receives the keys?

Is the precise time that Peter receives the keys part of sacred tradition?

 

[SemperReformada]

To all the Catholic posters who are for some reason so offended by me stating the obvious, that Matthew 16:19 only contains the promise of the keys to Peter and not the actual giving of the keys, I have a few questions.

First, it seems painfully obvious that Matt 16:19 does not describe the actual giving of the keys to Peter. That much is a fact. It certainly contains the promise of the keys but does not record the actual giving.

This simple statement of fact has really gotten under the skin of a few of you and I am not sure why. So, I have a few questions:

a.) As long as the promise if fulfilled, why is it important that Peter receive the keys in Matt 16:19 and not at a later time? If the timing is not important why has my post generated so many comments?

b.) I have no idea when the fathers understood the promise of Matt 16:19 being fulfilled. Do you have any references to the ECF’s that clearly indicate that they understood Peter receiving the keys in 16:19?

c.) Is there a dogmatic statement somewhere in your church’s history that p(name removed by moderator)oints Matt 16:19 as the time when Peter received the keys?

 

[SemperReformada]

Hello Semper, I feel that I must join in here. First I pray that your consideration to convert is realized and that your consideration is aided by the answers to your questions here on this forum. It seems that things are getting a little heated in this discussion. However passion voiced by my fellow Catholics for the love of the Church has been stoked by the incessant attacks upon the Church by many of our non-Catholic brethren. We are called idol worshipers, Bible haters and unchristian to name a few. We have for a long time been non responsive to theses attacks and have prayed for those who attack us. Too often we as Catholics have been lax in studying the Bible as well as the Sacred Traditions which the Church has upheld for 2000 years. Now many of us are studying and we are addressing those who take pride in attacking the Church. We are opening their eyes to heretofore unknown facts and revelations of what the Church has stood for since its founding by Christ.
Ironically,many non-Catholics who made a regular habit of attacking the Catholic Church have come to a real revelation at the fullness of the truth that the Catholic Church has to offer and has taken that swim across the Tiber. Many of these converts have brought their extensive knowledge of Sacred Scriptures to a newer and more meaningful passion for Christ’s Church.
Sorry for the wordy background but I noticed that no-one has mentioned your interest in conversion. I am sure all my brothers and sisters here are praying for you. We just need to do a little more work on some things you may be misunderstanding. You specifically stated that the Bible does not state when Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Do you doubt that He did? Would Jesus have made such a statement if He hadn’t intended to do what He said He would do? No it is not stated but we believe Jesus did what He promised to do. So should you.
Does the Bible tell us that St Peter and St Paul were martyred? It gives us a hint that they would be martyred but the actual event and the mode of execution were never revealed. Does that invalidate the events? We know how they died and the manner in which they died from eyewitnesses and recorded by the Early Church Fathers. Does the fact that the events of their martyrdom are questionable because they are not mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures? Are we not comparing apples to apples here?
God bless you on your journey

Thanks for your post.

First, note that I only pointed out that Matt 16:19 does not describe Peter actually receiving the keys. The text is there for everyone to see.

I don’t doubt that Peter received the keys but I don’t understand the apparent necessity of Peter receiving the keys in verse 19 especially since the verse only contains Jesus’ promise, which of course he would have fulfilled. Perhaps it was fulfilled in Matt 16:19 but the text does not force one to understand it that way.

As to some of your other points, obviously the scriptures aren’t going to record everything that occured.

 

[SemperReformada]

Exactly! Semper is expecting tangible keys and that is not the point Jesus’ is delivering.
.

Nope. Scripture never records Peter receiving the keys is what I said.

 

[SemperReformada]

No offense,but SS differs among Protestant,Fundamentalist,Evangelicals-are they ignorant too? Sola Scriptura is a bust and history speaks volumes against it!

Still. ss is not what we are discussing.

Then why mention Peter NOT receiving the keys? Does scripture always give the exact whereabouts of every single Apostle?

Someone made the claim that Peter received the keys in Matt 16:19 and that verse contains only Jesus’ promise…not Peter actually receiving the keys.

No, scripture doesn’t record the whereabouts of every apostle but if you made the claim that John 3:16 clearly p(name removed by moderator)oints James as being in Corinth I would probably call you on that too.

Problem I encounter with Protestants is that they slice and dice scripture and never place all of it in its proper context. Read Isaiah 22 and its connection with Peter and the keys.

How does Is 22 help establish that Peter received the keys in Matt 16:19?

IF…the Catholic claims…" Care to show us from early church history where the ECF’s expressed your belief or taught another tardition?

I have no idea when the ECF’s believed Peter actually received the keys nor do I have the time or resources to do this. If you can find a few references please post them.

It is not for us because it is you who mentioned it. Why is it troublesome for you?

For a group that isn’t troubled by my post you guys sure seem troubled.

 

[Sufjon]

Hi, Sufjon, sorry for the long post, but there is so much to relate to these topics that are in need of clarification such as what are the **biblical meanings **of Church = body of Christ, Kingdom of heaven = Church both on earth and in heaven as one, binding and loosing = excorcism, and excommunication powers with juridical acts, definitive decision making and authoritative teaching office through legislation.

This has been revealed, recorded in all of Catholic history these past 2000 years since the resurrection.

I understand your comments from your view of the scripture. The view I hold is not my own, the interpretation of the Rock = (aramaic Kepha, Greek Cepha, Latin Petros, English Peter) dates back through history back to biblical times when the Words of our dear Lord spoke them.

The term Rock from other scriptures relate it directly to Jesus, to the Church as the Pillar and foundation of Truth (see 1Timothy 3:15), and all the apostles (see Ephesians 2:20), but it is here only in Matthew 16 that Jesus renames Simon bar Jona “Rock” = Peter. And it is upon This Rock = that Jesus is only referring to new named Rock = Peter that Jesus will build His Church.

This revelation of Jesus renaming Simon = Rock = Peter does not take away the fact that Jesus is the Rock of our salvation. Some fear, if they take Jesus at his words by renaming Simon to Rock, leads to the wrong impression that they have to deny Christ and follow the Peter, which this is never the interpretation. Jesus remains the Rock of our salvation.

Vs. 23, has Jesus teaching Peter humility although, Jesus just gave him power and authority with the keys in the kingdom from heaven. Peter responds to Jesus passion and death with pride in denouncing the Will of God by Peter’s own will to stop it. Jesus teaches Peter by calling his pride of “Satan” to “get behind me”, which opposses the Will of God. I believe and a good great many of scholars also, contend that Jesus reveals to Peter by humbling himself to the will of God, Peter is able to function with the keys in the kingdom of God by binding satan, and loosing his pride.

This teaching goes into much more depth in that, the Church continues to be persecuted not by the flesh we battle but by spirit against the evil powers and principlalities.

To note, there is nothing wrong with having a personal or private interpretation to scripture. Jesus reveals to us that it is Peter that teaches, tend and feeds the flock of Jesus Church is the teaching that I hold to.

Peace be with you

Hi again Gabriel: I do understand where the correlation is drawn because Simon was given the name Peter, but I think the wording in the dialog could have just as easily meant that the words Simon had just spoken about Jesus being the Messiah would be the rock on which He would build His church, and therefore, because Simon had spoken these truths upon which His church would be built, He would thenceforth call him Peter, which means rock. The wording is just too ambiguous to say whether this is the meaning, or if Peter himself being the foundation of the church was the meaning.

As far as the keys to heaven go, it looks very much to me like Jesus was saying that He would give Peter certain truths or knowledge to share with others that are the keys to heaven. This makes sense if for no other reason than it is hard to imagine that heaven has a door with keys, or that Jesus would need Peter to serve as some sort of Christian permutation of Cerberus. Again, the wording is rather ambiguous if one wants to ascribe one meaning over the other. I find it hard to imagine Jesus being much interested in things like powers of excommunication and legislative concerns, or establishing a sovereign state of some sort. It makes me recall what He said when the person asked Him about taxes. He said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s. This alone makes me think that councils, formal organizations, legal matters, nation building and the like were not much on His mind, but this is just the way I see Him. You would of course have to take into account that the way I would see Jesus would be through the lens of someone from an entirely different faith background, so this would probably explain why my view would be so different.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[SemperReformada]

To all of you who claim Peter received the keys in Matt 16:19 despite the text saying nothing of the sort, I found this over at Phil Vaz’s site. It’s a dialogue between James White and Mark Bonocore. Note that James White asks when Peter received the keys from Jesus and when Mark answers, Mark does not claim Matt 16:19 but poiints to the Ascension as the time when Peter actually received the keys. Jame’s comments are in red and Mark’s are in blue.

What say you Nicaea, Elvis, Pablope? Is Mark too twisting or introducing novel interpretations into scripture? Undoubtedly one of you will say that Mark is not is not the magesterium but yet, neither are any of you.

JW> 7) You wrote: Now, while it is true that, in Matt 18:18, Jesus bestows a similar authority to “bind and loosen” upon all of the Apostles collectively, it is to Peter alone that Christ entrusts “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” So, what are these Keys? What are they suppose to signify?" ***When, specifically, did Christ bestow the keys ALONE to Peter? ***The Greek verb in Matthew 16 is future in tense. Hence, if this does not take place in Matthew 18:18, when does it? And, can you cite patristic foundation for saying the keys differ in authority and meaning from the power of binding and loosing? >>

First of all, the way you pose the question is shamefully deceptive, and based on an incorrect understanding of the Greek. In comparing Matt 16:19 and 18:18, the “bind/loose” statements are each arranged in two couplets. The first verb in the couplet is an active aorist and the second is a perfect passive participle which is best translated into English as a passive future perfect. Thus, the verses literally say “Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in Heaven.” The obvious meaning of the Matt 16:19 &18:18 statements is that whatever the Apostles (and their successors) bind upon the faithful (i.e., faith or morals) will not be their own teaching but what has already been bound upon the Church by God in eternity. So, I am overwhelmed by your misuse of the Greek.

***Yet, to entertain your challenge…Peter officially received the “Keys” of the Kingdom upon Jesus’ Ascension into Heaven. ***For example, in Acts 1:15-23, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, yet before the coming of the Holy Spirit, Peter takes charge of the infant Church and initiates the election for Judas’ successor. Here, one cannot deny that Peter is acting as an organizer and unifier for the Church; and that he gives “spiritual nourishment” to the assembly by authoritatively interpreting the Psalms (Acts 1:20) --Psalms which say nothing about Judas or about their Apostolic mission. Thus, Peter is exhibiting a teaching authority which is independent of the OT Scriptures; and he does this before the Holy Spirit has supplied the Church with the charism to teach (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 12:7-11).

 

[confusedius]

**I didn’t **establish the Non-Catholic forum - the people at Catholic Answers did. I neither lured you in nor did I ask you to respond. I merely gave a *response *to another poster.

I’m only speaking from experience. This is, after all, a discussion board . . .

So I must conclude that a hard cord Catholic would consider your assault against protestants simply “discussion”? Well, if that is the bar, I am ready to discuss…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Your interpretation conflicts with 2000 years of Christian faith and Apostolic Tradition. I think Tertullian is speaking to your interpretation among others here;

Here is Tertullian 155 A.D “If, because the Lord has said to Peter,” “Upon this Rock will I build my church,” “to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom”; or, “Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens”… You therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter; what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring as that intention did, this gift, personally upon Peter?** “On you,” He says, “will I build my church”; and , “I will give to you the keys,” not to the Church; **and, “Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. On modesty, chap. 21

**Another aspect that destroys your new interpretation is history, both biblical and secular **attest to Peter not only in possessing the keys to the kingdom of God, and receiving them from Jesus, but actually exercising the keys to the kingdom of God.

The book of Acts 15:12 records Peter speaking at the first Church council in Jerusalem that, Peter exercises these keys given to him by Jesus, after speaking and revealing what Peter binds on earth and looses the Gentiles into the Church “All fell Silent”. All obeyed him thereafter not to force circumcision upon the Gentiles.

Later in history;

Pope Leo the great 440 a.d. Stops Atilla the Hun who like locust was conquering and destroying nations and lands, in his tracks by his mere presence, that armies could not do to this fearless leader. The small frail Pope turned away Atilla and his armies with great fear, again something no other leader with vast armies could not do, this Pope bind-ed this enemy and loosed him followed by signs and wonders from heaven, that Atilla a short time later fled Pope Leo’s presence with great fear and died.

Recent history;

Pope John Paul II, stood against and faced the greatest beast since Pagan Rome, Communism, those who deny God, and bound that beast on earth and loosed the people of God from this beast by his mere words spoken in the heart of the beast “It is ok to believe in God”, that heaven bound and loosed by signs and wonders that the walls of communism came tumbling down.

There is too many historical Papal events to list here from history proving Peter’s successors in the Popes exercising and confirming these keys from heaven that Jesus gave Peter, this historical written record puts your interpretation to great doubt.

Not to mention almost every Saint and Christian Martyr, including Catholic Councils from antiquity all contest your interpretation of Jesus not giving Peter the keys.

Can you give any one or event from history denying Peter was not ever given the keys from Jesus at anytime?

The burden of proof is upon you.

Peace be with you

SemperReformada;7692424]To all the Catholic posters who are for some reason so offended by me stating the obvious, that Matthew 16:19 only contains the promise of the keys to Peter and not the actual giving of the keys,

 

[Nicea325]

To all of you who claim Peter received the keys in Matt 16:19 despite the text saying nothing of the sort, I found this over at Phil Vaz’s site. It’s a dialogue between James White and Mark Bonocore. Note that James White asks when Peter received the keys from Jesus and when Mark answers, Mark does not claim Matt 16:19 but poiints to the Ascension as the time when Peter actually received the keys. Jame’s comments are in red and Mark’s are in blue.

What say you Nicaea, Elvis, Pablope? Is Mark too twisting or introducing novel interpretations into scripture? Undoubtedly one of you will say that Mark is not is not the magesterium but yet, neither are any of you.

JW> 7) You wrote: Now, while it is true that, in Matt 18:18, Jesus bestows a similar authority to “bind and loosen” upon all of the Apostles collectively, it is to Peter alone that Christ entrusts “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” So, what are these Keys? What are they suppose to signify?" ***When, specifically, did Christ bestow the keys ALONE to Peter? ***The Greek verb in Matthew 16 is future in tense. Hence, if this does not take place in Matthew 18:18, when does it? And, can you cite patristic foundation for saying the keys differ in authority and meaning from the power of binding and loosing? >>

First of all, the way you pose the question is shamefully deceptive, and based on an incorrect understanding of the Greek. In comparing Matt 16:19 and 18:18, the “bind/loose” statements are each arranged in two couplets. The first verb in the couplet is an active aorist and the second is a perfect passive participle which is best translated into English as a passive future perfect. Thus, the verses literally say “Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in Heaven.” The obvious meaning of the Matt 16:19 &18:18 statements is that whatever the Apostles (and their successors) bind upon the faithful (i.e., faith or morals) will not be their own teaching but what has already been bound upon the Church by God in eternity. So, I am overwhelmed by your misuse of the Greek.

***Yet, to entertain your challenge…Peter officially received the “Keys” of the Kingdom upon Jesus’ Ascension into Heaven. ***For example, in Acts 1:15-23, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, yet before the coming of the Holy Spirit, Peter takes charge of the infant Church and initiates the election for Judas’ successor. Here, one cannot deny that Peter is acting as an organizer and unifier for the Church; and that he gives “spiritual nourishment” to the assembly by authoritatively interpreting the Psalms (Acts 1:20) --Psalms which say nothing about Judas or about their Apostolic mission. Thus, Peter is exhibiting a teaching authority which is independent of the OT Scriptures; and he does this before the Holy Spirit has supplied the Church with the charism to teach (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 12:7-11).

Novel? It is you who is hanging on to a novelty. Here I’ll say it again:

Many Protestants like Mr.James White believe the Bible must be absolutely explicit in order for something to be valid. Where is the canon of scripture absolutely explicit?

James White? Are you joking? One the biggest anti-Catholics? He always asking for ECF’s evidence and yet he turns blue in the face by stating 2 Tim 3:16 proves Sola Scriptura? He is a JOKE!

Your question has been answered in so many ways,it is you who still has not answered me. When and where did Jesus build His Church. He said **I WILL **build my church.

So is that NOVEL too?

 

[Nicea325]

Still. ss is not what we are discussing.

Someone made the claim that Peter received the keys in Matt 16:19 and that verse contains only Jesus’ promise…not Peter actually receiving the keys.

No, scripture doesn’t record the whereabouts of every apostle but if you made the claim that John 3:16 clearly p(name removed by moderator)oints James as being in Corinth I would probably call you on that too.

How does Is 22 help establish that Peter received the keys in Matt 16:19?

I have no idea when the ECF’s believed Peter actually received the keys nor do I have the time or resources to do this. If you can find a few references please post them.

For a group that isn’t troubled by my post you guys sure seem troubled.

And strangely you have not answered me. Jesus said: **I WILL **build my Church…Future tense-right? Novel too?

Show me the specific verse where it shows when Jesus actually built it?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know precisely when Peter would have received the keys. From the Catholic perspective why would it matter when Peter received the keys?

If indeed the keys represent the authority of the Davidic kingdom, and if Peter is the prime minister, then it seems Peter would need to be left in charge when the King is physically absent. Otherwise, the King would have left them “orphaned”.

If the Petrine gifts and responsibility to feed and care for the flock are valid, then it seems Peter’s responsibility began immediately upon the ascension.

I have never said that everything must be stated explicitly in scripture.

That is kinda how we hear it when you use the phrase “where in scripture does it say…”

Even if the Catholic claims to the Peterine doctines are true

I would like to understand better what you mean by “Peterine doctrines”. I have never heard this before, and am not sure what they refer to.

 we are still left with the fact that Peter is never shown having actually received the keys.  That doesn't mean that he didn't receive them, only that scripture does not record the event.

When Jesus breathed upon the 11 in the upper room, and said “receive the HS”, do you think they received the Spirit at that time?