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

[pablope]

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?

I apologize, Semper R. I thought you were saying that the promise was never fulfilled, thus putting into question Jesus’ promise to Peter and His own words.

Are you already aware of the significance of the name change of Simon to Peter? Similar to the change of Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel, God/Jesus, when changing the name of Simon to Peter is significant. When a name is changed, there is a change of authority and responsibility and status, in the culture of the times and in the Bible.

When Simon is changed to Peter, Jesus is charging Peter to build his Church. So Peter receiving the keys must be when Simon’s name changes to Peter, or when everyone calls Simon by his new name of “Peter”.

But there is heavenly confirmation of the name change:

Mark 16:5-8

5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]

Note the angel, as a young man, says in Verse 7: “…tell his disciples and Peter…” Among the disciples, only Peter’s name is mentioned and he is called by the angel “Peter” and not Simon. The significance? Why would an angel say “Peter” and not “Simon”?

Heaven has confirmed, and the angel following God’s will and doing God’s bidding, calls Simon by the name ordained by Jesus-“Peter/Kepha/Rock”. So Peter’s role has Heavenly confirmation, and approval of Peter’ role-to build Christ’s Church.

 

[SemperReformada]

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

Gabriel,

Where have I said that Jesus did not give the keys to Peter? You need to start reading what I actually post.

I have not once, not even one time stated that Peter never received the keys. What I said was that it doesn’t appear that he received them in Matt 16:19. Only the promise is given in 16:19 not the actual giving. How much clearer can I be? Just because the actual giving did not occur in Matt 16:19 does not mean that it didn’t occur later.

Not one thing in your above post addresses what I have actually said.

You keep going on about tradition but you have yet to address what I have actually said.

 

[SemperReformada]

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?

No, not strangely. You have yet to interact with anything I have actually posted. You, like several other posters seem to be unable to grasp the obvious.

Matt 16:19 simply records the promise of the keys but based on the text there is no reason to assume it is at that point that Peter received the keys. The actual giving would have occured later.

As to your point, Jesus was still in the process of building the church so yet, it would appear to me that would be in the future tense too. How does this have anything to do with Peter not receiving the keys in Matt 16:19 and receiving them later?

 

[SemperReformada]

I apologize, Semper R. I thought you were saying that the promise was never fulfilled, thus putting into question Jesus’ promise to Peter and His own words.

Are you already aware of the significance of the name change of Simon to Peter? Similar to the change of Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel, God/Jesus, when changing the name of Simon to Peter is significant. When a name is changed, there is a change of authority and responsibility and status, in the culture of the times and in the Bible.

When Simon is changed to Peter, Jesus is charging Peter to build his Church. So Peter receiving the keys must be when Simon’s name changes to Peter, or when everyone calls Simon by his new name of “Peter”.

But there is heavenly confirmation of the name change:

Note the angel, as a young man, says in Verse 7: “…tell his disciples and Peter…” Among the disciples, only Peter’s name is mentioned and he is called by the angel “Peter” and not Simon. The significance? Why would an angel say “Peter” and not “Simon”?

Heaven has confirmed, and the angel following God’s will and doing God’s bidding, calls Simon by the name ordained by Jesus-“Peter/Kepha/Rock”. So Peter’s role has Heavenly confirmation, and approval of Peter’ role-to build Christ’s Church.

Thanks Pablope.

 

[SemperReformada]

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?

Nothing you have posted to date interacts with what I am saying. Why is that Nicaea?

You have completely missed the point of my posting the dialogue between James White and Mark Bonocore. Missed it to the point that I don’t think you are actually reading what I have posted in this thread. You seem to automatically default to “argument” mode with out any rational thought.

The reason I posted the dialogue between James and Marks is because James asks Mark precisely when Peter received the keys. Mark responded that it was at the Ascension. How could you have missed this?

 

[SemperReformada]

Many Protestants like Mr.James White believe the Bible must be absolutely explicit in order for something to be valid.

You may not care but this isn’t JW"s position.

 

[Sufjon]

Nothing you have posted to date interacts with what I am saying. Why is that Nicaea?

You have completely missed the point of my posting the dialogue between James White and Mark Bonocore. Missed it to the point that I don’t think you are actually reading what I have posted in this thread. You seem to automatically default to “argument” mode with out any rational thought.

The reason I posted the dialogue between James and Marks is because James asks Mark precisely when Peter received the keys. Mark responded that it was at the Ascension. How could you have missed this?

I am trying to get clarification if I may. Are you all discussing a physical set of keys to a particular door? If not, then what in your estimation do the keys represent?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Nicea325]

Nothing you have posted to date interacts with what I am saying. Why is that Nicaea?

You have completely missed the point of my posting the dialogue between James White and Mark Bonocore. Missed it to the point that I don’t think you are actually reading what I have posted in this thread. You seem to automatically default to “argument” mode with out any rational thought.

The reason I posted the dialogue between James and Marks is because James asks Mark precisely when Peter received the keys. Mark responded that it was at the Ascension. How could you have missed this?

I do not think so! I have read enough and it is you who has not read what others have posted. Furthermore, if I recall you stated that not everything has to be explcitly stated in scripture,then why are so asking for the specific verse when Peter received the keys? So in essence,you do hold to the belief the Bible has to explicitly say everything. Apparently did not read what elvisman posted:

Semper - do you actually believe that Jesus gave Peter a set of physical keys?

I already showed you a comparison of my giving the car keys to my wife - and I said almost exactly the same thing Jesus said to Peter. Who’s forcing something into Matt. 16:19 that isn’t there?

You say that you believe he DID give Peter the kes at some later, random point. Do you think it was before he gave powers to bind and loose to the rest of the Apostles 2 chapters later in Matt. 18:18 - or after?

As a Sola Scripturist - you should actually reject the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys at all because it never talks about him actually doing it - right?

By the way - since Judas also received these powers in Matt. 18:18 - **when were his taken away? **Does it state that explicitly in Scripture?

You need to sit down and read the Scriptures in CONTEXT, my friend. As Guanophore already pointed out - there are only a FEW times in all of Scripture where God calls a person by a different name - and it is always HIGHLY significant:
Abram/Abraham
Jacob/Israel
Mary/Kecharitomene (which is a debate for another thread, I’m sure…)
Simon/Kepha

What you’re claiming is tantamount to somebody being appointed CEO but it’s not official because the engraver is still making the nameplate for his office door.
It’s silly.

---

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Peace be with you Semper Reformada; Thank you for your patience here. The difference I hope to reveal here is that you interpret Matthew 16:19 to a promise and Jesus not litterally giving Peter the keys at the moment when Jesus stated “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”.

From your interpretation you emphatically stated as fact that Jesus did not give Peter the keys in Matthew 16:19 but only promised the keys.

In summary, I would say it is both a promise and a guarantee from Jesus that Peter has recieved the keys from Jesus but does not exercise his keys while Jesus walked the earth, none the less, Peter carried with him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, while Jesus walked the earth, instructing Peter example after example how to operate such authority given to him from God. The most important example Jesus gave to Peter is never operate with the keys from pride or self will as opposed to God’s will, by calling Peter who now possesses the keys “Satan” get behind me".

Now that Jesus has given Peter the keys, Jesus is now going to teach Peter how and when to use them.

Semper Reformanda (quote)
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?

Gabriel of 12;
Because it alludes that Jesus did not give Peter the keys and makes the assumption that never again after this event (Mt. 16:19) scripture does not record Jesus ever stating to Peter, " here you go Peter take these from me". It must be noted that Peter cannot operate the keys from heaven on earth without Jesus binding and loosing in heaven. This alone relates to the time Jesus reveals to Peter when he is able to operate the keys from heaven after Jesus ascends into heaven.

Semper Reformanda (quote
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?

Gabriel of 12;
See Tertullian quote above. The early Church fathers and councils when they comment on Mt.16, they reference this exchange between Jesus and Peter as to when Jesus gave the keys to Peter both in promise and in confirmation that Peter does receive the keys from Jesus. Tertullian makes emphasis to Jesus stating “I WILL give you the keys” not in promise but in confirmation.

Semper Reformanda (quote
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?

Gabriel of 12;
From memory, I do not recall any writings referencing a time frame when Jesus gave the keys to Peter, what is confirmed from Church records is that Mt. 16:19 is referenced that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. There is no need for the Church to make a dogmatic statement to clarify this doctrine, because Jesus himself from the Word of God makes it clear without any doubt that Jesus in the “I will give YOU (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven”

 

[Curious_Seed]

That’s the problem, your interpretation conflicts with 2000 years of Christianity, and no other Christian from antiquity supports your “new” interpetation to this text.,

One cannot go off and pretend “That Peter is never shown or described as receiving the keys from Jesus”.

Let us not add or subtract from the Word of God, but give examples pertaining to your interpretation relating to the text is very helpful to remain on topic, thank you in advance.

Let us deal with Truth head on Jesus tells Peter singularly "You are Peter" (= Kephas = Rock,) "AND upon this "Rock" (= kephas = Peter)
I will build my Church.**I will give you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 **Whatever you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus promised Peter and the apostles the Holy spirit, to be with Peter and his Church always and never leave her, Jesus promised to confer a kingdom on the apostles, and prayed for Peter to confirm his brethren. This Jesus did and all came to pass including building his Church upon “kephas” = Peter = “Rock”.

These fulfilled promises from Jesus to Peter and his Catholic church is made a reality, because God does not lie, nor can God lie, and His Word never returns to Him void. So Jesus promises confirms the Catholic Faith.

peace be with you

When Jesus said to Peter - as you indicate, singularly - " You are Kephas and upon this Kephas, I will build My Church " did He mean that the Church would be built upon Peter, singularly? Was it Peter, his person, upon which Jesus would build His Church? Or was it upon Peter’s answer to Jesus’ question that He would build His Church?

Does history attest to Peter being the singular aspect of the growth of the Church?

I believe that when Jesus asked " who do you say that I am? " the question was relevant to Matthew 16:18.

Peter’s response in Matthew 16:16, enlightened by Matthew 16:17, is the foundation for Matthew 16:18.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

Christ tells us that it was the Father who revealed the correct answer to Simon, so it appears Peter was singled out by the Father.

Now, reading it through we must pay attention to the words Christ used, specifically the word ‘and’.

Once Christ told who revealed the answer to Peter He continued by saying, ‘AND I say to thee…’. Here He renames Simon to Peter and states upon this ‘rock’ He will build His Church. Again Christ continues by saying, ‘AND I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ The keys were not given to a ‘statement’. This is verified when Christ continues by saying, ‘AND whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven’. A ‘statement’ cannot bind or loose, which is what Hebrew judges did by making decisions. The Apostles understood the phrase ‘bind and loose’, much more than those far removed from the time that the phrase was customarily used.

Christ was specifically addressing Peter. The Church was built and authority was given, through the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to make decisions; i.e. ‘bind and loose’.

History also ‘attests’ to the primacy of Peter, evident by writings of the early Church fathers.

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

 

[elvisman]

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

I AM stying on topic. You pointed out that I was ignorant about Sola Scriptura in your last post.
I was merely showing you that - as with many other Protestant aberrations - Sola Scriptura is yet another place where you all seem to disagree . . .

 

[elvisman]

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?
**Is there some reason why you are trying to make the case that he *didn’t ***receive the Keys at Caesarea Philippi? Or are you simply trying to cast doubt about his receiving the keys at all?

---

In short - what’s your point?

 

[Nicea325]

You may not care but this isn’t JW"s position.

James White positions are easily detectable: To debunk the Catholic Church and many of its teaching,Peter receiving the keys being one. You cannot isolate a specific passage to prove a point,case in point Matt 16:18. Now many Protestants claim the RCC does the same with the same verse? Not true,it is used in harmony with the entire scriptures (OT & NT).

The problem with people like James White and no offense,you too due to the fact you questioned Isaiah 22. is the lack of knowledge of the culture and society of ancient Israel and its monarchial view of government to understand the bigger picture. Furthermore, to understand the specific passage in all its glory, one must first have a grasp of the OT and Jewish world. What do the scriptures and history have to say about the “keys of the kingdom” and especially, about the steward who carries them?

Finally,the fact the word “will” is future tense is used a smoking gun by Protestants to debunk the Catholic position. Well the same argument can used against Protestants,because I can give another passage where future tense is used. Case in point,

2 Samuel 7:12-13:

12 And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, **I will **raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and **I will **make his kingdom firm.
13 It is he who shall build a house for my name. And **I will **make his royal throne firm forever.

 

[elvisman]

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.
Why is it that you can’t - or won’t address the Fathers who attest to Peter having given the keys in Matt. 16?

The problem with many Protestant arguments against Church Authority is that you will completely disregard the Fathers when their position is blindingly Catholic.

 

[elvisman]

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…

**I’m not assaulting anybody. I never lump ALL Protestants together when discussing their various belief systems because they *ARE *so varied. **

**There are many Protestant posters on this board with whom I share friendly thoughts with because they are neither hyper-defensive (as you seem to be), nor are they offensive. This is a discussion board where thoughts and ideas are shared - and debates.

You are new here and you will learn - enventually . . .

 

[elvisman]

When Jesus said to Peter - as you indicate, singularly - " You are Kephas and upon this Kephas, I will build My Church " did He mean that the Church would be built upon Peter, singularly? Was it Peter, his person, upon which Jesus would build His Church? Or was it upon Peter’s answer to Jesus’ question that He would build His Church?

Does history attest to Peter being the singular aspect of the growth of the Church?

I believe that when Jesus asked " who do you say that I am? " the question was relevant to Matthew 16:18.

Peter’s response in Matthew 16:16, enlightened by Matthew 16:17, is the foundation for Matthew 16:18.

WRONG.

Jesus didn’t say, "You are Kepha and on this confession of faith - or this statement of belief, I will build my Church. He said that he would build it on Peter - whom he was singling out to be chief Apostle and earthly Shepherd of his flock.

Again, not only do you disregard the Scriptures - but, as with Semper and others -you completely gloss over the testimonies of the Early Church on the matter. Very convenient - but not very well-thought-out . . .

 

[Nicea325]

No, not strangely. You have yet to interact with anything I have actually posted. You, like several other posters seem to be unable to grasp the obvious.

Matt 16:19 simply records the promise of the keys but based on the text there is no reason to assume it is at that point that Peter received the keys. The actual giving would have occured later.

As to your point, Jesus was still in the process of building the church so yet, it would appear to me that would be in the future tense too. How does this have anything to do with Peter not receiving the keys in Matt 16:19 and receiving them later?

Oh I see…so a lot is future tense with Jesus,so we really have no clue-right?

 

[Nicea325]

WRONG.

Jesus didn’t say, "You are Kepha and on this confession of faith - or this statement of belief, I will build my Church. He said that he would build it on Peter - whom he was singling out to be chief Apostle and earthly Shepherd of his flock.

Again, not only do you disregard the Scriptures - but, as with Semper and others -you completely gloss over the testimonies of the Early Church on the matter. Very convenient - but not very well-thought-out . . .

elvisman,

What I do not get is how does one separate Peter’s confession from himself? Are they two separate entities in competition?

 

[Sufjon]

WRONG.

Jesus didn’t say, "You are Kepha and on this confession of faith - or this statement of belief, I will build my Church. He said that he would build it on Peter - whom he was singling out to be chief Apostle and earthly Shepherd of his flock.

Again, not only do you disregard the Scriptures - but, as with Semper and others -you completely gloss over the testimonies of the Early Church on the matter. Very convenient - but not very well-thought-out . . .

Hello again Elvisman: It’s has been a long time. I am not familiar with which bible a Catholic uses vs which bible a Protestant uses. I have been told that the New American Bible is acceptable. That bible records the exchange as follows:

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

It seems to me that this can be read to say what others are on this post who are Protestants are interpreting it to say, in others words, the truth that Peter had spoken was the rock on which He would build His church. If we wanted to establish without a doubt that He meant that Peter himself was the rock, would He not have said “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon you I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Without this sort of wording, it might be fair to say that it can be read to have either meaning. You have chosen one meaning to hold, and others have chosen another.

Your friend,
Sufjon