S
SoonerServant
Guest
If Peter is truly this “peg”, it sounds to me like he will be killed.
Proving or disproving the papasy of Peter as the first Pope, using scripture alone
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
The point is that the keys represent the authority of the king. The office is transmittable. No OT type is ever 100% 1:1 – and any “type” is always inferior to its fulfillment in the New Covenant.
But let’s go back to Mt. 19:19. Are you now straight on the grammar? On the distinction between the “you” form and the “thou” form? On the clear consensus of even Protestant scholars that “upon this rock” refers – gramatically – to Peter?
You have been pretty busy in the last couple of days. Have you had a chance to look at the resource I linked for you on another thread?
S
SoonerServant
Guest
But that can’t just be coincedence. We all know that God does not deal in coincedence. I don’t see anywhere it says that a new peg must replace the last.
M
mercygate
Guest
A “peg” holds the joint together. The stewardship is a transmissible office. We see the transmission of apostolic office in Acts Chapter 1.
Jesus promises that he will be with the Eleven “to the end of the world” and that the church he will build “upon this rock” – Peter – will not succumb even to the jaws of hell.
That’s how a new peg must replace the old one.
Now: Back to Mt. 16:18-19. Do you now recognize that the Scripture says in Greek – not asking you to accept the Catholic view of that text – that Peter is the rock Jesus is referring to and to whom he is promising the Keys?
A
adrift
Guest
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Ok, I can see that none of you are going to budge on the rock issue. So let me try a different approach. Lets say Jesus did build his church on Peter. Can you prove that Peter was given more authority and power by Jesus or, are you simply assuming this?
L
LilyM
Guest
And so Peter the man was - by martyrdom. That doesn’t negate the OFFICE of keybearer or mean that it died with him - after all, the Church lived on after Peter. It still needed and needs that one person who holds the keys and who continues in the role of the Rock upon which the church is built.
To go with your scriptural analogy, I’m certain there were other stewards after Eliakim who were also given the keys, and thus held the same office and authority as he did. Undoubtedly orderly succession after Eliakim’s death - keybearing steward (singular) following keybearing steward while ever the Kings needed to leave someone in charge of the Palace. Which would have been most always - not a one of 'em didn’t have to leave the Palace to fight and so on.
The power of Eliakim’s office didn’t after his death devolve to EVERYONE or to a large GROUP of people, now did it? It passed on to whatever man was chosen to succeed him. So with Peter - the office of course survived his death because there was and still is need to protect and build the Church (not churches) in the same way.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
We have seen them all throughout the NT. He was the first to preach a sermon, first to take the gospel to the gentiles and first in many other situations.
L
LilyM
Guest
You really should merge both your threads into one, they’re the same essentially.
How on earth does ‘you (singular) hold the Keys of the Kingdom’ together with ‘feed my lambs, feed my sheep’ and ‘strengthen your brothers’ - none of which were said to any of the other Apostles - NOT mean that Peter was directly given more power and authority by Christ himself???
The onus is really more on you to prove that what the bulk of Christianity believed for 1500 years straight, and half of Christianity still believes today, is wrong, that the gates of hell in fact prevailed against them (which it would if they taught such a major thing in error) contrary to Christ’s own promise, and that Peter WASN’T given more power and authority and otherwise singled out from the rest as their leader - and from scripture if you please.
AND that Scripture should be the only reference point in such matters - since John himself admits that it’s a totally incomplete record in terms of what Christ himself did and taught let alone what the Apostles and the early Church believed and taught.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
You’re leaving the part out about the load falling through. This is represntative of the church falling away from it’s original set up.
I don’t have a problem with Peter being a leader, that’s obvious. I do have a problem with saying he had more power and authority. He didn’t.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
This is what the text says:
First, God is speaking a message to Shebna.
Then, the Lord gives Shebna a prophecy of what will happen in his stead. He reveals:
So, within context, God is speaking to Shebna. He reveals to Shebna the consequences of his squandering stewardship. He begins his prophecy, with the line “In that day” or also translated “On that day.”
And what day is the Lord prophesying? It is the day in which he will remove SHEBNA from his office.
So, when the Lord again says in verse 25, “in that day” he again is referencing the day in which he is removing SHEBNA from his office. Shebna is the “sure peg” which is being sheared off and replaced by another “sure peg,” Eliakim. Verse 25 serves as a prophecy for Shebna, then, as well as a warning for Eliakim and all successors to the office of palace steward.
This prophecy and warning are strong admonishments regarding the authority that comes with the keys. It in no way indicates that the office will be vacant in the New Jersusalem, the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus, we see the fulfillment of this Old Testament type in Peter and his successors.
L
LilyM
Guest
But we’re not talking about a mere human institution set up by fallible kings and princes. We’re talking about Christ’s own Church (with a capital C for Catholic) which He intended to be one as He and the Father are one, and which He promised would prevail and NOT fall into error, even in the face of the gates of Hell.
And it was the INSTITUTION about which he was speaking - and the Popes in their role as leaders of that institution - not individual believers or Popes as private and sinful human beings. The constant splits and major disagreements within the non-Catholic denominations show very clearly that those denominations were not founded upon rock, rather upon very badly shifting sand.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Nope…no assumption at all.
- Peter is listed first in every New Testament list of the apostles, which is just as significant then and it would be today. The head guy is named first.
- Most important of all:
John 21:15-17
Did Our Lord make this commission to anyone else?
No he did not.
M
mercygate
Guest
The reason we are not going to budge is because the Scripture is absolutely clear on Mt. 16:18-19.
Sooner, please answer the question: Do you understand that Mt. 16:18-19 is grammatically clear in naming Peter as “the rock” upon whom Jesus promises to build his Church?
The answer to your question here is that Peter is the only Apostle to whom Jesus promised the Keys to “lock” and unlock the apostles’ power of binding and loosing. Their power is linked to their union with Peter.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Peter was given more authority than the other Apostles because he alone was given the keys to the kingdom.
The only other people, in Sacred Scripture, who hold “the keys”–the symbol of authority–are the chief steward and the king. This is strong witness to God, our sovereign King’s prerogative in choosing whomever he wants to steward his kindgom.
Peter is the recipient of the keys in the New Testament. He passes this authority and office on to his successors.
M
mercygate
Guest
What was that “original set up” again? You know: from Scripture?
M
mercygate
Guest
It’s up to you to support that statement, not just lay it out as if it needed no support. But you haven’t even condescended to answer the question about the grammar of Mt. 16:18-19.
You have also not shown support for your assertion that all Christians have the power to bind and loose.
How about coming on point and supporting YOUR case. We’re doin’ pretty good here in supporting the Catholic position – and we haven’t even looked at history.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. Show me the proof that GOD chose the popes, past or present.
Show me that Peter gave the next “pope”, his position.
Show me that Peter gave ANYONE his postion.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
This was not your OP. You wanted Scriptural proof of Peter’s authority as pope. Done.
If you want to discuss how popes are elected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, start another thread.
M
mercygate
Guest
So you now concede that Peter was the “first” of the Apostles, and that he had a unique position among the 12, and that Jesus promised to build his Church (against which the jaws of hell will not prevail) upon “the rock”, who is Peter?
Yes or no?
- Status