The Gates of Hell are Misrepresented

[mercygate]

Reformed Rob:

I have also considered that “gates” often refers to what we would think of as “Congress,” or at least where the city elders meet.
Examples:

Deut. 22:15 , 25:7
Prov. 14:19 , 24:7 , 31:23, 31
Psalm 69:12 , 127:5

So with that understanding, I would be inclined to understand that the “counsels of the wicked will not prevail against the truth in Christ’s Church.”

I just LOVE it when a Protestant gives me a fresh insight about a point of Catholic doctrine.

Thank you bales, my brother!

 

[BayCityRickL]

I lived in a town where the best Bible study ( actually the only Bible study, for some time) was at the local Christian Reformed Church.

Had a great time there, learned a lot and met some nice people. I liked reading the NIV.

 

[1plus1equals2]

Lets talk about Sedevacantism

 

[MrS]

1plus1equals2:

Lets talk about Sedevacantism

Do we have a moderator here tonight? This boy is getting out of hand, and this in only his first day with us.

MrS

 

[Toni]

Thank you for joining us and I hope that your question has been answered by all the posters here. Also thank you for enlightening me on all these truths from the church. Had you not have taken the time to ask the question many of us may have had to spend a lot of time looking all those wonderful posts up in the CC or the bible.

I just would add please read a little more on the tradition of the church. Also if your looking for some really good arguments for all your friends read the writings of the early church fathers.

I will say as a Catholic (and many of us that post on the forum), not only love our faith, but we also know our faith, or know where to find the answers for the arguments we as Catholic’s have received for years.

So if your desire was knowledge you have received it 10 fold. If it was simply to pull one more of our Catholic family member your way.
Sorry as many have stated there are informed Catholic’s here. And for those who may have been weak on this issue to begin with have achieved wonderful new knowledge to defend the faith.

Thanks again for the post. And sorry about the charity, many of us do take our faith very serious. When you know that you have the truth, the answers are always right at your fingertips.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Apologia100:

Oh my God!!! .

Respectfully, you should learn to use God’s name respectfully.

I am sorry that you think that most of the people who post here are the know-nothing, whishy-washy, pew warmers that make up 80% of most Catholic churches.

He said nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, he was fairly polite.

 

[asquared]

thank you Mr. Reformed Rob for the succinct way you frame your questions, and your citations. It is extremely helpful for those of us Catholics who use this forum primarily to exercise and improve our apologetics skills, to have the Protestant position stated accurately from authoritative sources. It makes it so much easier to debate logically without being led into irrelevancies and side issues. Of course, some of us are here only to attack and abuse, and they may not be so appreciative. I ask your patience and forgiveness when we lapse into uncharitableness and mean-spiritedness.

 

[James_2_24]

Reformed Bob,

Perhaps I’m coming in a bit late on this topic… but all I would like to add is that I admire your honesty, respect, and how polite you are in expressing your objections to Catholicism. You show true Christian charity.

Many non-Catholics come on this board to harass, rather than to debate honestly. And for that matter, there are also many of us who unjustly lash out at anyone who seems to question Catholicism.

I think you are a great example for all of us… Thanks.

 

[martino]

Reformed Rob, that is the weakest argument against Matt 16:18 that I have seen. I did not read all the posts leading up to mine so I appologize if this is redundant.

1)Quote Reformed Rob- "*’*Gates’ are defensive structures. The Lord is intending, and surely the Apostles, Peter especially, understood Christ to mean, that when the Church is on the offensive against tyranny in the world, and sin in individual’s lives, the power of Satan will succumb to the power and truth of the Gospel."

Yes gates are defensive structures which is why Jesus uses the word! Are trying to tell us that Jesus uses a defensive word (gates) to explain the offensive nature of the Church? That argument lacks both logic and any understanding of the verse. As far as “infallibility” goes, it would make perfect sense for Jesus to make reference to a defensive structure (gates) if He is promising that His Church will be protected from (defensive) error.

1. Quote Reformed Rob- " *Now, what is mentioned about the church’s teaching authority? Well, let’s go 2 verses later, and we will see. Christ actually limited their teaching authority! Verse 20 - Christ warned His disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ!" *

If you are looking for reference to authority pertaining to verse 18, why did you ignore verse 19 in favor of verse 20? I agree that verse 20 says nothing of authority, because verse 19 does. :banghead: Now let us go see what Jesus says in verse 19-“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” TAHDAH! BINGO! BULLSEYE! :clapping: Gosh, I knew it was there somewhere between verse 18 and 20, im going to have to keep my eye on that silly thing!

You have clearly and “forcefully” demonstrated how the “erroneous” Protestant claim of “personal interpretation” of Scripture falls flat on it’s face. Without an authoritative Church we are left with rediculous interpretations, like the one you just gave. You are the first person (probably ever) to use Matt 16:18-20 to prove that Jesus meant to limit the apostle’s authority.

 

[martino]

Reformed Rob, that is the weakest argument against Matt 16:18 that I have seen. I did not read all the posts leading up to mine so I appologize if this is redundant.

1)Quote Reformed Rob- "*’*Gates’ are defensive structures. The Lord is intending, and surely the Apostles, Peter especially, understood Christ to mean, that when the Church is on the offensive against tyranny in the world, and sin in individual’s lives, the power of Satan will succumb to the power and truth of the Gospel."

Yes gates are defensive structures which is why Jesus uses the word! Are trying to tell us that Jesus uses a defensive word (gates) to explain the offensive nature of the Church? That argument lacks both logic and any understanding of the verse. As far as “infallibility” goes, it would make perfect sense for Jesus to make reference to a defensive structure (gates) if He is promising that His Church will be protected from (defensive) error.

1. Quote Reformed Rob- " *Now, what is mentioned about the church’s teaching authority? Well, let’s go 2 verses later, and we will see. Christ actually limited their teaching authority! Verse 20 - Christ warned His disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ!" *

If you are looking for reference to authority pertaining to verse 18, why did you ignore verse 19 in favor of verse 20? I agree that verse 20 says nothing of authority, because verse 19 does. :banghead: Now let us go see what Jesus says in verse 19-“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” TAHDAH! BINGO! BULLSEYE! :clapping: Gosh, I knew it was there somewhere between verse 18 and 20, im going to have to keep my eye on that silly thing!

You have clearly and “forcefully” demonstrated how the “erroneous” Protestant claim of “personal interpretation” of Scripture falls flat on it’s face. Without an authoritative Church we are left with rediculous interpretations, like the one you just gave. You are the first person (probably ever) to use Matt 16:18-20 to prove that Jesus meant to limit the apostle’s authority.

Reformed Rob, I just ready your most recent post and see that you have already come around a bit. I would still like to hear your answers to the two points that I tried to make. I’m a bit sarcastic at times but it’s nothing personal!

 

[petra]

martino:

Yes gates are defensive structures which is why Jesus uses the word! Are trying to tell us that Jesus uses a defensive word (gates) to explain the offensive nature of the Church? That argument lacks both logic and any understanding of the verse.

How?

As far as “infallibility” goes, it would make perfect sense for Jesus to make reference to a defensive structure (gates) if He is promising that His Church will be protected from (defensive) error.

???
The reference is to the gates of Hades – not to the gates of the Church. The Church is not in the defensive position, Hades is. If Hades is defensive, then the Church is the aggressor. The Church aggressively seeks out the lost in order to rescue them.

 

[martino]

petra:

???
The reference is to the gates of Hades – not to the gates of the Church. The Church is not in the defensive position, Hades is. If Hades is defensive, then the Church is the aggressor. The Church aggressively seeks out the lost in order to rescue them.

You are not correctly stating the Church’s position on infallibility. Catholics generally do not use verse 18 as a proof text for infallibility, but rather verse 19. The “keys of the kingdom” that will be given to Peter, the power to “bind and loose”. Verse 18 would be used as a proof that Peter was the first pope,“and I say unto thee: That thou art Peter (Rock); and up on this rock I will build my Church…”.

You are trying to demonstrate the Church’s “erroneous” claim of infalliblity by showing that verse 18 doesn’t speak of infallibility. That is all well and good except for the fact that the Church doesn’t use verse 18 as proof of infallibilty, but that Peter was pope! If you want to cast doubt upon papal infallibility then you must deal with verse 19.

What you have done is create a straw argument for tearing down. I do not think you did this on purpose but by mere oversight. However, I would like to hear your arguments of Matt 16:19!

 

[petra]

martino:

You are not correctly stating the Church’s position on infallibility. Catholics generally do not use verse 18 as a proof text for infallibility, but rather verse 19. The “keys of the kingdom” that will be given to Peter, the power to “bind and loose”. Verse 18 would be used as a proof that Peter was the first pope,“and I say unto thee: That thou art Peter (Rock); and up on this rock I will build my Church…”.

You are trying to demonstrate the Church’s “erroneous” claim of infalliblity by showing that verse 18 doesn’t speak of infallibility. That is all well and good except for the fact that the Church doesn’t use verse 18 as proof of infallibilty, but that Peter was pope! If you want to cast doubt upon papal infallibility then you must deal with verse 19.

What you have done is create a straw argument for tearing down. I do not think you did this on purpose but by mere oversight. However, I would like to hear your arguments of Matt 16:19!

Catholics most certainly do use Matt: 16:18 to prove infallability. I’ve been participating in the CA forums since they begun last spring, and this verse is by far the most common to be cited to prove the Church cannot ever err in faith and morals. It is not a straw man at all. When the issue of infallability comes up, Catholics almost always quote 16:18 alone. If it is not addressing infallibility, what is Jesus talking about?

I was not omitting discussion of Matt. 16:19 anymore than I was any other verse in the Bible. Clearly, scripture is best understood in context. But that does not preclude a focused discussion on a particular verse.

16:19 is very interesting, as well. It, too, is rather ambiguous and does not clearly say, “the Church is perfectly infallible on matters of faith and morals.” If it clearly said that, there would be no discussion. But you are saying that the Church infallibly interprets this verse to mean that it can infallibly interpret scripture. This is circular reasoning, an issue currently being discussed in another thread.

The Church, of course, interprets binding and loosing to be the Church’s perogative to retain or absolve sins. There are 2 reasons I question this interpretation. The first is there has been severe abuse in the sacrament of reconciliation. I have learned that centuries ago, certain severe mortal sins were never absolved. It was the teaching and/or practice that they couldn’t be forgiven. The Church now teaches that any sin can be forgiven except for the sin of unrepentance.

God’s determination of what can and cannot be forgiven does not change. If the Church was in error regarding the above, how much sense does it make that the Church can override God’s judgment? Does it make sense that someone would be damned because of Church error? It does not make sense to me at all. This can’t be what God intended.

Secondly, the Church’s interpretation of binding and loosing is somewhat incongruent with the flow of thought in Matt. 16:18. Jesus [ostensibly] says the Church is protected from teaching error in the area of faith and morals. Then Jesus abruptly announces the basis for the sacrament of reconciliation. Why the abrupt change of subject? Jesus did not typically speak in such a disjointed manner.

A very common interpretation, and more reasonable in light of verse 18 referring to the Church’s ability to free souls from the captivity of Satan, is that we have the authority to bind and loose in the spiritual dominion to facilitate the saving of souls. This represents a more congruent train of thought in what Christ was communicating.

 

[martino]

Petra, I appreciate your response and I do appologize for getting your post mixed up with Reformed Rob’s, I actually thought I was responding to him until I realized it was you that answered my post. Let me try to deal with some of the things that you said:

"Catholics most certainly do use Matt: 16:18 to prove infallability. I’ve been participating in the CA forums since they begun last spring, and this verse is by far the most common to be cited to prove the Church cannot ever err in faith and morals. It is not a straw man at all. When the issue of infallability comes up, Catholics almost always quote 16:18 alone."

I have no idea why you guys insist on adding the word “alone” to the end of sentences; but anyway I too have been at this apologetics thing for a little while now and I am quite sure that Matt 16:18 is not the most common verse used to support infallibility. To be absolutely sure I even went back to some of my apologetic resources and did not find Matt 16:18 as a source for infallibility. What I did find was Matt 16:19 listed 100% of the time. Common sense and even your own post agrees with me that verse 19 is the one that deals more directly with infallibility. Your only complaint of v.19 is that it does not say these exact words, “the Church is perfectly infallible on matters of faith and morals.” But we both know this is silly because you don’t even hold your own beliefs up to this test, if you did you would still be worshipping on Saturday.

You also misrepresent what the Church means by “binding and loosing” by implying that this strictly refers to the Sacrament of Confession. Binding and loosing refers to the full spectrum of Church authority, whether it be dogmatic principles in matters of faith and morals, or whether it be liturgical or disciplinary matters (i.e. priestly celibacy). Matt 16:18 is a little ambiguous as you say, because it is laying out Jesus’ plan for His Church in a very general way, but deals spefically with Peter as the rock. We can look at John 20:22-23 if you want a more specific illustration of reconciliation.

And lastly, you gave us a one sentence interpretation of your own that you think better accounts for Matt 16; "A very common interpretation, and more reasonable in light of verse 18 referring to the Church’s ability to free souls from the captivity of Satan, is that we have the authority to bind and loose in the spiritual dominion to facilitate the saving of souls."

I have no idea what binding and loosing would be refering to using your interpretation (can you give an example?). “The Church’s ability to free souls from the captivity of Satan…”; would this be freeing souls from Satan after they die or before? I must assume that you mean after death because v.18 specifically states that the “gates of Hades” will not prevail against (the Church). Hades is the abode of the dead, so when you say that this means the Church has the “ability to free souls” from this place; what exactly do you mean? If you are Protestant I know you cannot mean that the Church has the ability to free souls lost in hell after they die! That is more power than the Catholic Church has ever claimed. Who is the “we”, in “we have the authority to bind and loose…”? And how in the world does your explanation of all this better represent what Jesus what trying to communicate?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Reformed Rob:

Please understand, as a Protestant, I’m not here to bash Catholic doctrines, or argue just for the spite of arguing. I try to be cordial, but as Catholics here in the “Apologetics” arena, I see plenty of proof that you are anxious and capable of answering Protestant objections to your doctrines. So I present this challenge as cordially as possible, but I must word it strongly for it to seem real.

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Catholic claim that is stated so erronously here, is that the Lord will not let his Church fall to false doctrines, for “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

I answer that,

“Gates” are defensive structures. The Lord is intending, and surely the Apostles, Peter especially, understood Christ to mean, that when the Church is on the offensive against tyranny in the world, and sin in individual’s lives, the power of Satan will succumb to the power and truth of the Gospel. Ultimately, the world will be predominately “Christianized”, and Isaiah 2 / Micah 4:1-3 will be fulfilled!

Nicely said With Acts 2, compare Daniel 2.44 - Jesus (or the Church, or both) as the “mountain of the Lord”.​

Just a guess, but, possibly the gift of the keys to Peter is to be linked with the key in Revelation with which an angel closes the bottomless pit over satan for the 1000 years. There are also the “keys of death and hell” which Jesus holds, also in Revelation. All of which might be linked up with Isaiah 22 and Isaiah 9.6.

IOW, Jesus holds the keys as Davidic Messiah-King (one of Matthew’s leading ideas) but delegates them to Peter as to his steward, so that the Church on earth can participate in the victory over satan and the underworld. And it participates in this victory during the 1000 years - the life of the Church on earth. The angel with the keys may be a heavenly counterpart to Peter, the action in heaven being the counterpart of that on earth. After which there will be the final revolt of satan, and his final destruction.

Just a guess ##

Nothing is spoken here about there being an “infallible” church magesterium that is guarded from doctrinal error in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the whole church! Actually, it’s just the contrary. Here the promise is to the fact that when the church is on the “offensive” against the “gates of hell”, those gates will not be able to withstand the onslaught of Christian dominion!

Now, what is mentioned about the church’s teaching authority? Well, let’s go 2 verses later, and we will see. Christ actually limited their teaching authority! Verse 20 - Christ warned His disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ!

[snip]

If Jesus had been known to be the Christ before the Passion, probably nobody would understood what sort of Messiah he was. Not a Heavenly one, not a human one, or a priestly one, or a conquering one - but all of them, in a way nobody could have anticipated. His kingship is not over an politically independent Judah - he is not a David or Solomon. He is a king who is conquers through weakness, humiliation, and suffering. He is infinitely better than people expected. So he gets treated as though he was a the least of men.​

And this means going, deliberately, to the Cross - which is what Peter tries to protect him from. But it was just another, exceedingly subtle, temptation. So Jesus tells the tempter, who is seeking to use against Jesus the very man whom the Father has so greatly blessed - to be gone. Peter had in fact tried to stop Jesus doing the father’s Will. But it is by being “lifted up” on the Cross, that Jesus begins to reign and to overcome. And in no other way. ##

 

[petra]

martino:

I have no idea why you guys insist on adding the word “alone” to the end of sentences.

Who are “you guys”? Are you referring to Protestants? I’m not a Protestant. I am a Catholic. However, my faith in the Church has admittedly been shaken up since I started participating on this Board. I’m just trying to sort things out.

I don’t know what to make of your comment about putting alone at the end of a sentence! Is that grammatically incorrect? I am just saying that, in my experience on this Board, it seems that Matt. 16:18 comes up as the standard verse to defend infallibility. I am very confused about your objection to putting the word alone at the end of a sentence. Can you please explain?

Common sense and even your own post agrees with me that verse 19 is the one that deals more directly with infallibility.

How does verse 19 deal with infallibility? I don’t see it. And where in my post did I agree with you???

Your only complaint of v.19 is that it does not say these exact words,“the Church is perfectly infallible on matters of faith and morals.” But we both know this is silly because you don’t even hold your own beliefs up to this test, if you did you would still be worshipping on Saturday.

Huh? I don’t follow you.

You also misrepresent what the Church means by “binding and loosing” by implying that this strictly refers to the Sacrament of Confession. Binding and loosing refers to the full spectrum of Church authority, whether it be dogmatic principles in matters of faith and morals, or whether it be liturgical or disciplinary matters (i.e. priestly celibacy). Matt 16:18 is a little ambiguous as you say, because it is laying out Jesus’ plan for His Church in a very general way, but deals spefically with Peter as the rock. We can look at John 20:22-23 if you want a more specific illustration of reconciliation.

Forgive me. I don’t mean to misrepresent the Church. That was simply my understanding of the Church’s interpretation of that verse. But I still don’t understand how the Church could have greater authority than God, even when the Church errs, as in the case of the centuries-old teaching that certain sins could never be forgiven. Why would God allow someone to be damned on account of the Church’s error?

I have no idea what binding and loosing would be refering to using your interpretation (can you give an example?). “The Church’s ability to free souls from the captivity of Satan…”; would this be freeing souls from Satan after they die or before? I must assume that you mean after death because v.18 specifically states that the “gates of Hades” will not prevail against (the Church). Hades is the abode of the dead, so when you say that this means the Church has the “ability to free souls” from this place; what exactly do you mean? Who is the “we”, in “we have the authority to bind and loose…”? And how in the world does your explanation of all this better represent what Jesus what trying to communicate?

No, I’m referring to rescuing people before they die – evangelism. Before people are saved, they are the captives and possessions of the devil and they are spiritually dead. The devil’s defenses are no match for the power and authority we have over the kingdom of the netherworld. Any Christian has the power, in prayer, to bind the powers of darkness and free a person spiritually so they may have the ability to freely choose Christ. Some people are so lost and entangled in sin, they can’t freely choose Him. Christ has given all Christians the power and authority to prayerfully free such people.

 

[nordskoven]

The architecture of walled cities of old incorporated mustering points, or large guard stations, right at the gates. These fortified posts flanking the city gates were manned by crack troops, the best of the best. Jesus was using an idiom referring to this elite guard.

When Christ said "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against [His Church founded on Peter, the Rock], Jesus was saying that the best of the worst would never prevail against His Church as led by His Prime Minister, holder of the Keys to the Kingdom.

This office of Prime Minister is referenced in the Old Testament passage in which the keys to the kingdom were taken from Prime Minister Shebna in removing him from office. The Kingdom of God is in our midst. Well we would remember that Christ said those who reject His servants reject Himself and the Father.

 

[petra]

nordskoven:

The architecture of walled cities of old incorporated mustering points, or large guard stations, right at the gates. These fortified posts flanking the city gates were manned by crack troops, the best of the best. Jesus was using an idiom referring to this elite guard.

When Christ said "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against [His Church founded on Peter, the Rock], Jesus was saying that the best of the worst would never prevail against His Church as led by His Prime Minister, holder of the Keys to the Kingdom.

This office of Prime Minister is referenced in the Old Testament passage in which the keys to the kingdom were taken from Prime Minister Shebna in removing him from office. The Kingdom of God is in our midst. Well we would remember that Christ said those who reject His servants reject Himself and the Father.

Those elite guards would not be expected to leave their posts, though, would they? They are not an offensive unit. They are there to defend the gates. If they left their post to wage an offensive battle, they would not be the elite unit of soldiers they are purported to be. Therefore, the site of the battle is at those gates. The offensive unit is the Church. The objective: to free souls from the kingdom of darkness through evangelism.

The Kingdom of God certainly is in our midst! Praise Him!

 

[MariaG]

posted by Petra

Who are “you guys”? Are you referring to Protestants? I’m not a Protestant. I am a Catholic. However, my faith in the Church has admittedly been shaken up since I started participating on this Board. I’m just trying to sort things out.

You are Catholic? Really? Wow, even your word choices sound Protestant to me. Your concept of binding and loosing is straight from the teaching I received at the Assembly of God churches. I think you need to seek out better teachers who teach Christ’s truth and the truth of the Catholic church if that is what you have been learning at Mass or at Bible Studies.

originally posted by Todd

By extension, Hades is also the habitation of evil forces that bring about death and deception (Rev 6:8; 20:1-3). According to Jewish tradition, the foundation stone (Heb. 'eben shetiyyah) of the Jerusalem Temple capped off and sealed a long shaft leading down to the netherworld (Rev 9:1-2; 20:1-3). The Temple, resting securely on a rock, was thus the center of the cosmos, the junction between heaven and Hades. Drawing from this background, **Jesus guarantees that the powers of death and deception will not overcome the Church—i.e., the new Temple built on Peter. **He enables Peter (and his successors) to hold error at bay and faithfully proclaim the gospel (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 552).

I would refer you again to Todd’s post. It, in my opinion should clear up your misconceptions. As this has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church, you should rest assured that the NEW way of interpreting the Bible along Protestant lines is a man-made Tradition. Once again, as a Catholic, your teaching has been severely Protestant as can be seen in the very word choices of your posts. The concepts and interpretations you have are Protestant. If your faith in Catholic teachings has been shaken, maybe it is because you apparently haven’t been taught Catholic teachings at least on this point.

I say this not in a mean way at all, but like I said, your concept of binding and loosing is not from Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching of binding and loosing is to set and change the “rules” that a follower of Christ must do. A fundamentalist teaching of binding and loosing is more to do with setting people, who are alive, free from Satanic binds that they have deliberately (like Satanic worship), generationally, and inadvertently (like a seance as a kid) gotten themselves into.

This board usually presents some of the most Orthodox Catholic beliefs you can find on the internet. If the things you learn here “shake your Catholic faith” I truly question how “Catholic” your teaching were in the first place.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[petra]

MariaG:

This board usually presents some of the most Orthodox Catholic beliefs you can find on the internet. If the things you learn here “shake your Catholic faith” I truly question how “Catholic” your teaching were in the first place.

God Bless,
Maria

Hi Maria,

I’m a fairly new Catholic, and was Protestant before that. I’m finding out now, that when I converted to Catholicism, I really didn’t know much about it. The priest that instructed me prior to my conversion presented a very different picture of what Catholicism is. He made it seem very simple and very positive.

I agree that this board is very orthodox, and my concerns come from the posts of conservative Catholics. In other words, Catholics are shaking my faith, not dissenters. I’m here to honestly try to work through my issues (I hope you don’t object to that), which are theological and not moral. I’m in complete agreement with the moral teachings of the Church.