PDA

View Full Version : HELP Peter = Rock Refutation



renthead188
Mar 24th 2008, 06:18 PM
I am a new Christian. I am currently being approached by some Roman Catholic friends that are attempting to convince me that the true church is only found through Rome. Their basis for this claim is in the Matthew Passage referring to "rock and keys" and the John passage "feed my sheep". Their external references consist of references to Early Church Fathers and "it's always been that way".

Both of these friends are attending a Roman Catholic institution, one is studying theology and the other philosophy. I am attending a local state funded school studying psychology. There is a gap in the availability of resources between our two parties. I believe that I have found a successful refutation of their claims that "The Early Church Fathers regarded Peter as the rock upon which the church of Christ is built." I am, however, a new Christian and I would seriously request advisement in this matter before I bring this argument to my friends (maybe a month or two from now) at length.

Would anyone be so kind as to spend some time investigating the links below and to comment on them? I would really appreciate some insight, here.

Also, I do solidly believe that the true rock of the Church of God is Jesus Christ and that the foundation upon which the church is built is Jesus Christ and faith in Him. This Holy Church of which Peter was the first (sequentially) of many. I am seeking guidance as to the validity of these refutations. Thank you all!

The link below go straight to William Webster's refuations of the RCC claim "The Early Church Fathers recognize Peter a the rock of the Church." as described above.

http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html

thank you all and God bless!

Christopher

amazzin
Mar 24th 2008, 06:21 PM
I am a new Christian. I am currently being approached by some Roman Catholic friends that are attempting to convince me that the true church is only found through Rome. Their basis for this claim is in the Matthew Passage referring to "rock and keys" and the John passage "feed my sheep". Their external references consist of references to Early Church Fathers and "it's always been that way".

Both of these friends are attending a Roman Catholic institution, one is studying theology and the other philosophy. I am attending a local state funded school studying psychology. There is a gap in the availability of resources between our two parties. I believe that I have found a successful refutation of their claims that "The Early Church Fathers regarded Peter as the rock upon which the church of Christ is built." I am, however, a new Christian and I would seriously request advisement in this matter before I bring this argument to my friends (maybe a month or two from now) at length.

Would anyone be so kind as to spend some time investigating the links below and to comment on them? I would really appreciate some insight, here.

Also, I do solidly believe that the true rock of the Church of God is Jesus Christ and that the foundation upon which the church is built is Jesus Christ and faith in Him. This Holy Church of which Peter was the first (sequentially) of many. I am seeking guidance as to the validity of these refutations. Thank you all!

The link below go straight to William Webster's refuations of the RCC claim "The Early Church Fathers recognize Peter a the rock of the Church." as described above.

http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html

thank you all and God bless!

Christopher

The "Rock" referred to in Matthew is not Rome or Peter but the foundational truth that Jesus is truth, the life the only way to God. The "Keys' are not literal keys but the principles taught by Christ for how we are to live an abundant life.

renthead188
Mar 24th 2008, 06:40 PM
The "Rock" referred to in Matthew is not Rome or Peter but the foundational truth that Jesus is truth, the life the only way to God. The "Keys' are not literal keys but the principles taught by Christ for how we are to live an abundant life.

I am aware of this. Please read my entire post. My concern is with presenting a successful refutation of this distortion to my Roman Catholic friends who have (since my conversion) been barraging me with pro-RCC books and remarks, even mocking those outside of their supposed "true" church. I intend to present a successful refuation of their statements when they return home after this semester. I seek assistance.

Athanasius
Mar 24th 2008, 07:37 PM
I am aware of this. Please read my entire post. My concern is with presenting a successful refutation of this distortion to my Roman Catholic friends who have (since my conversion) been barraging me with pro-RCC books and remarks, even mocking those outside of their supposed "true" church. I intend to present a successful refuation of their statements when they return home after this semester. I seek assistance.

There's no [good] reason to think 'rock' refers to anything but Jesus. Otherwise the interpretation is esiegetical. Basically the refutation is, "look at the passage, it's obviously not referring to Peter". If they want to argue 'early church fathers' (who would have been wrong if they said it referred to Peter) then you're wasting your time, presently.

Just goes to show what poor theology and bad philosophy will do to people ;\

David Taylor
Mar 24th 2008, 08:09 PM
Some scriptures about the Rock and the keys.

Jesus has the keys.

Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven"
Revelation 1:18 "I am he thatliveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; andhave the keys of hell and of death."
Revelation 3:7 "These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth"Jesus gives the Kingdom of Heaven to whomever He wills, not solely to Peter.



Jesus is the Rock.

Deuteronomy 32:3 "Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
II Samuel 23:3 "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me"
2 Corinthians 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Peter was a sinful servant, like those who lived before and after him; who followed the true Rock, who held the true Keys.

Ask your RCC friends why they are esteeming Peter, instead of Jesus? And of whom should their esteem be given to.

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 24th 2008, 09:32 PM
Hmmmm Catholics you say?

You won't get far quoting scripture. They might be convinved, but they will probably just look for other justifications. Hit them where it hurts - Church fathers.

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

Here is history flatly contradicting what they are telling you about the Papacy.

Also, ask them why there were no Papal Encyclicals until the middle ages (around the time of the development of the modern papacy).

renthead188
Mar 25th 2008, 02:54 AM
I do appreciate all of your responses, I really do. I was first convinced from The Word that the rock of The Church is Jesus Christ upon my first reading of Matthew, however "proof texting" is useless because they will simply refer to the "feed the sheep" verse in John and I to the parable of the house upon the rock and sand. We will run in circles. The specific intention of my post was and is as follows:

My friends have asserted that from their interpretation of Scripture "The Church" (they are careful to refer to RCC as THE Church) has always believed that Peter is the Rock. They have attempted to back this up with the statement that "The Early Church Fathers believed this as well."

The argument is now out of The Bible. The opinion of the ECF is not the be all/ end all in this matter, but it can be influential in deciding what the original interpretation of this passage was. It is clear to me from the link that I had provided http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html and the other http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html that the ECF did NOT believe that Peter was the rock and they in fact believed that Christ is The Rock and that upon this rock and the confession of faith in HIM alone, was the church built. Peter's Primacy was not one of Jurisdiction but was simply sequential in that Peter happened to be the first of many to come.

My question, is, what do you all make of the writings found at the link? Are the sources reliable, does anyone know? I have little to no background in Churh History but the Truth speaks on it's own. I just don't want to cloud it up...

What about the "real presence" doctrine? Anybody have any references to read about the Church Father's view of this? I cannot, in all good conscience, see how anyone can conclude this after a slow and careul reading of John 6.

Christopher

Realist1981
Mar 25th 2008, 08:44 AM
Some scriptures about the Rock and the keys.

Jesus has the keys.

Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven"
Revelation 1:18 "I am he thatliveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; andhave the keys of hell and of death."
Revelation 3:7 "These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth"Jesus gives the Kingdom of Heaven to whomever He wills, not solely to Peter.



Jesus is the Rock.

Deuteronomy 32:3 "Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
II Samuel 23:3 "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me"
2 Corinthians 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
Peter was a sinful servant, like those who lived before and after him; who followed the true Rock, who held the true Keys.

Ask your RCC friends why they are esteeming Peter, instead of Jesus? And of whom should their esteem be given to.


Excellent post David
Jesus is the rock. Also one key fact is that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, not Peter. Paul's letters make up most of the New Testament. Paul established the church in Rome. If anybody is going to be confused with establishing the catholic chuch in Rome it would be Paul not Peter. Peter's office was inward, that's to say to the Jews not Gentiles.

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 25th 2008, 12:38 PM
My question, is, what do you all make of the writings found at the link? Are the sources reliable, does anyone know? I have little to no background in Churh History but the Truth speaks on it's own. I just don't want to cloud it up...


The sources are very reliable. Another good point would be to consider the Orthodox Church. The reason it exists today is because not all of Christendom decided to follow the Roman Church.


What about the "real presence" doctrine? Anybody have any references to read about the Church Father's view of this? I cannot, in all good conscience, see how anyone can conclude this after a slow and careul reading of John 6.


http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

The people at CA have a library of quotes from the early church fathers. They believed, without a doubt, in the Real Presence.

Here you will run into a problem with the Catholics. We, as Protestants, do not accept the ECF (early church fathers) as authoritative.

BlessedMan
Mar 25th 2008, 12:55 PM
So these guys want to give yu good reasons to join there church, so what. If they care about yu and yur all Christians give them their points. It doesn t hurt.

renthead188
Mar 25th 2008, 02:17 PM
So these guys want to give yu good reasons to join there church, so what. If they care about yu and yur all Christians give them their points. It doesn t hurt.

Yes - They put their faith in Jesus Christ and that's AWESOME!

but it doesn't make a lot of the other things that they do alright.

"Giving them their points" it alright - letting them proclaim that I'm in danger of leaving Christ if I'm not RC - that's something else entirely.

renthead188
Mar 25th 2008, 02:24 PM
The sources are very reliable. Another good point would be to consider the Orthodox Church. The reason it exists today is because not all of Christendom decided to follow the Roman Church.



http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

The people at CA have a library of quotes from the early church fathers. They believed, without a doubt, in the Real Presence.

Here you will run into a problem with the Catholics. We, as Protestants, do not accept the ECF (early church fathers) as authoritative.

Thank you! These guys refer to the early church fathers nearly ever time I see them. We can hardly talk about Christ without "Well, Augustine said..." so I know that they hold them in high esteem, if not authority. They have told me that the Early Church Fathers support the exclusiveness of Peter = Rock and I am glad to find that they are mistaken in this. I will present this to them, if this is successfully proven maybe the RC claim to "real presence" will be given some more thought. I don't have much more to offer them on that than a careful examination of John's Gospel and "I prayed about it and I knew for sure... this is NOT His physical body."

Thank you very much!

Christopher
Hmmm I can see how I can logically point out the weakness in the "real presence" argument from within the text. Whether or not it will fall on receptive ears, that's another story indeed.

mccain22
Mar 25th 2008, 09:19 PM
the rock does not refer to peter, but peter's testimony(Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior). Jesus is the rock, not peter.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 27th 2008, 02:00 AM
I'll throw my thoughts in the mix...

First the scripture...

Matt. 16
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter(4074), and upon this rock(4073) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

If we look at the scripture in context Jesus was asking who others said that He was? Some of the apostles answered. Then He asked who do you said that I am? Peter answers and says You are the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus didn't tell Peter this God revealed it to him. Immediately, Jesus says and upon this rock I will build my church. Jesus is not referring to Peter. He is referring to the answer that Peter gave. That is the principle that the church was founded on and there is no other foundation that it could be built on. Now I do believe that verse 19 does refer to Peter. For it would be his charge to lead the others and establish the church.


Second the Greek...
1. petra (πέτρα, 4073) denotes “a mass of rock,” as distinct from petros (4074), “a detached stone or boulder,”
If the first part was not enough here we see that it is 2 different Greek words being referred to. One meaning a mass of rock (in red) and the other witch is what Peter is in the Greek (in blue). This alone should be enough to show that Jesus was not referring to Peter but what Peter said!

Some verses that might help this make more sense...

Luke 6:48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=6&verse=48&version=9&context=verse)
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock (petra...not petros): and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

1 Corinthians 3:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=3&verse=10&version=9&context=verse)-11
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


Ephesians 2:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=2&verse=20&version=9&context=verse)
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

None of these verses imply that Peter is that foundation...It clearly states that Jesus is that foundation and that all points back to what Peter says and what Jesus is really referring to.

9Marksfan
Mar 27th 2008, 11:15 AM
So these guys want to give yu good reasons to join there church, so what. If they care about yu and yur all Christians give them their points. It doesn t hurt.

But it's clear from Christopher's posts that they don't care about him - they're mocking his biblical faith and are arrogantly asserting that only their chruch is the true church. Nothing caring or Christian about that.....

9Marksfan
Mar 27th 2008, 11:17 AM
Yes - They put their faith in Jesus Christ and that's AWESOME!

but it doesn't make a lot of the other things that they do alright.

"Giving them their points" it alright - letting them proclaim that I'm in danger of leaving Christ if I'm not RC - that's something else entirely.

Hi Christopher

I don't believe they HAVE truly put their faith in the Christ of the Bible - by their fruits you will know them.....

They sound like modern day Galatians - instead of "you have to be circumcised" "you have to obey the Law" it's "you have to be in the RCC" - this is another gospel - read Galatians!

9Marksfan
Mar 27th 2008, 11:21 AM
Thank you! These guys refer to the early church fathers nearly ever time I see them. We can hardly talk about Christ without "Well, Augustine said..." so I know that they hold them in high esteem, if not authority. They have told me that the Early Church Fathers support the exclusiveness of Peter = Rock and I am glad to find that they are mistaken in this. I will present this to them, if this is successfully proven maybe the RC claim to "real presence" will be given some more thought. I don't have much more to offer them on that than a careful examination of John's Gospel and "I prayed about it and I knew for sure... this is NOT His physical body."

Thank you very much!

Christopher
Hmmm I can see how I can logically point out the weakness in the "real presence" argument from within the text. Whether or not it will fall on receptive ears, that's another story indeed.

One argument to use about the "real presence" in John 6 is that Jesus would be advicating a kind of spiritual cannibalism! Also, if we are "literally" to eat His flesh and drink His blood - then if He is the Vine, is He a plant? If He is the Door, is He made of wood? We are not meant to take these analogies LITERALLY! It's the same with "this is my body" - is= represents!

9Marksfan
Mar 27th 2008, 11:22 AM
In 1 Pet 5:2, Peter describes himself simply as a "fellow elder" - not as the Bishop of Rome! In fact, it's highly doubtful he ever held that position!

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 27th 2008, 01:59 PM
Romans 11
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Paul speaking in both scriptures

Galatians 2
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

DAISHI
Mar 30th 2008, 11:57 AM
Two different words are used in the Greek here.

Christ say "You are 'Petros' (A Piece of Rock) and upon this 'Petra' (Mass of Rock) I will build my church.

renthead188
Mar 30th 2008, 04:11 PM
Thanks everybody. I've recieved a bulk of literature from them about the Early Church Fathers. It's interesting and helpful, no doubt, but authoritative, not so much. I have found a plethora of quotes from these Fathers that demonstrate quite clearly that there was no universal consensus on "the rock" verse and if there WAS one to be found, it would certainly be in the favor of Jesus Christ the PERSON or Placing one's faith IN Jesus Christ. Augustine goes as far as to say that "When we say 'Jesus Christ is the Son of God' we are as Peter and just as it was said to Peter 'you are a rock' so also it is said to us 'you are a rock" I paraphrase but the quote exists and it's in his Recantments in which he further clarified what he believed about "the rock verse".

Can anyone suggest an accurate and detailed account of Church History? I have found Bruce Shelley's "Church History in Plain Language" but it reads a lot like a novel and isn't all that well sourced, to be quite honest. Although I have no discintive reason NOT to trust it, I would be cautious in referencing it to my friends without further citations.

Any advice on that?

Thanks guys!

David Taylor
Mar 31st 2008, 04:29 PM
Here are some links to sites that catalog the ECF writings.

The first two I use from time to time, because they are searchable; which helps digging stuff out.

www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/index.htm)
(uses Google)

and

www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/ (http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/)


www.northforest.org/Escha...liasm.html (http://www.northforest.org/Eschatology/ecfChiliasm.html)

www.earlychurch.org.uk/index.html (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/index.html)

www.earlychristianwritings.com/ (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/)

www.ccel.org/fathers2/ (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/)
www.ccel.org/p/pearse/mor.../home.html (http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/home.html)

2 Peter 2:20
Apr 1st 2008, 02:06 AM
Wesley's commentary...

On this rock - Alluding to his name, which signifies a rock, namely, the faith which thou hast now professed; I will build my Church - But perhaps when our Lord uttered these words, he pointed to himself, in like manner as when he said, Destroy this temple, John 2:19; meaning the temple of his body. And it is certain, that as he is spoken of in Scripture, as the only foundation of the Church, so this is that which the apostles and evangelists laid in their preaching.

DAISHI
Apr 1st 2008, 06:16 AM
Well if you look at the Greek words, if Peter is the little rock, then it makes sense for Christ to refer to himself as the big rock.

9Marksfan
Apr 1st 2008, 08:45 AM
Well if you look at the Greek words, if Peter is the little rock, then it makes sense for Christ to refer to himself as the big rock.

That's, er, "rock solid" exegesis! ;)

DAISHI
Apr 2nd 2008, 06:00 AM
LoL got to love Bible humor. My seminary professors would be proud of me now!

daughter
Apr 2nd 2008, 07:45 AM
I have a friend who has done some good videos on this... here are some links. The videos are about ten minutes, but quite condensed and packed with scripture. It's worth watching them with a pen and note pad, to write down the scripture references so you can go back and check them later. This study on Peter is in two parts.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=72dc5a5c8cbd70c055e7

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=6a06701b206644ecd565


Also, check this video for a more realistic assessment of Peter.

My question to RC believers is this. If Peter was the first pope, and therefore he was infallible in matters of doctrine, how come Paul had to rebuke him when he refused to eat with gentile believers?

Peter was a man... a very good man indeed after his salvation. But you only have to read his own letters to realise that he knew exactly Who the rock of his salvation was... Peter based all his hope on Jesus, and he preached Him crucified. The first ever sermon was all about Jesus, and it was that which saved... not Peter, but God, through His Holy Spirit, and the example of His son.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=361ea558c6a6fef7155d

renthead188
Apr 3rd 2008, 08:41 PM
thank you ALL for your replies!!! This information has been VERY helpful! I would like to point out another explanation of "the rock" which I foudn to be particularly helpful indeed...

This is a link to an article from 1960

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1960/v17-2-article3.htm

God bless!

Chris

Mark F
Apr 9th 2008, 01:41 AM
How about the Old Testament? Surely Peter would not be the one that is a rock previously mentioned. I would think that from Scripture it must be evident that there was an established Rock from the exodus!! You cannot argue or persuade people who when confronted with very clear Scripture still refuse to see the truth of the matter.

Habakkuk 1:12
"Are You not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, You have marked them for correction."

Psalm 92:15
"To declare that the LORD is upright;He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him."

Psalm 95:1
"Oh come, let us sing to the LORD!Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation."

Psalm 144:1
"Blessed be the LORD my Rock,Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle-"

Isaiah 8:14
"He will be as a sanctuary, But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense To both the houses of Israel, As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

Isaiah 17:10
"Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation, And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold, Therefore you will plant pleasant plants And set out foreign seedlings;"

And many many more....


As for the Lord giving Peter the keys to the kingdom I do believe there is some merit there but it wasn't the keys to the vicar's chamber!

I need to go over the teaching I have on this and will post in a day or so, from memory I couldn't be clear. I will say that the keys are three in number, first to the Jews in Jerusalem, second to the Samaritans in Sameria (Acts 8), and thirdly to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius the first Gentile believers (Acts 10).

But note it was Peter who first opened the door (with the keys Christ gave him) but do notice, he did not remain in a position of prominence, Paul took over after Peter.

DAISHI
Apr 9th 2008, 09:32 AM
I think it's important not to overcomplicate this but unfortunately the RCC does.

renthead188
Apr 28th 2008, 04:40 AM
How about the Old Testament? Surely Peter would not be the one that is a rock previously mentioned. I would think that from Scripture it must be evident that there was an established Rock from the exodus!! You cannot argue or persuade people who when confronted with very clear Scripture still refuse to see the truth of the matter.

Habakkuk 1:12
"Are You not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, You have marked them for correction."

Psalm 92:15
"To declare that the LORD is upright;He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him."

Psalm 95:1
"Oh come, let us sing to the LORD!Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation."

Psalm 144:1
"Blessed be the LORD my Rock,Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle-"

Isaiah 8:14
"He will be as a sanctuary, But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense To both the houses of Israel, As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

Isaiah 17:10
"Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation, And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold, Therefore you will plant pleasant plants And set out foreign seedlings;"

And many many more....


As for the Lord giving Peter the keys to the kingdom I do believe there is some merit there but it wasn't the keys to the vicar's chamber!

I need to go over the teaching I have on this and will post in a day or so, from memory I couldn't be clear. I will say that the keys are three in number, first to the Jews in Jerusalem, second to the Samaritans in Sameria (Acts 8), and thirdly to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius the first Gentile believers (Acts 10).

But note it was Peter who first opened the door (with the keys Christ gave him) but do notice, he did not remain in a position of prominence, Paul took over after Peter.

I know that it's been a few days, but I was wondering if you'd be able to post the link to some of the teachings that you have regarding the keys.

Thanks!

Christopher

Jerome1
Apr 28th 2008, 12:56 PM
As for the Lord giving Peter the keys to the kingdom I do believe there is some merit there but it wasn't the keys to the vicar's chamber!

I need to go over the teaching I have on this and will post in a day or so, from memory I couldn't be clear. I will say that the keys are three in number, first to the Jews in Jerusalem, second to the Samaritans in Sameria (Acts 8), and thirdly to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius the first Gentile believers (Acts 10).

But note it was Peter who first opened the door (with the keys Christ gave him) but do notice, he did not remain in a position of prominence, Paul took over after Peter.

It's from Isaiah22:22 and signifies the handing on of authority.

As for the rest of what you said, what evidence have you got to support any of it?

Mark F
May 2nd 2008, 12:40 AM
Christopher,

In addressing the "Rock" portion of your post, as I said before that there is importance in the first mention of a body of teaching or a doctrine. One cannot argue against something if there is a very clear presentation in OT Scripture even if it is in an elementary form. Much solid doctrine is presented in the first five books, the pentateuch, then developed and explained in greater detail through the progression of Scripture, and culminates in the NT with clarity as more light of revelation is shed upon it. This process is always superior than forming new doctrine that has this elementary presentation in OT Scripture. They simply do not have a leg to stand on.

The biggest problem you will face with a RC is that they believe that the Church has primacy over the Scriptures, the way the "reformed" churches believe is that the Scripture has primacy and the Church is subject to it, therefore the traditions and teachings of the RC Church, in their eyes is the final authority. Breaking down that barrier is what needs to be accomplished first to have any chance of getting them to submit to the authority of Scripture.

Jesus tells Peter in Matt 16 both of these statements in question in verses 13-20. Notice what is recorded starting with verse 21, Jesus knowing that He will be rejected of Israel, and begins to explain this to the disciples and what does Peter do? Gets himself in trouble and does what is recorded a number of times, vascillates and stumbles. Don't get me wrong, I love Peter and can identify with him probably more so than the other disciples, but this is a fine demonstration that he is merely a man, fallible, faultering, and error prone as every other man. For me this is more evidence who the Rock is.


The Keys to the kingdom:

Acts 1:4-8

"And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Jesus in this passage tells the disciples that they are to preach the gospel first to Israel (Jerusalem), then to Samaria, then to the Gentiles (the ends of the earth). There was an order that was understood by the disciples because as you go through the book of Acts this is the same order as it is recorded.


Jerusalem ch 1-7
Samaria ch 8-12
Gentiles ch 13-

In Jerusalem, ch 1-2 you have Peter preaching and explaining to the people the need of repentance, this in the closing of ch 2. The primary person was indeed Peter, he preaches a clear gospel and many are saved, this is the first use of the keys, to Jerusalem first.

The event that caused them to scatter and move away from Jerusalem was the death of Stephen in ch 7. The Apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but people of the Church scattered and began preaching the gospel in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17 the second time Peter uses the keys, to the Samaratins;

"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

I don't believe this is a pattern for us today, but Peter was given a special part in the begining when it came to the three places Jesus told them to go. I don't believe this was a second outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it was "once for all" at Pentecost, when Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritans they did not experience the baptism of the Spirit, but they received the Holy Spirit. I think that in seeing this unique part that Peter participated in the opening of the doors to these people we can understand that these keys were unique to Peter, yet they were used only for this special purpose.

Peter used the third and final key in the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius. The conversion of Saul is actually the beginning of this third and final part, but it wasn't until Cornelius that Peter was involved.

Before this we find Peter staying with Simon the tanner Acts 9:43, detained many days by the Holy Spirit. This was in preperation because Peter still believed that the gospel was for the Jews, that they would need to be circumcised, and follow dietary regulations.

The significance of a tanner was that they handled skins and unclean animals, this too was in preperation for his next step. Starting with ch 10, the account of Cornelius. On the journey to see Cornelius, Peter has the dream of the sheet with animals come down from heaven. All this prepares Peter to put aside the Jewish thinking and learn the correct way, I won't go into that here.

Acts 10:44-48

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days."


You can read the whole account for yourself, but here again we have Peter, opening the door and this final time to the Gentiles. There is so much more than this simple (hopefully understandable) introduction. I know there are many differing beliefs concerning the baptism and its aspects, but I hope that you can see that Peter does indeed open the doors to these peoples, by the power of the Holy Spirit of course.

The remainder of Acts is focused on Paul and how after Peter opens the door, Pauls walks through and preaches to the Gentiles. Peter goes into obscurity as far as the record goes. I see a similar thing that happens to Mary, she is not mentioned again after Acts 1:14. I am not discounting Peter by any means, but the fact that he is not in the record as a person of prominence pokes holes in their balloon.

Hope this helps. Sorry for the delay.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 03:02 AM
The biggest problem you will face with a RC is that they believe that the Church has primacy over the Scriptures, the way the "reformed" churches believe is that the Scripture has primacy and the Church is subject to it, therefore the traditions and teachings of the RC Church, in their eyes is the final authority. Breaking down that barrier is what needs to be accomplished first to have any chance of getting them to submit to the authority of Scripture.



I'm sure you have heard of the three legged stool approach taken by the RCC, Sacred Tradition, The Magisterium and Scripture.

The RCC teaches that the Magisterium is subject to the word of God, and can only reveal what has been handed onto it by devine revelation. Would you mind posting a source were the RCC claims that the Church has primacy over the scriptures?

renthead188
May 2nd 2008, 05:30 AM
Christopher,

In addressing the "Rock" portion of your post, as I said before that there is importance in the first mention of a body of teaching or a doctrine. One cannot argue against something if there is a very clear presentation in OT Scripture even if it is in an elementary form. Much solid doctrine is presented in the first five books, the pentateuch, then developed and explained in greater detail through the progression of Scripture, and culminates in the NT with clarity as more light of revelation is shed upon it. This process is always superior than forming new doctrine that has this elementary presentation in OT Scripture. They simply do not have a leg to stand on.

The biggest problem you will face with a RC is that they believe that the Church has primacy over the Scriptures, the way the "reformed" churches believe is that the Scripture has primacy and the Church is subject to it, therefore the traditions and teachings of the RC Church, in their eyes is the final authority. Breaking down that barrier is what needs to be accomplished first to have any chance of getting them to submit to the authority of Scripture.

Jesus tells Peter in Matt 16 both of these statements in question in verses 13-20. Notice what is recorded starting with verse 21, Jesus knowing that He will be rejected of Israel, and begins to explain this to the disciples and what does Peter do? Gets himself in trouble and does what is recorded a number of times, vascillates and stumbles. Don't get me wrong, I love Peter and can identify with him probably more so than the other disciples, but this is a fine demonstration that he is merely a man, fallible, faultering, and error prone as every other man. For me this is more evidence who the Rock is.


The Keys to the kingdom:

Acts 1:4-8

"And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Jesus in this passage tells the disciples that they are to preach the gospel first to Israel (Jerusalem), then to Samaria, then to the Gentiles (the ends of the earth). There was an order that was understood by the disciples because as you go through the book of Acts this is the same order as it is recorded.


Jerusalem ch 1-7
Samaria ch 8-12
Gentiles ch 13-

In Jerusalem, ch 1-2 you have Peter preaching and explaining to the people the need of repentance, this in the closing of ch 2. The primary person was indeed Peter, he preaches a clear gospel and many are saved, this is the first use of the keys, to Jerusalem first.

The event that caused them to scatter and move away from Jerusalem was the death of Stephen in ch 7. The Apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but people of the Church scattered and began preaching the gospel in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17 the second time Peter uses the keys, to the Samaratins;

"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

I don't believe this is a pattern for us today, but Peter was given a special part in the begining when it came to the three places Jesus told them to go. I don't believe this was a second outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it was "once for all" at Pentecost, when Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritans they did not experience the baptism of the Spirit, but they received the Holy Spirit. I think that in seeing this unique part that Peter participated in the opening of the doors to these people we can understand that these keys were unique to Peter, yet they were used only for this special purpose.

Peter used the third and final key in the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius. The conversion of Saul is actually the beginning of this third and final part, but it wasn't until Cornelius that Peter was involved.

Before this we find Peter staying with Simon the tanner Acts 9:43, detained many days by the Holy Spirit. This was in preperation because Peter still believed that the gospel was for the Jews, that they would need to be circumcised, and follow dietary regulations.

The significance of a tanner was that they handled skins and unclean animals, this too was in preperation for his next step. Starting with ch 10, the account of Cornelius. On the journey to see Cornelius, Peter has the dream of the sheet with animals come down from heaven. All this prepares Peter to put aside the Jewish thinking and learn the correct way, I won't go into that here.

Acts 10:44-48

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days."


You can read the whole account for yourself, but here again we have Peter, opening the door and this final time to the Gentiles. There is so much more than this simple (hopefully understandable) introduction. I know there are many differing beliefs concerning the baptism and its aspects, but I hope that you can see that Peter does indeed open the doors to these peoples, by the power of the Holy Spirit of course.

The remainder of Acts is focused on Paul and how after Peter opens the door, Pauls walks through and preaches to the Gentiles. Peter goes into obscurity as far as the record goes. I see a similar thing that happens to Mary, she is not mentioned again after Acts 1:14. I am not discounting Peter by any means, but the fact that he is not in the record as a person of prominence pokes holes in their balloon.

Hope this helps. Sorry for the delay.

Thank you Mark - I appreciate the information.

Christopher

Mark F
May 2nd 2008, 10:10 AM
Christopher,

One thing I might add. I'm surely not an expert on RC doctrine, but I would assume that because they missunderstand that Christ is the Rock in question, that they also misapply and interpret the keys and what they are used for. Obviously they believe that with "apostolic succession" that he has the ability for forgive sins and set into effect new truths, a further evidence that this is a man centered deception from the deceiver himself.

Other info can be found by going to Grace to You at gty.org under recources, and under tools type in "pope". I have read some articles that John MacArthur has written and heard some audio and he brings up some very discerning points that explain just what their positions actually mean from a biblical perspective. It surely will get you thinking, if not dread for those who have been deceived by that form of religion.

Mark F
May 2nd 2008, 10:26 AM
I'm sure you have heard of the three legged stool approach taken by the RCC, Sacred Tradition, The Magisterium and Scripture.

The RCC teaches that the Magisterium is subject to the word of God, and can only reveal what has been handed onto it by devine revelation. Would you mind posting a source were the RCC claims that the Church has primacy over the scriptures?



My source whom I trust, is from teachings of Erwin Lutzer, as far a the "three legged stool" approach I know nothing. Sacred tradition would make me question, because unless it is based on sound doctrine it is worthless. All denominations fall into that trap in some form or another.

My intent is not to bash the RCC. I do have convictions that they have many teachings that IMO fly against the plain teachings of Scripture---IMO.

As far as primacy, that is also something that can be deduced from observation and comparison putting positions along side of Scripture.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 02:16 PM
Christopher,

One thing I might add. I'm surely not an expert on RC doctrine, but I would assume that because they missunderstand that Christ is the Rock in question, that they also misapply and interpret the keys and what they are used for.


Isaiah22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut and no one shall open. I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house.

What is the significance of the keys if they don't signify the passing on of authority?


My source whom I trust, is from teachings of Erwin Lutzer, as far a the "three legged stool" approach I know nothing. Sacred tradition would make me question, because unless it is based on sound doctrine it is worthless. All denominations fall into that trap in some form or another.


Iv'e heard the name before, he is a protestant pastor. Why not go to the source to find out what the RCC teaches, i don't go to the RCC to find out what other denominations teach.