Validity of Apostolic Succession, and RCC as the One Holy Catholic Church

[Arch Stanton]

This is a quote regularly ripped from its context and misused to make Luther sound proto-papal. The line actually comes from his catechetical exposition of the Apostles Creed, specifically the article "I believe in the holy Christian Church." He is writing about what the Church is (and he never means the RCC when he says "Church", he is opposing the RCC) and how Christ gives promises to the Church. Luther is answering the question, "Where is the Church located, and how do we know it exists?" Rome claimed the Church is identical with the papal hierarchy and that the Church is visible wherever the pope is. Contrary to the way you have tried to mislead Luther's position, he was countering Rome's position.

When Luther says "Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church" he means Peter is a spokesman, a symbolic stand-in, a type of the confessing Church.

In case you think that is just conjecture here are some quptes from him against the papacy.
“The rock is not Peter, but Christ and the faith which Peter confessed.”
(LW 41:349)

“All agree that the rock
is Christ or the faith in Christ, not Peter himself.”
(WA 10.1.1:519)
“This text [Matt 16:18] does not prove the papacy, for the rock is Christ and the Word which Peter confessed.”
(LW 41:63)

You say 'a spokesman' but Luther says 'the representative'

 

[John Bauer]

You and I both know that keys are not mentioned in Mt 18 or John 20.

Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce:

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity Press, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)

“I'll take these one at a time,” he said (here)—and then gave up the moment I pressed the very first one (here).

And now he wants to tackle the second one? We already know how the first one went.

 

[Arch Stanton]

“I'll take these one at a time,” he said (here)—and then gave up the moment I pressed the very first one (here).

It's still keys of authority.... reread the previous posts for understanding

 

[Arial]

You say 'a spokesman' but Luther says 'the representative'

Utter failure to deal with the content of my post. Did Luther agree with the papacy and authority of the RCC?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Utter failure to deal with the content of my post. Did Luther agree with the papacy and authority of the RCC?

My response deals with the authority of Peter [keys of authority]... why would Luther say the representative?

 

[makesends]

Grammatically (Greek grammar) Matt 16 does not identify Peter as the "rock".

Courtesy ChatGPT

Formal Syllogism (Grammatical Argument)​

Major Premise:
If Jesus intended Peter himself to be the foundational “rock” in Matthew 16:18, the Greek text would naturally use a construction that directly identifies Peter as the referent (e.g., “upon you” [ἐπὶ σοὶ], “upon this Peter” [ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ Πέτρῳ], or “you are the rock” [σὺ εἶ ἡ πέτρα]).

Minor Premise:
The Greek text instead distinguishes between Πέτρος (a masculine proper name) and πέτρα (a feminine common noun), and introduces a demonstrative phrase (“upon this rock,” ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ) that most naturally points back to the immediately preceding divinely revealed confession (v.16–17), not to Peter’s person; moreover, none of the direct-identification constructions appear in the text.

Conclusion:
Therefore, grammatically and syntactically, Matthew 16:18 does not identify Peter personally as the “rock,” but rather identifies the revealed confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” as the foundational referent.

I find that argument invalid. It only shows that the verse cannot be logically used to prove that Peter is that rock. The play on words allows that it could be Peter.

 

[Arial]

Giving Peter the keys of authority... the Holy Spirit thought it wise to call Peter 1st [chief/superior]

It has already been established from the Greek grammar of Matt 16:18 that it is not Peter, but the revelation Peter received. that is the "rock" upon which Christ will build HIS church.

The "keys" lock or unlock The key is the preaching of the gospel which both saves (if believed) and condemns (if rejected).

The authority of binding and loosing is not given to Peter alone but to all the apostles (Matt 18:18; John 20:23; Luke 24:47) and later to the church (all believers, not the RCC papacy) corporately (Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5:3-5; 2 Cor 2:6-8).

The binding and loosing refers to church discipline. Neither of those things has any connection to any authority papal or otherwise, to interpret the word. It is the word itself that interprets the word and the Holy Spirit who sheds the light of understanding on it.

 

[John Bauer]

It's still keys of authority.... reread the previous posts for understanding

If you want to take another crack at making an argument, please answer the question I asked you:

1. Jesus gave “the keys” of the kingdom to the disciples (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22-23).
2. The Roman Catholic Church has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

How do you get from 1 to 2?

Please articulate and exegetically defend the steps taken.

 

[Arch Stanton]

If you want to take another crack at making an argument, please answer the question I asked you:

1. Jesus gave “the keys” of the kingdom to the disciples (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22-23).
2. The Roman Catholic Church has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

How do you get from 1 to 2?

Please articulate and exegetically defend the steps taken.

I answered number one... do you have a response to number one?

 

[John Bauer]

I answered number one... do you have a response to number one?

Your answer was not relevant. Observe how it doesn’t change the question being asked:

1. Jesus gave “the keys” of the kingdom to Peter.
2. The Roman Catholic Church has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

How do you get from 1 to 2? Please articulate and exegetically defend the steps taken.

See?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Your answer was not relevant. Observe how it doesn’t change the question being asked:

1. Jesus gave “the keys” of the kingdom to Peter.
2. The Roman Catholic Church has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

How do you get from 1 to 2? Please articulate and exegetically defend the steps taken.

See?

So you agree that the keys in Mt 16 are not given to the other apostles in Mt 18 or Jn 20?

 

[JesusFan]

'In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church.'
[A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373]

peter acknowledged that paul was SAME as he was, as peter to the jews and same role and position as paul to the gentiles, so there were 2 popes at same time back then?

 

[Arch Stanton]

peter acknowledged that paul was SAME as he was, as peter to the jews and same role and position as paul to the gentiles, so there were 2 popes at same time back then?

Did you forget the other Apostles?

 

[John Bauer]

So you agree that the keys in Mt 16 are not given to the other apostles in Mt 18 or Jn 20?

You still have not answered the question.

This is a Roman Catholic, ladies and gentlemen. This is what they have.

 

[Arch Stanton]

You still have not answered the question.

This is a Roman Catholic, ladies and gentlemen. This is what they have.

It looks like you really like this 'cage match' mentality... is there a reason this is not on the 'Catholicism board'?

 

[Arch Stanton]

You still have not answered the question.

I answered #1 but your version does not match it... have you thought it over and agreed with me?

 

[John Bauer]

It looks like you really like this 'cage match' mentality.

I do.

Is there a reason this is not on the Catholicism board?

I don’t know. It was not my decision to move it here. Does it somehow make a difference to your argument—whenever you get around to making one—in which forum the discussion takes place?

I answered #1 but your version does not match it... have you thought it over and agreed with me?

We can all see what you answered, just as we can all see you didn’t answer the question that was asked.

As a Protestant, I really love the way you are representing Roman Catholicism. A thing of beauty.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I do.

I don’t know. It was not my decision to move it here.

Does it somehow make a difference to your argument—whenever you get around to making one—in which forum the discussion takes place?

Just thought it was strange that we are in a 'cage match'... must be the reason you are talking to the 'audience'

We can all see what you answered, just as we can all see you didn’t answer the question that was asked.

Here it is again for those that have a hard time clicking back a page....

only to Pierre... Mt 16; Mt 18 has 'bind/loose' with no keys

You and I both know that keys are not mentioned in Mt 18 or John 20.

Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce:

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity Press, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)

 

[Arch Stanton]

As a Protestant, I really love the way you are representing Roman Catholicism. A thing of beauty.

I was thinking the same thing about you John.... and the crazy thing is -- we are both Canadians

but I usually wait to see how a poster treats me before I respond in kind

 

[John Bauer]

Here it is again for those that have a hard time clicking back a page....

Here it is again for those who can't even scroll up:

[Saying it was only Peter] was not relevant. Observe how it doesn’t change the question being asked:

1. Jesus gave “the keys” of the kingdom to Peter.
2. The Roman Catholic Church has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

How do you get from 1 to 2? Please articulate and exegetically defend the steps taken.

See?