keys to the kingdom [Archive]

sneezingleopard

27th January 2007, 12:25 AM

IisJustMe

27th January 2007, 12:45 AM

All it means is that Peter and the other apostles, equally, were responsible for opening the kingdom of heaven to the world -- that is, that they had the honor of being the first to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ. And that's all it means.

arunma

27th January 2007, 01:25 AM

hello all, hope your day has been well so far and contnues to go well. I'm trying to get an understanding of how Baptists understand matthew 16:13-20. I'm specifically interestd in the keys to the kingdom of heaven. What does this mean to you? Is there some sort of official teaching on this or historical teaching? Are there other verses that can help me understand this verse better through the eyes of a baptist? I'm not interested in anyone trying to tell me what catholics believe this to mean and why you believe that is wrong. I'm interestd in what your denomination teaches about this passage. I have no intention to debate. Just curiouse. Thank you for your replies.
In Christ,
Matthew

My church doesn't have any official teaching on this verse (in fact, we don't have "official" teachings on any specific passages of Scripture, as far as I know). It seems pretty obvious to me from the context of the passage that Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the church. Of course, you can't enter a Baptist forum, bring up this passage, and not expect at least a minimal discussion on the Catholic perspective, so I'll say something in this regard also.

A certain Reformed commentary that I have makes an interesting note on this Scripture. But for papist abuses of this passage, chances are that this text's reference to Peter would have never been questioned. Jesus' play on the meaning of Peter's name makes it fairly clear that he was referring to Peter. And I'm told by those familiar with Greek that Jesus' usage of the feminine form of the word for rock (he uses petra, whereas Peter's name is petros) is completely immaterial. Other texts, such as St. John 21:15-18 and Galatians 2:9 also indicate that Peter played a very prominent role in the early church.

As such, I take no issue with the claim that Peter was the leader of the church. On the contrary, I fully embrace this view. You may wonder, at this point, why I do not embrace the authority of the Pope as well. The reason for this is that while the authority of Peter is a necessary condition for the authority of the Pope, it is not a sufficient condition. An additional ingredient is needed: namely the doctrine of apostolic succession. Because the Scripture provides no basis for the belief that Peter could commission another leader of the church, it is reasonable for me to assume that Peter's authority died with him. This, I think, would be where my theological views differ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.

You probably won't find many on this forum who agree with me. This is likely because I am one Reformed Baptist who is more Reformed than Baptist. But for better or worse, that's my understanding of the Scripture.

Matthan

27th January 2007, 12:09 PM

My church doesn't have any official teaching on this verse (in fact, we don't have "official" teachings on any specific passages of Scripture, as far as I know). It seems pretty obvious to me from the context of the passage that Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the church. Of course, you can't enter a Baptist forum, bring up this passage, and not expect at least a minimal discussion on the Catholic perspective, so I'll say something in this regard also.

A certain Reformed commentary that I have makes an interesting note on this Scripture. But for papist abuses of this passage, chances are that this text's reference to Peter would have never been questioned. Jesus' play on the meaning of Peter's name makes it fairly clear that he was referring to Peter. And I'm told by those familiar with Greek that Jesus' usage of the feminine form of the word for rock (he uses petra, whereas Peter's name is petros) is completely immaterial. Other texts, such as St. John 21:15-18 and Galatians 2:9 also indicate that Peter played a very prominent role in the early church.

As such, I take no issue with the claim that Peter was the leader of the church. On the contrary, I fully embrace this view. You may wonder, at this point, why I do not embrace the authority of the Pope as well. The reason for this is that while the authority of Peter is a necessary condition for the authority of the Pope, it is not a sufficient condition. An additional ingredient is needed: namely the doctrine of apostolic succession. Because the Scripture provides no basis for the belief that Peter could commission another leader of the church, it is reasonable for me to assume that Peter's authority died with him. This, I think, would be where my theological views differ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.

You probably won't find many on this forum who agree with me. This is likely because I am one Reformed Baptist who is more Reformed than Baptist. But for better or worse, that's my understanding of the Scripture.
It is my humble opinion that, if you believe that Peter was appointed "head" of the Church, you may have some serious issues to contend with. Jesus, and only Jesus, is the "head" of the Christian Church. There is no earthly head of the Christian Church because none is needed. And, there was no other earthly head but Jesus from the time that the verses in Matthew Chapter 16 were spoken by our Lord.

Matthan

arunma

27th January 2007, 01:09 PM

It is my humble opinion that, if you believe that Peter was appointed "head" of the Church, you may have some serious issues to contend with. Jesus, and only Jesus, is the "head" of the Christian Church. There is no earthly head of the Christian Church because none is needed. And, there was no other earthly head but Jesus from the time that the verses in Matthew Chapter 16 were spoken by our Lord.

I think that this position stems from an overreaction to the Catholic doctrine of the Pope. As I said earlier, if you read the Scripture before the advent of Roman Catholicism, I don't think you'd ever come to this conclusion. While even Catholics don't deny that Jesus is the head of the church, the opinion that there was never an earthly head among the Apostles would be nullified if the proper interpretation of the Scripture in question really taught that Peter was the head of the church. In other words, you may be believing in an un-Biblical doctrine. In order to determine the truth, one must look to the Bible itself, not personal opinion statements such as, "Jesus, and only Jesus, is the "head" of the Christian Church." Wouldn't you agree?

The reason I don't adopt your view is because you haven't given an argument from Scripture. Your argument begins (and I think ends) with the premise that Jesus appointed no leader of the church. But theological arguments cannot begin with opinions; they must begin with the Bible. If you feel that you can defend your position directly from the Scripture, then I am certainly willing to consider it.

BereanTodd

27th January 2007, 01:36 PM

There is not an official teaching for baptists (or protestants in general) on this. Now as the the issue of the rock, I (and most though not nescasarily all) conservative evangelicals tend to believe that the "rock" the church is built upon is the profession of faith expressed by Peter.

Now you asked about the keys. Not there is no uniform or majority view. My own is this: I believe that Peter was given the keys to unleashing the Holy Spirit. It was when he preached at Pentecost that the Spirit was poured out on the audience and 3000 were saved. It was he who went to Caesarea and first poured out the Spirit upon the gentiles. Almost every new people group reached first received the Spirit when Peter was sent to them and I believe the keys are tied in to that.

sneezingleopard

28th January 2007, 12:45 AM

thank you for your responses everyone.
In Christ,
Matthew