I disagree with you concerning biblical canonicity. The RCC had their own way of determining which writings would be included but then early church father's such as Irenaeus, Origen, and others already had specific rules to judge which writings should be included and which should not. The canon was already in existence before 312 A.D. which is official beginning of the RCC under Constantine.

And by the way, there is a sticking point where we'll always disagree and is at the heart of what many people from many denominations consider heresy. Church history is very important to study and remember for just the reasons we just cited, e.g., for determining the Canon of Scriptures , but our definition of "handed-down Apostolic teaching" is the rub. The Bible already gives us all the Apostolic teaching we need. Nowhere in scripture is there any handing down of any kind of this type of authority. You base your beliefs on an incorrect rendering of Christ's words which say upon Peter He would build His church. But it was upon Peter's confession of Him as Lord that was the "foundation."

Many "protestant" denominations such as the ECUSA, and Anglicanism, for example, yield greatly to church history and tradition, and rightly so. However, they do not place these important tenants above Holy Scripture. The ONLY person who can enlighten us about the interpretation and right use of the Word of God is the Holy Spirit Himself, and no other, not Pope, Bishop, Priest, or anyone.

-Josie

Josie,

1. Your claim that "the canon was already in existence before 312 A.D." doesn't reflect reality. If the canon of Scripture was clearly settled by 312 A.D. there would have been no need for subsequent definitions of the canon. Yet in different areas different canons were used as late as the fourth century, and different canons persist even today. Because of the ongoing controversy the Council of Hippo under Pope Damasus I defined the canon in 382 A.D., and the same canon has been reiterated by subsequent popes and councils: even after the Protestant Reformers adopted a different canon.

2. Your claim that "the Bible already gives us all the Apostolic teaching we need" ironically is unsupported by Scripture. No passage -no, not even 2 Timothy 3- makes any claim that Scipture alone contains "all the apostolic teaching we need". That's a Protestant invention.

3. Many Protestants claim that Matthew 16:18 does not say what it clearly says: that Jesus was giving Simon the name "rock", and that upon this "rock" He would build His Church. But it does plainly say that. Elsewhere in Scripture we are told that the apostles are the "foundation" of the Church (Revelation 21:14). And we are told that believers are "living stones", and that we form a "spiritual edifice" (1 Peter 2). And Jesus is the "cornerstone". Elsewhere Jesus is called the "capstone" (Ephesians 2:20). It's unfortunate that Protestants fight so hard against the plain meaning of the passage. So, no, Peter's not God; he's not perfect; he's not all-knowing; he's not sinless. But he is the "rock" that Jesus picked to serve in some sense as the foundation of His Church.

4. You said, "Nowhere in scripture is there any handing down of any kind of this type of authority." You need to go back and do some more reading. There is abundant evidence that Jesus gave the apostles authority that was then given to other men by means of "handing down": from the Greek "paradosis", and the Latin "traditio". English: "tradition". Paul spoke of it a great deal with Timothy, and elsewhere. And in Acts we see the apostles (under Peter's guidance) clearly aware that Judas' "office" was vacant and his "place" needed to be filled: so they elected Matthias to this ministry. Homework for you: find the passage in Paul's writings where he refers to five (five!) successive generations of apostolic authority.

5. The RCC specifically denies that it places tradition "above Holy Scripture", and I also deny it. You can't legitimately separate Scripture and apostolic tradition.

Finally, You say "The ONLY person who can enlighten us about the interpretation and right use of the Word of God is the Holy Spirit Himself, and no other..." If that is so, why are we having this discussion? If we Christians are not to listen to each other about the Word of Life, then why should I listen to you? And if I listen to you, how much more should I listen to those who have been appointed teachers in the Church, and who are in union with those who have received apostolic authority?

God bless you, Josie.

Who has the "power of the keys"?

A question from a reader...

My quick question after reading your article “Answering objections against Peter and the Keys” is:

Why did you not mention Matthew 18:18 in your reply to ‘Jesus spoke to Peter as a representative of all believers. Therefore, Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to all believers, not just Peter.’

Matthew 18:18 seems to me an evidence that the right or responsibility of using the keys, if not the keys themselves, is given to all the disciples or all those present in the group at that time.

My interest in the history of interpreting the number of the keys as “two” led to your article, which I enjoyed reading. Thanks.

---

Dear S,

Thank You for writing to me with Your kind words and Your question.

You asked why, in Matthew 18:18, did I not mention that this verse shows that the “right or responsibility” of the “keys” is promised to all believers, not just Peter.

To understand Matthew 18:18 we must also understood Matthew 16:18, where Jesus promises the “keys” to Peter (http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/16-19.htm). The keys represent authority, and in this context they represent authority to govern the Church. In the presence of the apostles Jesus speaks directly to Peter, in the second person singular form of speech, and promises to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as well as the power to bind and loose.

Matthew 18:18 does not actually mention the keys. The context of this verse is set by the preceding text, especially verses 15-17, where Jesus affirms the definitive authority of “the church” in settling controversies and maintaining unity among believers. Individual believers do not have the authority to settle a matter for the whole Church, but numerous Bible passages attribute this sort of authority to the Church’s leaders: specifically, the apostles. It is in this context that Jesus says “the disciples” have the power to bind and loose. But they don’t each have this power on their own, to use as they see fit. They have it only so long as they are united to the one who holds the keys of authority: Peter. Therefore the power to bind and loose is essentially an apostolic power, but it can be exercised only in union with Peter and his successors.

Later, in John 21:15-17, in the presence of the disciples, Jesus specifically commands Peter to “Feed My lambs! …Feed My lambs! …Feed My sheep!”. This makes very clear that Jesus had singled out Peter for a unique role among his brother apostles. Peter was to be like a shepherd to the apostles and to all believers: caring for them, and guiding them. This is why Jesus gave solely to Peter and his successors the keys of authority by which they would rule the Church.

All believers share in that authority, in a subordinate way, when we unite ourselves to the spirit of Christ and maintain brotherly unity with the apostles, especially Peter and his successors.