Refutation of David Cloud's "The Keys of the Kingdom"
David's words will be in blue; mine will be in black.
FIRST, THE LORD JESUS WAS NOT SAYING IN MATT. 16:16-20 THAT HE WOULD BUILD THE CHURCH UPON PETER. "There is in the Greek a play upon words, 'Thou art Peter ('petros'--literally, a little rock), and upon this rock ('Petra'--a solid rock mass or foundation) I will build my church.' He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself. Peter himself was careful to tell us that the foundation of the church is Christ. 'Wherefore, also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious...' (1 Pet. 2:6)" (Scofield Reference Bible).
Sorry, David, but you're Greek is a bit off. While "petros" and "petra" did have different meanings in ancient Greek poetry, they had become synonyms by the first century, with "lithos" being the word for a small rock. Plus, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and many scholars believe that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. The translation of "petros" into Aramaic is "kepha," which is transliterated as "cephas" (Peter is called Cephas in John 1:42 and Galatians 1:18, 2:9).
According to 2 Sam. 22:32, there is no Rock except God! "...and who is a rock, save our God?" In both the Old and New Testaments it is God Himself who is the believer's Rock--Foundation, Security, and Protection. Thirty times in the Old Testament God is called a Rock. Five times in the New Testament Christ is called a Rock--Matt. 16:18, Rom. 9:33, 1 Cor. 10:4, and 1 Pet. 2:8. Only Deity Himself could be the church's Rock and Foundation! And this is exactly what the Lord Jesus Christ was promising in Matthew 16.
Wow, all I can say is wow. You look everywhere else (well, almost) but the passage in question to find places where people (including God) are called a rock, so you miss one very important instance: Matthew 16:18. Jesus SPECIFICALLY says, "You are PETER," and the name Peter means rock! As I showed before, Peter was called Cephas, which is the transliteration of the Aramaic word "kepha." Yes, God IS the rock the Church is founded on, but in a different way than Peter is. And both Peter and God are rocks in different ways than all the apostles are (Ephesians 2:20).
SECOND, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF MATT. 16:18-19 IS STRICTLY CONTRARY TO THE PATTERN OF THE EARLY CHURCHES AS TESTIFIED BY THE BOOK OF ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. Peter simply was not a pope! The Latin writing on the fish-shaped hat worn by the pope says, "Vicarirs Feleii Dei" and means "substitute for the Son of God"! The Apostle Peter no doubt would have cringed in horror at the very thought of donning such a title.
Vicarirs Feleii Dei is bad Latin; it doesn't mean anything. Do you mean "Vicarius Filli Dei", which means "Vicar of the Son of God"? Well, many Protestants say that since Vicarius Filli Dei (supposedly one of the pope's official titles) adds up to 666 in Roman numerals, the pope is the antichrist. I don't know if this is what David meant, but I will respond to it anyway. First of all, just because a title adds up to 666 in Latin doesn't mean anything. Secondly, that's not even one of the pope's official titles.
The Catholic interpretation is NOT contrary to the pattern of the early Church as testified to in Acts and the epistles. In Acts 1:15-26, the apostles choose a successor to Judas, and PETER takes the lead in initiating it. In Acts 2:14-36, it is PETER who addresses the crowd and gives the first sermon after Pentecost. In Acts 3:11-26, it is PETER who addresses the crowd after he (PETER) performed the first miracle after the ascension (Acts 3:6-7). When Peter and John were brought before the high priest in Acts 4:1-20, it is PETER who speaks for them. Again, it is PETER who speaks for the apostles before the council in Acts 5:27-32. In Acts 10:5, an angel told Cornelius, the first Gentile convert (this was before he converted), to go visit PETER, and it was PETER who first received the Gentiles into the Church. At the council of Jerusalem, it is PETER who speaks authoritatively for the council (Acts 15:6-11). In Galatians 1:18, Paul goes to Jerusalem to visit who? PETER! He goes specifically to visit Peter and learn about the faith from him. Now, I admit that these don't necessarily prove that Peter was the first pope, but they are CONSISTENT with Peter being the first pope, which disproves David's assertion.
Now, I mentioned that Peter made the authoritative decision at the Council of Jerusalem, but David might counter that it was actually James. In Acts 15:13-21, James basically repeats what Peter says, but in verse 19, he says, "I have reached the decision that�" which may seem to imply that he was the one that made the decision. So, did James really make the decision? Hardly. First of all, let's take a look at what happens when Peter speaks. He gets up and speaks "AFTER THERE HAD BEEN MUCH DEBATE" (Acts 15:7), which implies that he was speaking authoritatively. Then, after he spoke, everyone was silent as they listened to Paul and Barnabas back him up (Acts 15:12). Next, James speaks, and he even refers to Peter's authority (Acts 15:14)! So, up until here it seems as if Peter spoke authoritatively, but then James says that he had reached a decision. I will now quote from the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess:
"What language indicates that the opinion of James is not a pronouncement of the council? Verse 19: 'my sentence.'
"The actual words used, 'And so I give my voice' (Ego krino) (v. 19), do not actually favor the view that he [James] was summing up, or deciding the matter on his own authority. Elsewhere in Acts [13:46, 16:15, 26:28] the same verb krino is used to denote the expression of an opinion and could better be expressed by the phrase 'in my opinion,' or 'as for me.'" Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960), 32.
Here we can see that James wasn't speaking authoritatively; he was just reaffirming Peter's decision and backing him up. As bishop of Jerusalem, he would've held a place of honor at the council.
THIRD, THE CHURCH IS BUILT, NOT UPON THE PERSON OF PETER, BUT UPON THE TESTIMONY OF PETER. In Matthew 16, Peter had just testified, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This testimony is the focus of Matt. 16:16-20. It is Christ, Christ, Christ! He is the Center, the Foundation, the Head, the All for the church. This we see in that the Lord Jesus completed this scene in Matthew chapter sixteen by charging the disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."
Nope. As I have shown, the words Jesus used for "Peter" and "rock" are identical in Aramaic and synonyms in Greek, so Jesus was using a play on words when He said, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Now, how can the center of the passage be Peter's testimony when it is never mentioned after Peter gives it, yet Peter is given a new name (which signified an important change, just like Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel), the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose?
FOURTH, THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WERE NOT GIVEN TO PETER ALONE, BUT TO THE OTHER DISCIPLES AS WELL. After Jesus' resurrection, He spoke to all the disciples, saying, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 20:23).
What does this have to do with anything? The keys to the kingdom are NOT the power to forgive sins; where did you get that idea from? Now, you might then say that all the apostles received the keys in Matthew 18:18 where they all received the power to bind and loose, but the keys and the power to bind and loose are SEPARATE. Nowhere do the apostles or anyone besides Peter receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven!
The key to the kingdom is the Gospel, which is the power of God to salvation to those who believe. Paul said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth..." (Rom. 1:16). Peter used the key of the Gospel to open the door for the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). He also used the key of the Gospel to open the door of salvation to the Gentiles when he preached Jesus to Cornelius (Acts 10). The New Testament does not show Peter exercising special authority beyond this, and it was an authority which was exercised by all the disciples.
Woah, woah, woah. How do you know that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are the Gospel? Plus, if all the apostles had the keys, why did Jesus only give them specifically to Peter? Actually, there's good evidence that the keys symbolize papal power. To understand what they mean, you have to think like a first century Jew. Back then, cities had big gates around them, and whoever held the key to the gate had power of the city. In the bible, keys are often used as symbols of power (Isaiah 22:22; Revelation 3:7), and the context of Matthew 16:19 supports a papal interpretation. As I Showed before, Peter IS the rock upon whom the Church is built, and his name change signified importance. Also, whatever Peter bound and loosed would be bound and loosed in heaven. If this isn't papal infallibility, then I don't know what is. If something is bound in heaven, that means that God bound it, and God cannot bind something that is false, so Peter must've been infallible. Now, you might try to point out that all the apostles received the power to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, so Peter isn't special. However, the apostles received that power as a whole, but Peter received it by himself. The apostles as a whole could bind and loose, but only Peter could bind and loose BY HIMSELF.
