Boston College Papacy Opening #2

On the use of Isaiah chapter 22, and the key to the house of David to Peter himself in Matthew chapter 16, such an attempt at connection is logically necessary for their own position, for there must be some effort found somewhere in Scripture to establish succession in this passage, despite the fact that it simply isn't there.

Yet upon what basis do we identify the keys, and Mr. Butler went back and forth between key and keys, never pointing out there's a difference between the two.

The keys, plural, of the kingdom of heaven, which are associated plainly with the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the

New Testament, with the key, singular, of the house of David, which is messianic in nature.

How do we connect those two? We weren't told. And should we not instead accept the interpretation given by the

Lord Jesus himself when he cites Isaiah 22, 22 of himself, in Revelation 3, 7, where we read, "...and

to the angel of the Church of Philadelphia write, he who is holy, who is true, who has the key, singular, of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one's open, says this,

Jesus has, present tense, the key of David. He does not say that he gives this key to anyone else."

And it's very interesting to note that in the materials that Mr. Butler has written, he says, well yes, Jesus has this key, but who did he give it to before he passed off the earth?

See Matthew 16, 19. Wait a minute, can we put this in order here? This is being written to the

Church of Philadelphia. Folks, there was no Church of Philadelphia when Matthew 16 was written, and when that was promised was made.

Jesus says, I am right now the one who holds this key, and that's long after Matthew 16. There's a real problem with anachronism in the arguments being presented by our friends across the way this evening.

Now, John chapter 21. I hope you're all keeping a deep seat in the saddle. John chapter 21. You've heard it read to you, feed the sheep, feed the sheep, so on and so forth, shepherd the sheep.

Now, we are going to be dealing with the Church Fathers in just a few minutes, but I hope you don't mind my using

Cyril of Alexandria as my interpretation of this passage, because I agree with him. Cyril said, if anyone asked for what cause, he asked

Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by feed my lambs and the like, we answer that St.

Peter, with the other disciples, had already been chosen to the apostleship, but because meanwhile Peter had fallen, for under great fear he had thrice denied the

Lord, he now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter, and compensating the fault with the correction.

End quote. Here we have the gracious Lord restoring the Apostle, who in his brash impetuosity had promised to follow him even to death, and yet had denied him three times.

The threefold question of Peter, followed by the command to feed or shepherd Christ's sheep, is restorative in nature.

Nothing in the passage even begin to suggest to us that this means that the other apostles were not likewise commissioned to feed and pastor

Christ's flock on an equal base with Simon Peter. There is no indication that only

Peter is told to shepherd God's flock, nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy, which is the

Roman position. Indeed, if such were the case, Paul seems to have been very ignorant of this doctrine, for he instructed the

Ephesian elders in Acts 20, 28, keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.

Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Paul does not say, as Peter is the chief shepherd, you act as under -shepherds of the flock of God.

No, again, the only way that such an understanding can be found is if we take a much later development and read it back into the text as our

Roman Catholic friends are forced to do. This passage in no way sets Peter apart as the

Prince of the Apostles. Instead, it shows that he was in need of special pastoral care on the part of Jesus Christ.

Then Luke chapter 22 was brought up. Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat, and the

Lord Jesus prays specifically for Simon. Now, even after Jesus tells

Peter that he's in trouble, he rashly says in verse 33 of the same passage, Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.

To which the Lord replies that Peter will in fact deny him three times. Roman Catholics have cited this passage as pointing out yet once again the preeminence of Peter, and some have even gone so far as to say that the

Lord's prayer for Peter's faith extends to Peter's successors and the bishops of Rome. Yet, if there is any

Petrine primacy here, it is Petrine primacy in the denial of Christ, not in being the

Vicar of Christ. This passage like John 21 shows us that Peter was more in need of pastoral care by the

Lord due to his impetuosity, nothing more. The Lord's prayer was fulfilled, for even having denied

Christ, Peter, unlike Judas, went out and wept bitterly. But his faith did not fail completely, and he was restored, humbled, but wiser.

To take this as indicating Petrine primacy, however, is to go far beyond anything the text says. And again, if this is the type of basis that a dogma upon which you use the anathema is based, we have a real problem.

Now, some have said that Peter is here set apart from the others by the phrase, and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. Mr. St.

Genes just told us, yes, derisione is used elsewhere. For example, in Acts 14, 22, and 15, 32, and many other places, this term is used, and not only of Peter, by the way.

Those places are where Paul confirms the churches. But he says, if you're going to do that, you have to have higher authority.

Where do you get that from? I don't see it in the passage. Where does it say, those who confirm someone else must be of higher authority?

I would like to find the lexical sources from which Mr. St. Genes derived that meaning of sterizione.

I would like to ask him to provide those things to us in his opportunity of responding to my comments.

Now, in the few moments that I have left, Mr. Butler told us that in Matthew chapter 23, we have the chair of Moses, and in his printed materials, he says that Christ passed the chair of Moses on to Peter.

I would like to invite all of you to take your Bibles, to read Matthew chapter 23, and see if you can find anywhere, anything about the chair of Moses being passed on to anyone.

In fact, I'd like to invite Mr. Butler to show us a single place where cathedra, in the Greek, is ever used of Peter at all.

I'd like to see where this comes from. We were told that that is the case. Much has been made of Acts chapter 15.

We were told that we were going to be demonstrated that one use is sagao, and another use of sagao means this, that, and the other thing.

We haven't heard any of that. But in Acts chapter 15, again,

I would invite you to take the time to get out your Bible, read it, and see if Peter is a

Pope in Acts chapter 15. Don't start with the assumption that he is. Just read the

Scriptures and ask yourself the question, is the man speaking, starting at verse 7 through verse 11, the

Vicar of Christ on earth? Do the people hearing him see this man as the Vicar of Christ on earth, the

Holy Father, the one upon whom the church is built? Ask yourself if that passage teaches this.

Peter speaks the truth. We were told that he got a revelation. Here he doesn't say that. He says, you know, that in the early days

God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And he preaches the truth about the gospel, that the

Gentiles are not to be brought under the necessity of circumcision. But then, after he speaks, is the issue over?

Would you derive that from any honest reading of the text? Verse 12 says, And all the multitude kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Saul as they were relating what signs and wonders

God had done to them among the Gentiles. Paul, Paul, wait a minute. The Vicar of Christ just spoke. You don't need to relate these signs and wonders.

The case is settled. It's all over. We don't need this. Paul, you don't need to do that anymore. No. Paul confirms the truthfulness of what

Peter has said. Peter is exactly right. But for some reason, Paul and Barnabas felt the need to get up, and the whole assembly fell silent as they listened to what they were saying.

And when they then fell silent, that is Paul and Barnabas, James gets up, and I would like to point a few things out.

A, I would like to ask my friends to show us anywhere else in Acts 15 where the speaker uses the imperative mode in the

Greek, issues a command. James says, Brethren, listen to me.

Imperative. And then we were told that in, when James gives his decision, and when he talks about my judgment in verse 19, well that's my opinion.

That's just my voice. You know, it doesn't mean anything more than just simply my voice.

Verse 19 says, Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the

Gentiles. Ego krino. I judge. Is that used of opinions?

Yeah, it is. Is it also used the very judgment of God by the same author? Yeah, it is.

Read it for yourself and judge. And again, remember these things, folks. If in every single one of these verses

I can give you a perfectly logical, consistent, and plausible alternate understanding, the

Roman position fails. The Roman position is based upon this long line.

Peter's the rock. Peter's given the keys. Nobody else has given the keys. This has something to do with Isaiah 22. That has something to do with the

Bishop of Rome. Therefore, their successors, if you can challenge that line all the way along, think about what it means for Rome to say you are anathema if you reject this belief.

Thank you very much. My concluding remarks will be confined to rebutting what

Mr. White has just said. In Galatians chapter 2, he asked, Who was I to judge that Paul was just overreacting?

That's exactly the point. In the context of Galatians 2, there is no divine judgment.

God is not saying, Paul, you're correct. Peter, you are wrong. Nor, Paul, you are totally correct, and Peter, you are totally wrong.

We must remember that this is written from Paul's disposition. Paul was really concerned about people circumcising

Gentiles. But let me reiterate, that is not what Peter did. Peter just disfellowshipped himself from eating with Gentiles.

That is not a major crime. That is not distorting or destroying the gospel. Circumcising Gentiles is destroying the gospel.