Keep sharing good news without ads.
Continuation of the preceding.
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 to 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 I identify the keys. And Mr. Butler went back and forth between key and keys never point 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 into the angel the church of Philadelphia right.
He who is holy who is true who has the key singular of David who opens no one will shut and who shuts and no one's open says this and quote 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 his 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 and 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 silo 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 have a chance that st. Peter with the other disciples had already been chosen 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 and 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 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 as if we have 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 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 to say it. 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 de Rydzian 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 where Paul confirms the churches.
But he says if you're going to do that you have to have higher authority. Where to 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 de Rydzian. I would like to ask him to provide those things to us in his opportunity of responding to my comments.
Now in a 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 are going to be demonstrated that one use of 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 is 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 the gospel and believe. And he preaches the truth about the gospel that the Gentiles are not to be brought under the 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 saw 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 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 implausible alternate.
Understanding their own position fails. Their own position is based upon this long line. Peter's the rock. Here's given the keys. Nobody else is given the keys. This somehow 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.