JFJ Forums

5 ) In Acts 27 and 28 we have Rome as a location specifically addressed. The general focus is on the Apostle Paul relating to his imprisonment. Yet we have nothing there with regard to the Apostle Peter. This would cover to about the year 60 to 65 ad . And we still lack evidence of Peter being in Rome or of founding the Church of Rome or of being the Church of Rome's first bishop up to that point in time.

6 ) You tried to cite 1 Peter 5:13 of  " Babylon " being Rome. Yet no where is the context do we find evidence of that at all. You tried to claim ECF as saying they believe it was Rome. I reject that as being insufficient because that would only be their personal opinion and that is it. We both have opinions which is no problem. The problem that I have with the RCC there and the ECF is they do not prove that it refers to Rome from the passage itself. And would amount to speculation. Considering the context of Acts 1 to 15 of Peter being in Asia Minor it would appear to be that Babylon with be what is present dayarea of around Iraq which is in Asia Minor. Those in Asia Minor is to whom the 1st Epistle of Peter is written to. That is right in the very first verse in that Epistle. The locations are those within Asia Minor and no where else.

7 ) In considering point # 7 I conclude that you have provided no positive proof of Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 as referring to Rome and in substance depended upon personal opinions of yourself but also ECF's rather than from any exegetical consideration from the passage itself. The evidence for your claim must be from the passage itself and you did not provide this at all.

8 ) You tried to claim that Peter was given the " keys of David " yet that is not what he or the other Apostles were given at all. Peter and the Apostles were given the " keys of the kingdom of heaven  " in Matt. 16:19 . The Kingdom of heaven is the sphere of Christian profession. And is distinct from the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel which is to be fulfilled at Jesus Second coming. That is confirmed in Matt. 25:31-34 in the very same gospel we are dealing with. Therefore there the keys of Isa. 22:22 and Matt. 16:19 are not the same.

9 ) Neither Peter no any others in the history of the Christian church has the key of David. What we do find is the fact that Jesus had it and still does . That is based on Revelation 3:7 where this is confirmed for us at. This shows that neither Peter nor any claimed  bishops of Rome of the past and present has the key of David as the RCC claims.

- Jesus words ONLY to Peter: “feed my lambs … look after my sheep …feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15ff).

There is nothing there that teaches that Peter is the visible head of the visible church on the earth. The only thing that can be said is Peter is a sheephard in the passage. And this is not limited to Peter " only " as you claim.There is nothing there of the Apostle Peter being the Chief Sheperd there as the RCC claims. In the formation of the Church there are elders whom are also called " shepherds besides Peter right in 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nothing only that but it is Jesus Christ Himself whom is called the " Chief Sheperd " and not Peter thereby refuting the claims of the Papacy. You fall well short of the claims of Peter being the visible head of the visible church on the earth.




Yes during the ministry of Jesus on the earth Peter spoke on behalf of the others. The problem lies in the fact in those passages that Peter is never made the head of the visible church at all. Nor did the Christian Church exist until the day of Pentecost. You again fall far short for the claims of the Papacy on those passages.




It shows the fact of the risen Lord Jesus appeared to him. Nothing there concerning of Peter being made the head of the visible church on the earth. You fall yet again far short of the claims of the Papacy for that passage.

Peter was commanded to do so concerning Jesus resurrection. There is nothing there or logically shows that Peter is being made the head of the visible church on the earth on the basis of that at all. It falls far short for the claims of the Papacy.




Peter acted along with the other 11 other Apostles present there. They picked someone who was with the people who were with them since the preaching of John the Baptist to replace Judas in the Apostleship. That is the key thing there. It replaces Judas only and not the Apostle Peter's office at all. And the qualification for that was to have been with them since the preaching of John the Baptist. No one today meets this qualifications at all. Yet none of this proves that Peter was head of the visible church on the earth. It falls far short of the claims for the Papacy.




He did all that for the Jews as he was an Apostle to the Jews. Peter represented the Apostles as a whole and acted collectively with them and not apart from him there. There is nothing at all which shows that Peter was the head of the visible church in the earth. The claims of the Papacy falls short in it's claims there. Peter's primary targets were Jews and not Gentiles. Yet you overlook this in your claims.

Yes Peter was listed first. Yet in not one of them does it teach or say that Peter was the head of the visible church on the earth. Your claims for the Papacy based on that falls far short and evidently reads more to that them what the passage says. Each of your claims for the Papacy is based on false premise and false evidence and distorts what the various passage actually does teach and you read things which are not taught or stated there at all.




Peter's role was limited to Jews which in itself refutes yours claims. Peter only wrote 1 and 2 Peter and yet the Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament Epistles. It appears that the Apostle Paul has a greater role in the New Testament than that of Peter. The truth of the matter is all the Apostles were of equal authority and all equally pilliars in the faith based on Eph . 2:20 .




There you are very guilty of misrepresenting Protestants and also of your misquoting and misrepresentations the early church fathers prior to 300ad. All Protestant scholars reject the claims of the Papacy and they all deny that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the Church on the earth.

Protestants reject the Papacy and claims of the RCC on Matthew 16:19. This refutes your claim regarding an NIV study bible as well since The New Scofield Study Bible that I quoted from is based on the NIV and used it.

Matt 16:19 - These are not the keys of the Church but of the kingdom of heaven in the sense of ch. 13, i.e. the sphere of Christian profession. A key is a badge of power or authority ( cp. Isa. 22:22 ; Rev 3:7 ) . The apostolic history explains and limits this trust, for it was Peter who opened the door of Christian opportunity to Israel on the Day of Pentecost ( Ac. 2:38-42 ) and to Gentiles in the house of Cornelius ( Ac. 10:34-48 ) . There was no assumption by Peter of any other authority ( Ac. 15:7-11 ) . In the council of James, not Peter, seems to have presided ( Ac. 15:19; cp. Gal. 2:11-14 ) .   Peter claimed no more for himself than to an apostle by gift ( 1 Pe. 1:1 ) and an elder by office ( 1 Pe. 5:1 ) .    ( THE NEW SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE. NIV. pg. 1228 )

Eastern Orthodox likewise rejects the claims of the Papacy on being head of the visible church on the earth in Matthew 16:19. It is to be noted the Church started in the East rather than in the West.  Eastern Church predates the Western Church.

Matt. 16:19 Keys of the kingdom refers to a special authority that will be given to both Peter and the other apostles after the Resurrection ( see 18:18; Jn. 20:23 ) . Peter was not a leader over the others, but among them. This truth was confirmed at the Council of Jerusalem ( Acts 15 ) where the apostles and presbyters met as equals, and where Peter advised, but James presided. Papal claims in later centuries must not be confused with the NT witness regarding Peter, nor should the role of Peter be diminished in opposition of these claims. Binding and loosing is a refence primarily to the authority " to absolve sins " ( JohnChr; see Jn 20:23 ) , but it also includes all the teaching, sacremental, and administrative authority of the apostles. This authority was in turn transmitted to the bishops of the Church and continues in effect to this day. ( THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, pg. 1300 )

I will correctly quote a few of the early church fathers to show that in general that you misrepresented them for the claims of the papacy.

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Augustine's mature conclusion on this issue.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Sermons, XI, Sermon 229, p. 327).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge savings on HDTVs from Dell.com!

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

RCC, Eastern Orthodox and others who claim Apostolic Succession do not all define it in the same manner . Therefore your resorting to misrepresention. It is to be noted that the Papacy is only held specifically by the RCC. Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and others who hold to some type of Apostolic Succession all reject the Papacy. They deny that the Bishop of Rome is head of the visible church on the earth.




Actually it  specific groups that claim to be the only true visible Church on the earth make a claim of Apostolic Succession. And want in the process limit God's working through them alone. And to exclude other Christian groups. Only those churches which affirm the five Solas of the Reformation in reality have a true Apostolic Succession is in a proper meaning of it which in essence only refers doctrinally holding to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as found and only recorded in Scripture. If a Bishop/ Elder is teaching correctly and holds to the five Solas then he has Apostolic Succession regardless of their specific denomination or sects. It is to be noted that the RCC formally became apostate and rejected the true Gospel of Scripture at the Council of Trent.

As we have seen you often misrepresented Protestants, misrepresented and misquote the early church fathers all in your claims for the Papacy for the RCC. Historical revisionalism and misciting of the church fathers by Roman Catholics is consistantly being done by RCC Apologist. One thing I will say is you nor any Roman Catholic will ever fool me when it comes to these issues.