Replies

Actually, you dodged my questions completely.

I certainly did not intend to dodge your questions completely. So let’s take them one at a time?

Question (Q): What level of authority, exactly?

Response (R): The authority to build His Church. The keys to the kingdom. The power to bind and to let loose.

Q: Please define what it is . . .

R: By giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, Jesus gave Peter authority over the heavenly city itself. The ability to open and close, just as the Lord gave Eliakim the key to the house of David in Isaiah 22:22, “what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” Even more so, Jesus gave Peter the authority to say who could not (bind) or who could (loose) enter the kingdom.

Q: . . .and why it makes a difference.

A: This made a big difference in Peter’s relationship with the other apostles. When John arrived at the tomb before Peter in John 20, John did not go in until Peter arrived and went straight in. When Peter went fishing in John 21, the six who were there together went with him. It was also in John 21 that Jesus gave His flock to Peter. It was Peter in Acts 1 who stood up and said it was necessary to choose a replacement for Peter. While all the apostles spoke at Pentecost, it was Peter’s words that are recorded in Acts 2. Peter worked the first miracle in Acts 3:1-7.

Q: Why couldn’t Peter be given the keys, but the Church still be based on Christ as the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48?

A: The Church is based on Jesus Christ as the foundation rock, and as the cornerstone. And as the foundation rock, Jesus did indeed give the keys to Peter.

Q: Or are you saying that Peter is the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48?

A: Not at all. Jesus is the foundation rock. But He knew He would be going to the Father, and accordingly would need someone to lead his disciples in the building of his Church. So the foundation Rock gave the keys to the rock whom He named in John 1 to build His kingdom on earth, His Church.

Q: Then please also explain why it is Christ that is called petra in Ro.9.33, 1Co.10.4 and 1Pe.2.8 and not Peter.

A: Because Jesus is the Foundation Rock and Cornerstone and Peter is not. Peter is a rock only because Jesus chose him to be a rock.

Now, I repeat my question which you have not answered. Do you have a better explanation?

>Now, I repeat my question which you have not answered. Do you have a better explanation?<

Actually, I agree with your explanation to the extent of Peter's role in creating the Church. But that is where his authority ended. Peter, like all of the apostles, then began teaching an erroneous Law-based gospel for the first two decades of the Church. Only when Paul addressed the council in Acts 15 was the true grace-based gospel fully accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem. Peter during those two decades was not even the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. James was. This is why I entered this thread delineating that the epistle of James is not canonical - it was written during this two-decade period and teaches in stark black and white that to be saved one must keep the O.T. Law (I suggest you go back and read my first two posts in this thread - 57 and 72). Peter had proved to be wholly unreliable in leading the early Church. His successor, James, was no better. Up until the council of Acts 15 Paul was the only one who really knew what was going on. Peter was a little stone. He played his part - and was then surpassed. Now there is only the massive, unmovable rock of Christ - the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48.

I wonder, do you know what adequacy conditions are? They are defined principles for reaching a goal. Our goal is religious truth. For instance, the first adequacy condition of Roman Catholicism is that truth comes from the church's interpretation of the Bible - it must be defended at all cost, even at a cost to one's own integrity.

My first adequacy condition is this: Approach scriptural explanations with an attitude of cautious skepticism toward what others teach about it, and begin your own examination with minimal presumption.

This adequacy condition preserves my integrity in my own mind. Unlike you, I make no presumption that others have authority to interpret Scripture for me that I do not have.

Here is my fifth adequacy condition: Scripture is never vague about that which God considers important for us to understand, and is its own best confirmation and commentary on itself. Crucial doctrines are never based on interpretations of nebulous Scripture, nor nebulous interpretations of any passage.

If God had wanted us to to be under the authority of the Roman Catholic church, the New Testament would be full of confirmations. Instead all we have are a few nebulous and highly arguable interpretations of Scriptures (like Mt.16.18). That is not how Biblical truth works.

(If you are interested in reading about all ten of my adequacy conditions for understanding Scripture they can be found in my ebook, MetaChristianity I - How To Unlock Bible Mysteries. It's free - just Google it at Smashwords. You can read it online or as an epub, or any other format - I suggest PDF. Before I settled on what I believed about Scripture, I first spent years researching how to understand Scripture - how it works, the pitfalls, the nuances, etc. My ten adequacy conditions are the result of that research. Following them ferrets out error and reveals the answers to previously unanswered mysteries.)