No "Papacy" in Augustine's Sermon 295

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Before we can answer this question, when was Peter given the keys of the Kingdom? After all, this is your doctrine to defend, not mine to undermine. There is nothing in Scripture that says he had exclusive authority, and clearly ancient Tradition doesn't back it either. He didn't get them in Matthew 16:19 because Jesus is talking in the future tense: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". It has nothing to do with Isaiah 22, because the key of David was given to Jesus, not Peter: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens." Revelation 3:7. And, every other time Peter was given any authority, it was generally given to the Apostles as a group. Don't forget, Jesus saying he will give Peter something doesn't mean he is giving it to Peter exclusively. So, what's your argument?
who is the true messianic king, not merely the prime minister or the Messiah’s chief representative...Jesus or Peter?

Jesus is the messianic king; Isaiah 22 is talking about this messianic king; therefore, it's not relevant to Peter having the keys of the kingdom.

Let me be blunt, the Pope isn't the prime minister or the Messiah’s chief representative on earth unless Peter was given the keys exclusively and those keys were exclusively passed down through the popes. Therefore, it is circular to argue for the keys being exclusively given to Peter because he is the prime minister or Messiah's chief representative on earth.


God Bless
 

A new day

Well-known member
baptism has the root word of the verb, 'baptizo" which means as a noun 'washing, immersion, ablution, etc...' are, normally and ordinarily, with the use of water. john used water and jesus too. john3: 22-26 seems to indicates jesus baptizing but john 4:2 says it is jesus' disciples who did the baptizing. whatever, the baptism of jesus conferred grace while the baptism of john did not (matt3: 11).

the baptism instituted by Jesus (water and spirit), john3 :3-5, is a pre-requisite for salvation (mark16:16; john3: 5). the story of cornelius receiving the holy spirit before baptism is an exceptional one. the sacraments like baptism are the normal means of salvation but that does not in any way limit God from choosing other methods if He so wills it.


Baptism for eternal life was never taught by John the Baptist or Jesus Christ. It is not possible to find any verse that connects eternal life with baptism. Salvation is from God alone. It is NEVER the work of man. Spiritual life is the result of the Holy Spirit's work in us. Has nothing to do with water baptism. When we believe the gospel message in our hearts, we become born from above.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
Baptism for eternal life was never taught by John the Baptist or Jesus Christ. It is not possible to find any verse that connects eternal life with baptism. Salvation is from God alone. It is NEVER the work of man. Spiritual life is the result of the Holy Spirit's work in us. Has nothing to do with water baptism. When we believe the gospel message in our hearts, we become born from above.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.
I agree that we are saved by the grace of God alone, not by faith nor by works.

Sacraments are the instrument of God's grace. It is an outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls.

so, it is still the grace of God that saves us not the external actions in the sacrament and we have these verses to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation... john3 :3-5; mark16:16.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
Jesus is the messianic king; Isaiah 22 is talking about this messianic king; therefore, it's not relevant to Peter having the keys of the kingdom.

Let me be blunt, the Pope isn't the prime minister or the Messiah’s chief representative on earth unless Peter was given the keys exclusively and those keys were exclusively passed down through the popes. Therefore, it is circular to argue for the keys being exclusively given to Peter because he is the prime minister or Messiah's chief representative on earth.


God Bless
yup, jesus is the messianic king and as he royal son of david, he holds the key of david but it does not mean he cannot give it to peter, his prime minister, the keys to his heavenly kingdom. eliakim, in isaiah 22, the king's right hand man, is made master of the palace (equivalent to prime minister) by kind david and like peter, who was given the keys of heaven by the king, jesus christ in matt16.
 

mica

Well-known member
I agree that we are saved by the grace of God alone, not by faith nor by works.

Sacraments are the instrument of God's grace. It is an outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls.

so, it is still the grace of God that saves us not the external actions in the sacrament and we have these verses to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation... john3 :3-5; mark16:16.
no they don't.
 

balshan

Well-known member
without the gift of infalliblity, there is no way we can have absolute certainty that what was handed down to us from the apostles is divine truth.
Oh rubbish. The apostles worked with Jesus, walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, sat at His feet. The other apostles would see their writings and check that they were right. Peter told us we can trust Paul's writings for example. He was just a man, no gift of infallibility.
 

mica

Well-known member
yup, jesus is the messianic king and as he royal son of david, he holds the key of david but it does not mean he cannot give it to peter, his prime minister, the keys to his heavenly kingdom. eliakim, in isaiah 22, the king's right hand man, is made master of the palace (equivalent to prime minister) by kind david and like peter, who was given the keys of heaven by the king, jesus christ in matt16.
all believers have that key.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
yup, jesus is the messianic king and as he royal son of david, he holds the key of david but it does not mean he cannot give it to peter, his prime minister, the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

Yes, he could give it to Peter, but you have no reason whatsoever to think he did given that Jesus still had the key in 90AD, when Revelation was written, 30 some odd years after Peter's death.

eliakim, in isaiah 22, the king's right hand man, is made master of the palace (equivalent to prime minister) by kind david and like peter, who was given the keys of heaven by the king, jesus christ in matt16.

And? You still haven't presented any reason why anyone would believe Peter was Jesus' prime minister on earth. You are just telling stories as to pretend such is meaningful.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Sacraments are the instrument of God's grace. It is an outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls.

Why would anyone believe this? The Apostles never taught this; yet that's what you claim.

so, it is still the grace of God that saves us not the external actions in the sacrament and we have these verses to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation... john3 :3-5; mark16:16.

Mark 16:16 isn't Scripture. It was added at a later date. And, anyone reading the text would realize thet it doesn't teach baptism is necessary; it teaches believing and baptism are sufficient for salvation and belief is necessary for salvation. So much for the necessity of the Eucharist. And, John 3 mentions being born of water (physical birth after a woman's water breaks) and of Spirit. John 3 doesn't even mention baptism. Besides, Catholics believe in the baptism of desire. As such, the sacrament of baptism proper is not necessary for salvation.

God Bless
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
Yes, he could give it to Peter, but you have no reason whatsoever to think he did given that Jesus still had the key in 90AD, when Revelation was written, 30 some odd years after Peter's death.



And? You still haven't presented any reason why anyone would believe Peter was Jesus' prime minister on earth. You are just telling stories as to pretend such is meaningful.


God Bless
shebna was the royal steward in the davidic kingdom during the reign of king hezekiah. isaiah foretold the fall of one royal steward and the succession of another. shebna was baing replaced by eliakim and the prophet said ' i will place on his shoulder the key to the house of david'.
matt16: 17-19 is a direct quotation of isaiah 22. when jesus said to peter, 'i will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven', the apostles knew jesus was alluding to the passage in isaiah22. many protestant biblical scholars support this understanding and affirm that Jesus is delegating his authority over life and death, heaven and hell, to the founder of his Church on earth.

the three images of rock, steward, and shepherd are biblical reasons why we claim peter's authority (the prime minister) in the church jesus established..
 

balshan

Well-known member
shebna was the royal steward in the davidic kingdom during the reign of king hezekiah. isaiah foretold the fall of one royal steward and the succession of another. shebna was baing replaced by eliakim and the prophet said ' i will place on his shoulder the key to the house of david'.
matt16: 17-19 is a direct quotation of isaiah 22. when jesus said to peter, 'i will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven', the apostles knew jesus was alluding to the passage in isaiah22. many protestant biblical scholars support this understanding and affirm that Jesus is delegating his authority over life and death, heaven and hell, to the founder of his Church on earth.

the three images of rock, steward, and shepherd are biblical reasons why we claim peter's authority (the prime minister) in the church jesus established..
But RCC does not replace its leaders, no matter what they do or don't do. The rock is Jesus/God. The shepherd is Jesus and the king is Jesus. Jesus as shepherd does not harm the flock, He protects the flock. Your leaders harm the flock, so there is a major flaw in your reasoning.

I don't know Jesus could have been referring to the rock that the Jewish people believed followed them around in the desert. That rock was Jesus.

1 Cor 10:4

and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
 
Last edited:

ramcam2

Well-known member
Why would anyone believe this? The Apostles never taught this; yet that's what you claim.

the apostles baptized (using water and the words of christ) although the word 'sacrament' just like the word 'trinity' is not found in the bible. i am quite sure they taught their disciples and successors how to baptize in the manner jesus taught them.
Mark 16:16 isn't Scripture. It was added at a later date. And, anyone reading the text would realize thet it doesn't teach baptism is necessary; it teaches believing and baptism are sufficient for salvation and belief is necessary for salvation. So much for the necessity of the Eucharist. And, John 3 mentions being born of water (physical birth after a woman's water breaks) and of Spirit. John 3 doesn't even mention baptism. Besides, Catholics believe in the baptism of desire. As such, the sacrament of baptism proper is not necessary for salvation.

God Bless
water and spirit in john 3 means baptism as taught by jesus christ. jesus also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism in john 3.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
But RCC does not replace its leaders, no matter what they do or don't do. The rock is Jesus/God. The shepherd is Jesus and the king is Jesus. Jesus as shepherd does not harm the flock, He protects the flock. Your leaders harm the flock, so there is a major flaw in your reasoning.

I don't know Jesus could have been referring to the rock that the Jewish people believed followed them around in the desert. That rock was Jesus.

1 Cor 10:4

and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
the succession of popes from the time of peter is historical proof of the succession of stewards in jesus' kingdom/church here on earth.

it is true the jesus is king but is he also the steward/prime minister?
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
Oh rubbish. The apostles worked with Jesus, walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, sat at His feet. The other apostles would see their writings and check that they were right. Peter told us we can trust Paul's writings for example. He was just a man, no gift of infallibility.
so, what is your guarantee that what was taught is divine truth and not just words of men?
 

balshan

Well-known member
the succession of popes from the time of peter is historical proof of the succession of stewards in jesus' kingdom/church here on earth.

it is true the jesus is king but is he also the steward/prime minister?
No it is just a lie told by the RCC. Jesus would never have approved a line of succession which would teach false doctrines and harm the flock. There have been massive gaps, idiotic popes known as the cadaver pope, the evil popes who were sexually immoral, those who brought power, the time when there was more than one pope and then the ECFs debated over who Peter laid hands on. So many flaws in your argument.

The scriptures give clear instructions on the requirements for leaders and your leaders do not meet those requirements, so they are not Peter's successors.
 
Top