Here are questions 17-22.

(17) Are you prepared to believe what Rome says about Peter and the Papacy? Let’s look at the primary texts they cite for this, Matthew 16:17-19 and 18:18.

“And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say that you are Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you [singular] shall bind on earth shall be bound [estai dedemenon = future periphrastic, perfect passive participle = “shall have been bound”] in heaven, and whatever you [singular] shall loose on earth shall be loosed [estai lelumenon = “shall have been loosed”] in heaven’” (Matthew 16:17-19).

“Truly I say to you [plural], whatever you [plural] shall bind on earth shall be bound [estai dedemena = “shall have been bound”] in heaven; and whatever you [plural] loose on earth shall be loosed [estai lelumena = “shall have been loosed”] in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

First, what are the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”? The standard RC interpretation is that the keys represent the delegation of authority. The idea is that Jesus is leaving the earth and is assigning a vice regent or steward to be over his “house”. In giving Peter the “keys” Jesus is granting him power and authority to administer affairs on behalf of the absent King. As for the “keys”, see Isa. 22:22 and Rev. 3:7.

Protestants have generally understood the “keys” and the one who holds them as referring to the power to exclude or permit entrance to the kingdom (cf. Rev. 9:1-6; 20:1-3). Especially helpful is Jesus’ statement to the Pharisees in Luke 11:52,

“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

What is the power of “binding” and “loosing”? The typical RC interpretation is that Peter is granted the right to make binding decisions for, regarding, and on behalf of the church that God will ratify from heaven. Thus, God binds himself to Peter’s decisions. Peter, so they contend, has power to exercise administrative and legislative authority with a mandate from heaven. Thus, according to Rome, Peter (or his successors in the papal chair) make authoritative and legislative decisions to which God then adds his imprimatur.

Protestants read these texts as asserting that Peter’s (or the Church’s) decisions are a reflection of what has already been legislated in heaven. To the degree that the church remains consistent with Scripture, its declarations “shall have already been established” in heaven. D. A. Carson provides this summation:

“Peter accomplishes this binding and loosing by proclaiming a gospel that has already been given and by making personal application on that basis (Simon Magus). Whatever he binds or looses will have been bound or loosed, so long as he adheres to that divinely disclosed gospel. He has no direct pipeline to heaven, still less do his decisions force heaven to comply; but he may be authoritative in binding and loosing because heaven has acted first (cf. Acts 18:9-10). Those he ushers in or excludes have already been bound or loosed by God according to the gospel already revealed and which Peter, by confessing Jesus as the Messiah, has most clearly grasped” (Matthew, 373).

(18) Let’s consider John 20:23. “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven [apheontai = perfect passive]; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained [kekratentai = perfect passive]” (John 20:23).

Although the verb forms are different from Matthew 16 and 18, the theology is much the same. When we faithfully proclaim the terms of the gospel, on which forgiveness of sins is suspended and entrance into the kingdom granted, people either repent and believe or not. We are given the authority, based on that gospel, to declare, based on human response, whether an individual is forgiven or still under the guilt of his/her sin.

What reason do we have for thinking that this promise and authority doesn’t extend to all Christians? Why must it be reserved only for the apostles? And what in any text of the NT ever suggests that this power was intended only for Peter and the apostles, that they in turn have the authority or power to invest it in their successors?

(19) The RCC interprets the story in Acts 1:15-26 as providing a biblical precedent for apostolic succession. Just as the office of Judas Iscariot had to be filled by another, so also the office of Peter subsequent to his death.

But on what grounds does Rome argue that the office and authority of the original 12 apostles extends beyond their deaths? Mathias was selected to fill out the original 12. But why should we think that the 12 are themselves to be succeeded by others?

According to Rome, the original company of apostles “designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry” (CC, 861). But why should we believe that? What in Scripture gives us reason to think this is true?

(20) Are you prepared to speak of the Pope as “Vicar of Christ” (CC, 837)? If so, why? On what biblical basis? Are you prepared to affirm that he is “pastor of the entire Church” (CC, 837)? On what basis? Are you prepared to affirm that the Pope “has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (CC, 837)?

(21) There is a sense in which Rome also believes in the infallibility of the Church:

“The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2:20,27), cannot err in matters of belief. Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith (sensus fidei) which characterizes the people as a whole, it manifests this unerring quality when ‘from the bishops down to the last member of the laity,’ it shows universal agreement on matters of faith and morals” (Lumen Gentium, 12).

Do you think that’s true? Do you think Scripture teaches this or that history has proven it to be true?

(22) Rome also believes truth can be stated infallibly by the bishops when they are in union with the Pope. Rome also believes that the Pope alone can speak with an infallibility by virtue of a gift (charism) bestowed by Christ and passed down through apostolic succession:

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in faith – he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (Lumen Gentium, 25).

What reason would anyone have for believing this? It certainly can’t be found in Scripture.

This concept was formally defined at the First Vatican Council (1869-70) in the decree Pastor Aeternus where it was determined that for a statement of the Pope to be considered infallible it must meet these conditions:

(1) The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (lit., “from the chair” of Peter), or in the capacity as chief shepherd and teacher of the universal church.

(2) The Pope must explicitly declare (“by a definitive act”) that this doctrine is a truth of faith and so define it.

(3) This doctrine must pertain to either “faith” or “morals”.

Are you prepared to live your life in accordance with the following:

“this religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents (in which the teaching is presented), from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 25).

Where does Scripture give us any reason to think the preceding is true? Do you really believe that these men have “supreme and full authority over the universal Church?”

To be continued . . .