Skip to main content

Are the Keys Handed Over to Peter the Seven Sacraments of Roman Catholicism?

It may be time to talk about one Roman Catholic nonsense where some Roman Catholic apologists claim that when Jesus handed over the keys of Peter that it represented the seven sacraments.

This is the verse that Roman Catholics say gave Peter his position as the Pope:
Matthew 16:16-18 
And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock (that's Peter, emphasis mine)), and on this rock foundation (definitely not Peter, emphasis mine) I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. I will give you the keys (but not any specific number, emphasis mine) of the Kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. (Good News Translation)

Roman Catholic apologists tend to disagree with each other when it comes to interpretation. Some of them may reply (politely or not) that Peter himself was still made the Pope regardless of interpretation. Some of them may give a defense that Peter would still be the Pope even if the church wasn't built on him because of how the verse goes. Should I mention even the doctrine of Peter the Rock was largely disputed even within Roman Catholicism? The Good News Translation may be a Roman Catholic translation but it certainly shows this truth: Peter can't be the Rock that Jesus built on. I'm just afraid that Catholic.com and Catholic Answers will still insist on their erroneous interpretation.

Now let's focus on the idea that the keys were the seven sacraments. The word sacrament is defined by Theopedia as:
A sacrament is a rite or ceremony instituted by Jesus, and observed by the church as a means of or visible sign of grace. The English word sacrament is from the Latin sacramentum, which means to make holy, or to consecrate. 
Sacraments are ceremonial in nature, which separates them from other things that Jesus instructed believers to do (e.g. "go and make disciples of all nations," Matthew 28:18).

The problem with saying that Peter was given the keys and these keys are the seven sacraments isn't even found in the verse or anywhere in Scriptures. Jesus didn't specify how many keys otherwise He would have said, "I will give you the seven keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which are the seven sacraments." But He said no such thing. If Jesus didn't give Peter authority over kings and princess like the Pope is supposedly given or even freedom from committing doctrinal error or made John the Baptist the first Baptist minister then why should anybody assume that Jesus gave Peter seven keys when the Bible is silent about it?

Plus, another blow on the idea that Peter is the Rock is this verse taken from the Good News Translation:
1 Corinthians 10:4 
They drank from the spiritual rock that went with them; and that rock was Christ Himself.

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Ken Ham's Illustrations on Spiritual Warfare Against Humanism

Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis made these beautiful illustrations to show what's wrong with the church today. Let's take a look at the two illustrations on how Christians engage their spiritual warfare. 
The first illustration reveals the following:
One member is asleep when he should be doing something.Another person is firing at the balloons because the person who's supposed to fire it is asleep on the job.Somebody is focused on deflecting cannon balls than hitting the source of the cannon balls.Somebody is treating the whole situation like a game.  
By doing so, humanism is victorious whenever the local church is asleep. This is the problem to why Christians tend to fall down in battle at times:
Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
In short, if you're not going to stand in the gap on behalf of the land then who will? It's the…

The Ridiculous Roman Catholic View That Marriage Must Be Done Inside Their Church or It's Invalid

I remembered reading through the seven sacraments or ordinances of the Roman Catholic institution in a catechism. One of the teachings is that marriage must be treated as a sacrament. What it also implies is that if your marriage is done in a civil court that even if it was duly registered, that both couples were in a sexually pure union then it's not a marriage. So does that mean that a person can marry in a civil court, get divorced and marry his next spouse in the Roman Catholic institution?

Let's address the issue of civil marriage that is pure and holy. In short there was no incest, no adultery and it was between two people who are eligible for marriage. So why should the Roman Catholic institution even think that two people who got married with the sexually pure prerequisites in the eyes of God should be rejected. Is it because unless it's a priest who performs the marriage then the marriage can't be validated? It's a problem with how Roman Catholics have thei…

No Moral Absolutes Means No Human Rights

We have the truth that human rights activists are everywhere who reject the truth that there are moral absolutes. Many of them have their idea of "Judge not and you will not be judged." As for the atheistic human activists, they tend to carry out Richard Dawkins' quote from the River Out of Eden which says that there's no good, no evil but only pitiless indifference. They think that there are no such thing as moral absolutes. So if they believe that there are no moral absolutes then why are they fighting for human rights which requires moral absolutes to determine them? After all, Dawkins just said there is no purpose but only pitiless indifference.

Here's another problem with atheists' appeal to human rights. Why do they appeal to human rights when they claim that there are no moral absolutes and morality is relative? Human rights are determined by moral absolutes that God made. When God made His Ten Commandments and gave the whole Law - He made it as the st…

James 2 DOES NOT Teach Works Salvation

In a hasty attempt to defend works salvation, they would appeal to James 2.  It would be time to actually clear the fact that Paul and James DO NOT contradict each other. James 2 DOES NOT teach works salvation in which now can be clearly seen when this whole chapter is being dissected to show that James 2 does not defend the heretic crowd.  So let's try to check out what James 2 really is saying.
So first, it's time to think about these facts to debunk the heretical argument of using James 2:
1.) James 2:14-18 is not talking about works salvation but rather, again showing one's faith by one's works.  James 2:18 is a challenge to show one's faith.  Want to know about faith?  Hebrews 11 talks about the results of faith with some of the heroes of the Bible.  Try to coincide Hebrews 11 and James 2 and one sees the results of faith.  As said, when one says that a faith without works is DEAD because true faith produces good works to validate faith.  That's really th…

Does Salvation by Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ Grant a License to Sin?

Here's a commonly heard argument saying, "Well salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ is unjust and grants a license to sin." which is frequently done by most world religions.  They demand people must work for their salvation and for one, it's NOT even realistic or practical as it promotes the idea of a dictator God PLUS it's nothing more than asking for the impossible because God's standard of holiness is a LOT higher than all the good works man does.  Despite all the good man does, still they will fall into sin and the followers of almost every false religion this world has to offer shows that like how your average religious person attends religious services yet he/she falls into sin for the rest of the week, showing he/she is WEAK in the flesh.
Now it's time to really correct the whole erroneous argument as false.  Why?  The Bible says otherwise about what God's salvation by grace through faith really does- it transforms the individual to resist…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…