Skip to main content

Is Salvation in Peter's Hands (As Well as the Popes) Because Jesus Supposedly Gave Him the Literal Keys of Heaven?

According to a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologist (who I'll probably dub as Mr. Whistle when I mention him) he claimed that salvation is in the hands of Peter because Jesus gave the former the keys of Heaven. The guy is clearly taking things out of context with what he says. I wonder does he even bother to check out the idioms of the Bible since some passages use a figure of speech instead of speaking everything literally?

If he can't get Matthew 16:18 correctly where he said that Peter the Rock even when the Good News Translation for Roman Catholics says otherwise (and worse for them Peter is differentiated as a rock and the Rock is clearly not him) then he also misinterprets Matthew 16:19. Let's try to understand Matthew 16:19 with the keys and what they really mean. In his interpretation he's already telling everyone that born again Christians should just go back to the Roman Catholic institution because the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands. I don't think this guy is ever going to believe anything outside his own head even if somebody did an exposition on Greek to explain to him that Peter is not the Rock or that Peter doesn't hold salvation.

Claiming that the Popes hold salvation in their hands is a very blasphemous statement. I wonder has he read John 10 and John 14:6? Jesus stated no one can enter Heaven except through Him and Peter is NOWHERE mentioned in those verses. Jesus said only He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. What's so sad is that Roman Catholics say John 14:6 whenever it's convenient, they say they believe it but their beliefs say otherwise. Nowhere in the Gospels is it declared that all must pass through Mary before they can go to Jesus or to Peter before they can go to Jesus. How can a mere man hold the keys of salvation in the first place?

Maybe Mr. Whistle here could appeal to the statement of Popes here which are plain blasphemous and contrary to Scripture:
We decree that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the whole world and that this Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians; that to him in blessed Peter was given by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church as it is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. (Council of Florence, 1439, Ibid. p. 206, No. 349)
If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church; or that he directly and immediately received a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction let him be anathema. (Vatican Council I, 1870, Ibid, p. 223, No. 374)
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses possesses a superiority of ordinary power all over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate to which all and whatever rite and collectively are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience to submit not only in the matters that pertain to faith and morals but also in those that pertain to discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Vatican Council I, 1870, p. 224-225, No. 379) 
If then any one shall say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the office of inspection and direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things pertaining to the faith and morals but also in those things that relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world or that he possesses only the principal part and not fullness of this supreme power... Let him be excommunicated and condemned. (Vatican Council I, Ibid, p. 226, No. 382)
Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra that is when, in the discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed at His church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith and morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one- which God avert- presume to contradict this our definition- let him be excommunicated and condemned. (Vatican Council I, p. 229. No. 338)

Worse, Mr. Whistle even tells his critics to read the Book of Matthew carefully which I doubt he even did nor does he read the Bible carefully as he claims. He only cherry picks and take things out of context. If he's ever going to cite Scriptures to support it views he can't even get an indirect answer towards it. Not even the letters of Peter have him claiming what the Popes are claiming! It's just plain blasphemy! If he's going to tell me to study history it's history according to their revisionist history.

This is dangerous how this person is making the claim has some friends who ended up chewing themselves by mentioning the biblical truth. One of his comrades I'll refer to as Mr. Loony ended up debunking himself by stating salvation is found alone in Jesus Christ and not in the born again Christian pastors. If salvation is found alone in Jesus Christ then why is Peter and the Popes holding salvation in their hands? This is dangerous since Paul mentioned salvation in Christ alone and Peter isn't even mentioned when it comes to salvation. Peter also made no such claim that salvation was in his hands. If Mr. Whistle here claims it then where's the chapter and verse to directly or indirectly suggest otherwise? I'm willing to give him alternatives but such people change their stance whenever it's convenient for them.

So what's the keys of salvation mentioned in Peter's hands? No, these are not even the seven sacraments as some of Mr. Whistle's comrades claim. It's ironic how they say that born again Christians can't show in the Bible that they are to be called born again Christians while they can't even show in the Bible that the believers in Antioch were first called Catholics nor were early Christians called Catholics. Catholic appears in the Bible (under the Greek) as an adjective and not as a denomination in Acts 9:31. Catholic is described in Acts 9:31 to describe throughout Judea and Galilee and not in Rome. We could spell out Acts 9:31 where throughout is a synonym for universal or catholic. No sign of Peter holding the keys of salvation there. Instead, the keys were symbolic where it was the preaching of the Gospel. Catholic is an adjective and not a denomination in the original Greek.

To understand it further, one must understand figures of speech. Ever heard of the expression of the key of knowledge? Ever seen a symbolic handing over the keys of the city to the newest mayor of the city? It's not a literal key that's handed over but it's a symbolic key. Peter himself has no authority to save or damn anyone. If he did then he would be playing God. Peter only preached the Gospel giving them the warning of how to get saved and how rejecting Christ leads to damnation but never the power to damn or save anyone. Besides, who holds the keys of death and Hell in Revelation 1:18? Hint: It's definitely not Peter.

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…