Listen to the audio narration of this article here.
Introduction:
So far in this series, we’ve dismantled both the historical and exegetical claims of the dogmatic decrees of Vatican I in regards to the papacy. Nevertheless, there are a number of arguments and counterarguments which Romanists will raise in defense of the papacy. So we’ll go through seven of the most common ones, attempt to present them as fairly as possible, and then fully rebut them.
Argument #1) When Scripture speaks of the idea of “keys,”1 the idea of succession is implicit. This is clear from Isaiah 22:20-22, which read:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
This passage equates the key of the house of David with this kingly rule, in which there is clearly the implicit idea of succession, and the shutting and opening corresponds to the binding and loosing of Matthew 16.
There are numerous problems with this argument. Perhaps we could begin by noting that this interpretation does not square with Jesus’s own words in Revelation 3:7 about the key of David. He said,
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.’
Jesus is not passing this key on in some sort of dynastic succession. And there are at least three further incongruities which render the analogy void. First, the form of dynastic succession of Israel’s king was through reproduction, which is forbidden for Roman clergy (though of course that didn’t stop certain popes). Second, this verse refers to a singular key, not the plural keys Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16. Third: Let’s grant for a moment that “the key of the house of David” did directly connect to succession. Would the succession be tied to the “key” part or the “house of David” part? And of course, the keys given to the Apostles are the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which is ruled by one eternal king who has no need for a successor. So obviously the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy was not Peter but Jesus. So there are numerous category errors in the attempt to draw this analogy.
Argument #2) But in Acts 15, Peter was the one who made the final decision at the first church council at Jerusalem and decided that Gentiles could be Christians without undergoing circumcision.
However, a careful reading of this text shows just how unconvincing this argument is. First, it appears that either local elders in Jerusalem or Paul and Barnabas call the council, not Peter (15:4-6). Second, there is “much debate” before Peter ever speaks up (15:7). Then Peter speaks (15:7-11), ending with the words, “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” He is speaking of a preexisting consensus, not his own opinion. After he was done speaking, (15:12), “the assembly fell silent.” Who were they paying this respect to? Barnabas and Paul! And then in verse 13 we read, “After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘Brothers, listen to me.’” After saying his piece, (15:14-18) James says in verse 19, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God…” and proceeds to cite Scripture in support of his view. And the church does what James judges right. This appears to be a rather ad hoc event, and it may not be right to say any one Apostle “presided” or “judged” at this council, especially since they were all in agreement. But, if anyone can be said to have presided or judged, it would be James, not Peter. Is this how modern Roman councils are conducted? No one fairly comparing the procedures of Vatican I and Jerusalem would think the two councils had identical ecclesiology.
Argument #3) In John 1:42, Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (Cephas in Hebrew) which means “rock.” Therefore, “this rock” is obviously Peter.
While it’s true that Peter’s name does mean “rock” or something akin to that, this doesn’t prove Peter is “the rock” upon which the church is built, nor give us the papacy, succession, infallibility, a Roman bishopric, or anything of the sort. All this shows is that Jesus bestowed a particular kind of honor upon Peter, just as He did John and James, and just as Paul held a special honor. There is no question that Peter played a decisive leadership role in the early church and frequently functioned as the spokesman of the Apostles. It is this role, the role we see Peter actually play in Scripture, and not some alien concept of papacy, for which Jesus was preparing him.
Argument #4) In John 21, Jesus gives Peter a special place and office among the Apostles.
Again, this is a non sequitur as it proves nothing about Rome’s claims surrounding the papacy and is much more naturally explained as a threefold restoration from Peter’s threefold denial. John Calvin provided an excellent rebuttal to the papists’ arguments in his commentary:
…the reason why Christ thrice appoints him to be a pastor is, that the three denials, by which Peter had brought on himself everlasting shame, may be set aside, and thus may form no barrier to his apostleship, as has been judiciously observed by Chrysostom, Augustine, and Cyril,2 and most of the other Commentators. Besides, nothing was given to Peter by these words, that is not also given to all the ministers of the Gospel.
…how, I ask, will they prove from this that he has been elevated to the primacy? Though he were the chief among the apostles, does it thence follow that he was the universal bishop of the whole world? …and what man of sound understanding will admit that Christ here bestows on him any hereditary right?
Argument #5) In Luke 22, Jesus says that Satan demanded to have Peter in particular and Jesus prays for him in particular. Furthermore, Jesus explicitly gives Peter a special teaching office among the Apostles, thus distinguishing him from the rest.
First, though Jesus addresses Peter in particular, when He informs them that “Satan has demanded to have you,” you is plural. Why would Jesus address Simon in specific? There are any number of reasons why, as Reformed Baptist theologian John Gill noted:
Peter is particularly, and by name, spoken to, either because he might be a principal person in the debate and contention about superiority, mentioned in the context; or because he was chiefly to suffer in the following temptation of Satan; or because he was generally the mouth of the rest of the apostles…
As to the claim that Peter is given some special right or office, notice that Jesus says specifically, “when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” So this special strengthening commanded of Peter is limited in it timeframe, not some indefinite grant of authority. Furthermore, in saying Peter is to “strengthen [his] brothers,” this is not a special office or rank being given but an exhortation to fulfill his extant duties since the same duty applied to the other Apostles as well.
Argument #6) But Augustine said, “Rome has spoken; the matter is settled.” This is evidence that he definitely believed in papal primacy and probably papal infallibility as well.
If Augustine had said these words, it wouldn’t change the fact that he’s clearly not in alignment with Vatican I in his interpretation of Matthew 16. But, in point of fact, Augustine never said these words. In Sermon 81 (or 131, depending on the publication), the sermon which supposedly contains this quote, Augustine is concluding by lamenting the heresy of the Pelagians. He then says,
My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when you find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.
Augustine is merely noting that two councils have already met and decided against Pelagius, and the bishop of Rome ratified these decisions. This does not prove what Rome wants it to, and it is frankly dishonest that in spite of clear proof that Augustine did not say it, many Roman apologists will nevertheless throw out this false quotation.3
Argument #7) While Protestants can perhaps cite certain out-of-context quotations of fathers that perhaps sound like they support Protestantism, in reality, these same fathers often make much clearer statements siding with Rome. Two examples: Ambrose said, “It is to Peter himself that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church.” And Chrysostom called Peter “the chief of the Apostles,” and, most strikingly:4
Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race from the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than boldness.
Now it’s always important to remember that the fathers are not infallible, nor are they always correct or consistent. And while the fathers often support Protestant beliefs, they sometimes support Romanist beliefs as well. But this does not disprove the point being made: Protestant beliefs were extant in the early church, and often mainstream. But let’s examine these statements more closely. In the case of Ambrose, we find that he also says,
He, then, who was before silent, to teach us that we ought not repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, “But who do you say that I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank.
This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his, but the common foundation… Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell.
So whatever the precise meaning of Ambrose’s first statement was, a more detailed look shows that it was not the modern, Vatican I view of the papacy, though of course, Ambrose was by no means a Protestant. We see something similar in the case of Chrysostom, who likewise said (in Homily on Matthew 56, Section 2):
Having taken therefore the coryphaei, He brings them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them… Wherefore does He take with Him these only? Because these were superior to the rest. And Peter indeed showed his superiority by exceedingly loving Him; but John by being exceedingly loved of Him; and James again by his answer which he answered with his brother, saying, ‘We are able to drink the cup;’ nor yet by his answer only, but also by his works; both by the rest of them, and by fulfilling, what he said. For so earnest was he, and grievous to the Jews, that Herod himself supposed that he had bestowed herein a very great favor on the Jews, I mean in slaying him.
And in two other sermons (Homily 26 on Acts and Against Circuses and Theaters, respectively), he says, “Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially Peter and James?” And, “…Peter, the foundation of our faith, and Paul, the vessel of election…” So Chrysostom is willing to use this very exalted language of all the Apostles who take leadership roles. The abuse of quotations can be perhaps best illustrated by Roman citations of Chrysostom. For example, in his exegesis of John 21 from Homily 88 on the Gospel of John, you may hear quoted:
And if any should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.
This sounds very convincing for the Roman position until you read on just a bit farther and find him saying of both Peter and John,
And this [Jesus] did to withdraw [Peter and John] from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together; for assuredly this would have been a great loss to the world.
And in his introductory Homily 1 on John, Chrysostom also says of John,
For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now…
Chrysostom also called Paul “the teacher of the world.” This language is a bit foreign to us, and so it can be easy for Romanists to take high, exalted, very complimentary titles like these of Peter and spin them as being proof of the papacy, but in reality, these titles are often used of other Apostles, and even when an early writer ascribes a special role to Peter, we need to ask, “Is this special role, whatever it may be, equivalent to Vatican I’s definition of the papacy?” If the answer is no, the passage does not support Rome’s position.
Conclusion:
Having answered these most common objections of the Romanists, we are safe in making these concluding remarks which summarize the matter: The doctrine of the papacy promulgated in Vatican I was not anywhere close to “unanimous” in the early church. The passages used to support the papacy were commonly interpreted contrary to Rome’s claims by the early fathers, including by very orthodox fathers. Rome’s most frequently used counterarguments are unable to extricate her from these plain facts of history. Therefore, the supposedly infallible pronouncements of Vatican I are seen to be laughably false. The fathers so often claimed by Rome actually discredit her entire system.
Keep in mind also that Jesus gave the keys to all the apostles in Matthew 18, not to Peter alone.
Cyril agrees with this interpretation saying:
May not someone reasonably ask, “Why is it that Christ only asks Simon, though the other disciples were present? And what is the meaning of the words, ‘Feed My lambs,’ and the like?” We reply, that the inspired Peter had indeed already been elected, together with the other disciples, to be an Apostle of God (for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself named them Apostles, according to the Scripture), but, when the events connected with the plot of the Jews against Him came to pass, his fall came betwixt; for the inspired Peter was seized with uncontrollable fear, and thrice denied the Lord. Christ succours His erring disciple, and elicits by divers questions his thrice-repeated confession, counterbalancing, as it were, his error thereby, and making his recovery as signal as his fall. For a transgression which was verbal, and only in mere words supplied ground of accusation against him, could surely be wiped out in the same fashion as it was committed. He requires him to say whether he loved Him more than the rest. For in truth, as he had enjoyed a greater measure of forgiveness, and received from a more bountiful Hand the remission of his transgression, surely he would be likely to feel greater love than the rest, and requite his Benefactor with the extremity of affection. For although all the holy disciples alike betook themselves to flight, the inhumanity of the Jews inspiring them with a terror that they could not overcome, and the ferocity of the soldiers threatening them with cruel death when they came to take Jesus, still Peter’s transgression by his thrice-repeated denial was special and peculiar to him.
Though perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising given their dishonest use of the 33,000 denominations myth.
An extended discussion of the views of both Ambrose and Chrysostom can be found in: Webster, William. The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock. Christian Resources Inc, 1996. Pgs. 62-67, and 74-86, respectively, along with citations for the individual quotations not linked to.
Article by A.C. Join us on MeWe, Telegram, Gab, or feel free to: