John 21:15-17 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus’ words to Peter—“feed my sheep”—as a divine commissioning that elevates Peter above the other apostles and establishes him as the supreme shepherd of the Church. This passage, found in John 21:15–17, is frequently cited to support the doctrine of papal primacy and apostolic succession. According to Catholic teaching, Peter’s pastoral charge is unique and authoritative, and this authority is believed to have been passed down to the bishops of Rome, culminating in the office of the pope. The purpose of this article is to examine the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage and evaluate its theological and exegetical validity.

• How Roman Catholicism Interprets “Feed My Sheep”:

          -Roman Catholic apologists argue that Jesus’ thrice-repeated command to Peter—“feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep”—constitutes a formal and exclusive commissioning of Peter as the “Chief Shepherd” of the Church.
          -This interpretation is used to justify the papacy’s claim to universal jurisdiction over Christendom, asserting that Peter was appointed as the visible head of the Church on earth.

• A Refutation Of Papal Claims Based On John 21:15–17:

          -Acts 20:28 clearly states that all elders (bishops) are charged with shepherding the Church of God: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock… to feed the church of God.” The pastoral duty of nourishing the flock is not exclusive to Peter. It is a shared responsibility among all who are called to spiritual leadership.
          -In 1 Peter 5:1–5, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder” and exhorts other elders to “shepherd the flock of God… not as being lords over those entrusted to you.” He explicitly identifies Christ as the “Chief Shepherd” (v. 4), reserving that title for Jesus alone. Peter’s humility and refusal to claim superiority over other leaders contradict the notion that he saw himself as the supreme head of the Church.
          -John 10:11–16 presents Jesus as the “Good Shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep. He alone possesses divine authority over the flock. 1 Peter 2:25 refers to Christ as the “Shepherd and Bishop of your souls,” emphasizing His unique role in guiding and protecting believers. The New Testament never applies the title “Chief Shepherd” to Peter or any other apostle. To do so would be to usurp a title that belongs exclusively to Christ.

• The True Focus Of John 21:15–17 Is Restoration, Not Coronation:

          -The passage recounts Peter’s threefold affirmation of love for Christ, which mirrors his earlier threefold denial (Matthew 26:69–75). Jesus’ repetition of the question “Do you love me?” is a tender act of restoration, not a formal elevation to ecclesiastical supremacy.

          -There is no indication of celebration, ceremony, or institutional appointment. The tone is intimate and personal, not hierarchical. If this were a moment of coronation, we would expect clear signs of joy, recognition from other apostles, or a declaration of Peter’s new status—none of which are present.

• Peter’s Role in Acts: Prominent, But Not Supreme:

          -While the Book of Acts showcases Peter's significant contributions to spreading the gospel, no biblical evidence supports the notion that he was granted supremacy over the church. Referring to the pope as the “Good Shepherd” constitutes outright blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ, as such a title belongs solely to Him. Assigning this honor to a human diminishes the divine majesty of Christ and robs Him of the glory that is rightfully His.

The Early Church Fathers On The Meaning Of "Upon This Rock" (Matthew 16:18)

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Roman Catholic Church treats Matthew 16:18-19 as though it decisively proves the truthfulness of its claims to being given the fullness of divine truth. It is claimed that Jesus Christ made Peter the Church of Rome's foundation and any spiritual gifts bestowed on him were passed on to succeeding popes of future generations. Thus, we see the reason that adherents fight so vigorously to protect their understanding of the meaning of the "rock" figure in Matthew 16:18-19. However, the church fathers were far from unanimous on accepting the "rock" metaphor found in that passage as being the Apostle Peter himself. This article contains excerpts from various church fathers, which have been taken from this article.

          -"18. Thou art Peter] Gk. Petros Aramaic, Kephas. Jesus had given Peter this name at their first interview (John 1:42). Peter had now realised his character, and Jesus solemnly confirmed the honourable title. And upon this rock] Gk. petra. As the Gk. word here is different, most ancient commentators deny that Peter is the rock. The Roman Catholic Launoy reckons that seventeen Fathers regard Peter as the rock; forty-four regard Peter’s confession as the rock; sixteen regard Christ Himself as the rock; while eight are of opinion that the Church is built on all the apostles." (The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow)

• Basil of Seleucia:

          -"You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever." (Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297)

• Cyril of Alexandria:

          -"When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple.” (Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2)

• Origen:

          -“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11)

• Augustine of Hippo:

          -"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327)

• Bede:

          -"You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name." (Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156.)

• Eusebius:

          -"Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that the 'world' is actually the Church of God, and that its 'foundation' is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was Christ. For as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173,176)

• Cassiodorus:

          -"It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord." (Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455)

• Catholic Apologists Misrepresent The Historical Record:

          -Catholics often argue that the Roman Catholic Church employs a threefold application in its interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 to harmonize patristic writings, claiming these approaches affirm Peter’s primacy, his successors’ authority, and a Christ-centered foundation. While this framework attempts to synthesize diverse perspectives, it relies on an interpretive flexibility that lacks textual and historical consistency. For instance, Church Fathers who emphasize Christ or Peter’s confession as the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 are frequently recontextualized to fit the Catholic paradigm, even when their writings explicitly reject the idea of Peter's personal primacy or any succession tied to him.
          -Moreover, this interpretive system presumes a continuity of interpretation that is not evidenced within early ecclesiastical thought. Instead, the varied understandings of the "rock" among the Church Fathers indicate that these interpretations arose independently, reflecting theological diversity rather than a cohesive framework. The Roman Catholic argument also inadvertently undermines its own position by conceding that no singular interpretation dominates the tradition. This plurality of views fundamentally weakens the claim that Matthew 16:18–19 unequivocally supports the Roman Catholic Church’s assertions to having been given apostolic authority.

          -The appeal to a threefold reading conflates theological nuance with institutional necessity. By asserting that Peter, his confession, and Christ are all simultaneously the "rock," Catholic apologists attempt to preserve doctrinal coherence while sidestepping the historical reality that many patristic voices did not affirm Peter’s unique ecclesial role. This interpretive elasticity may serve apologetic aims, but it dilutes the clarity of the text and obscures the original intent of its earliest interpreters. The result is a theological construct that retroactively imposes unity where the historical record reveals fragmentation.

          -By allowing multiple, even contradictory, meanings to coexist within a single passage, this approach undermines the clarity and authority of Scripture itself. If Peter, his confession, and Christ are all simultaneously the "rock," then the interpretive boundaries become so elastic that virtually any theological claim could be retrofitted into the text. This not only weakens the exegetical rigor of Catholic hermeneutics but also opens the door to doctrinal circularity—where tradition is used to interpret Scripture, and Scripture is then cited to validate tradition. Such a model blurs the distinction between historical exegesis and theological assertion, making it difficult to discern whether the text is being interpreted or simply appropriated to serve institutional aims.

Christ's Power And Human Weakness

        "but He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.' I will rather boast more gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me." (2 Corinthians 12:9)

         God's divine grace manifests itself and covers us more abundantly during times of our struggles and trials. His strength compliments our inherent weakness. His sufficiency fulfills what is lacking in us. The power of Christ sustains us in the midst of our suffering.

        In the surrounding context of 2 Corinthians 12:9, the Apostle Paul was telling the church at Corinth how God did not accept his petition to remove his distress. Rather, He sustained him as he grieved about Satan irritating him after he had received personal revelation that he was not allowed to communicate to other men (v. 7).

        Thus, we see that the Lord allows us to undergo times of trouble to deepen our reliance on Him and to draw us closer to His presence. These challenging seasons provide opportunities for us to experience His faithfulness and for His power to shine through our limitations. Through perseverance in faith, we grow in intimacy with God and learn to rest in His sufficiency.

        We need to trust in God and rely on His grace, not matter our circumstances. We may not feel like God is working at all in our present condition, but His grace remains sufficient for us. We can confidently proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord because He is faithful and trustworthy. He is with us, even during times of hardship (v. 10).

Isaiah 22:20-22 And Papal Supremacy

• Introduction:

          -Roman Catholic apologists frequently appeal to a typological connection between Isaiah 22:20–22 and Matthew 16:19 to support the doctrine of papal authority. Both passages reference the symbolic use of “keys” and describe figures—Eliakim in the Old Testament and Peter in the New Testament—who are entrusted with significant authority. The parallels in language, such as “opening and shutting” or “binding and loosing,” are cited to argue that Eliakim serves as a prototype of Peter, whom Christ appoints as the visible head of His church. This article critically examines that typological argument, demonstrating that the comparison is strained, contextually inconsistent, and ultimately incompatible with the theological claims it is meant to support.

• The Symbolism Of Keys Is Thematically Diverse And Contextually Fluid:

          -The Bible employs the imagery of “keys” in multiple, unrelated contexts (e.g., Judges 3:25; Luke 11:52; Revelation 1:18), each conveying different kinds of authority or access. The mere presence of “keys” in both Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 does not necessitate a typological link. In Isaiah, the key signifies administrative control over the royal household of Judah. In Matthew, the keys are given to Peter in a spiritual context, symbolizing ecclesial authority. The polyvalent nature of biblical symbolism cautions against drawing rigid theological conclusions from superficial lexical parallels.

• The Historical And Narrative Contexts Are Fundamentally Dissimilar:

          -Isaiah 22 describes a specific historical event: the removal of Shebna due to his corruption and the appointment of Eliakim as steward under King Hezekiah. This was a dynastic, political office within the Davidic monarchy. In contrast, Peter’s commissioning in Matthew 16 occurs in a messianic and eschatological context, with no mention of succession or replacement. Jesus does not depose a prior “steward” nor does He install Peter as a subordinate to an earthly king. The disjunction in context and function undermines the legitimacy of a direct typological correspondence.

• The Predicted Fall Of Eliakim Seems Inconsistent With The Catholic View Of The Papacy:

          -Isaiah 22:25 foretells the eventual downfall of Eliakim: “the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way.” If Eliakim is a type of Peter, then the typology implies that Peter—or his office—would likewise fall, which directly contradicts Catholic claims of the papacy’s indefectibility and infallibility. A typology that undermines the very doctrine it is meant to support is self-defeating.

• The Name “Eliakim” More Accurately Prefigures Christ, Not Peter

          -The name “Eliakim,” meaning “God will raise up,” aligns more naturally with Jesus Christ, who is repeatedly described in the New Testament as the one raised up by God (Acts 2:24; Romans 6:4). Furthermore, Revelation 3:7 explicitly attributes the “key of David” to Christ Himself, not Peter. This suggests that the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 22 is found in Jesus, the true heir to David’s throne, rather than in Peter or the papacy.

• The Nature Of Their Authority Is Categorically Distinct:

          -Eliakim’s role was administrative and bureaucratic, managing the affairs of the royal household. His authority was derivative and temporal, exercised under the reign of a human king. Peter’s role, by contrast, was apostolic and spiritual, rooted in the proclamation of the gospel and the formation of the church. The qualitative difference between their offices—one political, the other ecclesial—renders the typological link tenuous at best.

• The “Falling Peg” Imagery Undermines The Notion Of Perpetual Authority:

          -Isaiah 22:23–25 uses the metaphor of a “peg driven into a firm place” to describe Eliakim’s initial stability, but the passage ends with the peg being removed and everything attached to it collapsing. If this imagery is meant to foreshadow Peter and the papacy, it implies that the authority granted is ultimately unstable and impermanent. This directly contradicts Catholic doctrines of papal infallibility and apostolic succession, which assert the enduring and unbroken nature of the papal office. The typology, if pressed, leads to theological incoherence within the Catholic framework.

• Biblical Symbolism Must Be Interpreted Within Its Literary And Theological Context:

          -While both Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 use the imagery of keys, the meaning of that imagery is shaped by its narrative and theological setting. In Isaiah, the key represents control over access to the king and his resources, a gatekeeping function within a royal court. In Matthew, the keys represent spiritual authority to bind and loose, a rabbinic idiom for teaching and disciplinary authority within the community of believers. The shift from political to spiritual, from national Israel to the universal church, signals a transformation in the meaning of the symbol. This evolution cautions against reading the two passages as directly predictive or typologically bound.

• The Typology Lacks New Testament Affirmation:

          -Unlike other typologies that are explicitly affirmed by New Testament writers, such as Adam as a type of Christ (Romans 5:14) or Melchizedek as a type of Christ’s priesthood (Hebrews 7), the Eliakim-Peter connection is never mentioned or endorsed by Jesus or the apostles. If this typology were foundational to ecclesiology, one would expect it to be clearly taught or referenced in the New Testament. Its absence suggests that the connection is speculative rather than divinely instituted.

• The Shift From Singular To Plural Keys Indicates A Broader Scope:

          -Isaiah 22 refers to “the key of the house of David” in the singular, denoting a specific administrative authority. Matthew 16, however, speaks of “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” in the plural, which may reflect a broader, more expansive spiritual mission. This numerical shift in the symbolism suggests that any authority given to Peter is not a direct continuation of Eliakim’s role, but a transformation of the concept to fit a new covenantal context.

• Overextension Of Typology Risks Doctrinal Instability

          -Typology is a valuable interpretive tool when used within the bounds of Scripture’s own affirmations. However, when typology is stretched beyond its textual support, it can lead to doctrinal conclusions that are speculative or even contradictory. The Eliakim-Peter typology involves multiple layers of inference, none of which are explicitly taught in Scripture, and risks building theological claims on unstable ground. Sound doctrine must rest on clear biblical teaching, not on tenuous symbolic parallels.

• The Absence Of the Holy Spirit In Isaiah 22 Highlights A Key Discontinuity:

          -Peter’s leadership in the New Testament is inseparable from the work of the Holy Spirit, particularly at Pentecost (Acts 2), where apostolic authority is confirmed and empowered. Isaiah 22, however, contains no reference to divine empowerment or spiritual commissioning. Eliakim’s authority is purely administrative, not prophetic or spiritual. This absence further underscores the dissimilarity between the two roles and weakens the argument that Eliakim foreshadows Peter’s ecclesial leadership.

• Concluding Thoughts:

          -The attempt to draw a typological line from Eliakim in Isaiah 22 to Peter in Matthew 16 relies on superficial similarities while ignoring crucial contextual, theological, and narrative differences. The divergent nature of their offices, the instability of Eliakim’s tenure, and the broader biblical usage of “keys” all point to the conclusion that Isaiah 22 does not prefigure the papacy. Rather than reinforcing Catholic claims, the typology, when examined closely, raises more problems than it resolves. A sound hermeneutic requires that we respect the integrity of each passage within its own covenantal and historical framework, rather than forcing them into a theological mold that they were never intended to fit.

Addressing The Roman Catholic Misinterpretation Of Matthew 16:18-19

• Defining The Issues:

          -The meaning of the "rock" of Matthew 16:18-19 has been disputed among Roman Catholic and non-Catholic scholars alike. Literally volumes of books over the years have been written to defend various interpretations of this symbol. In fact, the three most prominent views on the identity of this "rock" are that it is representative of Jesus Christ Himself, the Apostle Peter's bold confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and Peter himself. However, the Roman Catholic Church has made significant claims regarding the meaning of this figure in Matthew 16:18-19 in relation to its inflated views of its own authority and apostolic tradition. Quite simply, the purpose of this article is to present and critique the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage.

• How The Roman Catholic Church Interprets The Rock Of Matthew 16:18-19:

          -Roman Catholics argue that because the Apostle Peter is the rock of which Jesus Christ spoke, their church is built on him. It is for that reason that the Roman Catholic Church touts itself as being the one, true, original church founded by Him. Roman Catholicism maintains that 1.) Christ granted Peter special primacy over His entire church and 2.) that this apostle passed his unique position of spiritual authority to the Roman bishops who would succeed him in later generations (CCC #881-882). Consequently, it is claimed that the doctrines of the Church of Rome have been infallibly preserved throughout the centuries.

• On The Greek Words Petros And Petra:

          -The words "petros" and "petra" are used in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18. Thus, the passage reads, "You are Peter (i.e. "petros") and upon this rock (i.e. "petra") I will build my church." While "petros" means a piece of rock (which is masculine), "petra" means a mass of rock (which is feminine). Why are two different words occupied in this passage? While this factor does not definitively rule out the Apostle Peter being the rock on which the church is built, this point is not without significance. It may suggest that something other than the Apostle Peter was meant to serve as the foundation upon which the Christian church stands.

• The Rock Of Matthew 16:18-19 Is Not Peter Himself, But His Confession Of Faith:

          -The "rock" mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is Peter's confession of faith (Matthew 16:16). This interpretation best fits the context of Matthews 16, which is about the spread of the gospel and the identity of the Messiah (Matthew 16:13-18). It is upon our confession of faith that the church stands. Thus, our doctrine and practice of should be in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16:16-18, the words "it" and "this" are referring to the Apostle Peter's statement identifying the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, the church is built on the revelation that Christ is the promised Jewish Messiah. As far as the interpretation of the rock being Christ Himself is concerned, that is unlikely in this context because He is described as a builder rather than a foundation.

• Why Would Jesus Call The First Pope Satan?:

          -Another major obstacle to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 is found just a few verses later, when Jesus rebukes Peter with the words, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Matthew 16:23). This confrontation occurs immediately after Peter attempts to dissuade Christ from going to the cross, revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of God's redemptive plan. If Peter were truly the infallible foundation of the church, then it is difficult to reconcile such a severe rebuke from the Lord Himself. Christ does not merely correct Peter—He identifies him with Satan, the adversary. Roman Catholic apologists often try to sidestep this text, yet the juxtaposition of Peter being called the “rock” and then “Satan” within the same chapter underscores the inconsistency of building an entire ecclesiastical hierarchy on one man’s unstable spiritual footing.

• Answering The Catholic Aramaic And Greek Word Gender Argument On Matthew 16:18:

          -"When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros." (https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy)
          -If Jesus had to change the gender from feminine to masculine in order to address Peter, then all that really tells us is that (1) rock is usually feminine and (2) Peter is a male. The Greek word has a gender. It had that gender long before the authors of the New Testament associated the term with the foundation of the church.
          -The Greek New Testament does use the Aramaic Cephas in reference to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5; Galatians 2:14). It is also true that if Matthew wanted to tell us that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, he could have used petros twice in the same sentence (i.e. "you are petros and upon this petros I will build my church"). However, two separate terms are used in Matthew 16:18.
          -Aramaic was not as advanced a language as the other Semitic languages. It did not have an extremely rich or complex vocabulary. It could not utilize two different words in Matthew 16:18 as does Greek. Thus, the usage of kepha in Aramaic twice is not due to some unique primacy bestowed on the Apostle Peter by Christ, but to limitations in that language.
          -The New Testament does apply the feminine petra to the man Jesus Christ (Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8). Further, there are no Aramaic manuscript copies of Matthew, which means any discussion of such involves speculation.

• The Meaning Of The Keys, Binding, And Loosing:

          -The "keys" represent the authority to proclaim the salvation of converts and the condemnation of sinners (Luke 10:16). The keys are knowledge of the kingdom of God (Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52). The door of salvation is opened to those who accept the message of the gospel (Acts 14:27; Revelation 1:5), whereas the door of eternal condemnation is opened for those who reject the salvific message of the gospel. The mission of the church is to preach the gospel to the world (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:45-49). 

          -In the Book of Acts, converts such as Paul and Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They rejoiced as a result of hearing the proclamation of eternal salvation. Notice how Christ instructed His original disciples to shake the dust off their feet when they encountered cities who rejected them for preaching the gospel message (Matthew 10:14-15; Mark 6:11; Acts 13:51). This is a perfect way of applying the principle of "loosing," or announcing the condemnation of sinners. 

          -Today, we serve as ambassadors for Christ by performing the ministry of reconciliation through preaching the gospel (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Christians have been authorized to declare the terms of forgiveness as provided by the gospel: holding fast by faith in Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The power of the keys was not possessed by the Apostle Peter alone, and nowhere does the Scripture passage in question even hint at such that interpretation. In fact, that same authority was given to all of the apostles (Matthew 18:18).

          -"What is the power of binding and loosing? These disciples immediately recognized the background of its meaning. If you were a Jew, living at the time of Christ, and you had done something that you thought could be a violation of the Mosaic Law, you would have to take your problem to the ruling elders. They would have debated your case; then they would have come to one of two conclusions. They would have either bound or loosed you. If they had bound you, this meant that you had violated the Mosaic Law and that you were obligated to pay the penalty-sacrifice and/or restitution. If they had loosed you, this meant that you had not violated the Mosaic Law. No sacrifice was necessary. These ruling elders were simply declaring what had already been legislated by Moses" (Was the Church Established by Peter?, Robert Gromacki, cited by Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, p. 109-110)

• The Evidence For Peter Being The First Pope Is Entirely Lacking:

          -In regards to the broader context of the New Testament, it never mentions the one-head bishop structure that is found in the modern Church of Rome. Further, nowhere is the Apostle Peter said to have passed on apostolic authority to a designated successor. In Scripture, he does not act in the dictatorial manner that popes have done. Although Peter can rightly be accredited as playing a vital role in the spread of the gospel, we never see him acting as "Prince of the Apostles."

• Even If The Apostle Peter Were The Rock Of Matthew 16:18, That Fact Would Still Not Grant The Pope Universal Jurisdiction Over Christendom: 

          -The establishment of some sort of authoritative office with successors is nowhere present in Matthew 16. Roman Catholics are placing too much weight on this passage by reading ideas into it where such notions are absent. Further, even if Peter were the rock of Matthew 16:18, that would still not make Peter the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. There are scholars who hold to that view, yet reject the claims to authority made by the papacy.

The Glorious Light Of The Gospel

        "Rather, we have renounced shameful, hidden things; not acting deceitfully or falsifying the word of God, but by the open declaration of the truth we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2-4)

        The gospel is not unintelligible nonsense, but rather is lucid and powerful. It transforms the hearts and minds of people. The gospel points lost people in the direction of reconciliation with God through the man Jesus Christ. The proclamation of the gospel contains no falsehood or deception. This divine revelation from God is the way to holiness.

        However, there are many people in this world who still vehemently reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Those who do not repent will perish. Satan, the god of this world, has blinded the minds of unbelievers. People are lost, not because the truth of the gospel is inaccessible, but because they have anchored themselves against God.

        In order to inherit the kingdom of God, we must be born again. That means our hearts must be renewed through the supernatural indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We must repent of our sins and place our trust in the work of Jesus Christ. The gospel of His glory is a light which shines on those who have faith. We must share it with others.

Roman Catholic Mary Worship

        Following are excerpts from a Roman Catholic devotional prayer book titled "Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help," p. 38-39, containing idolatrous prayers to Mary from Alphonsus Liguori:

        "Come then to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In my hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants, take me under thy protection and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing not from my sins because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them nor from the devils because thou art more powerful than all Hell together nor even Jesus my Judge Himself, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance and grace always to have recourse to thee O Mother of Perpetual Help."

        "Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin and My Mother Mary, to thee, who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the World, the Advocate, the Hope and the Refuge of Sinners I have recourse today, I who am the most miserable of all. I render thee my most humble homage O Great Queen and I thank thee for the graces thou hast obtained for me until now and in particular for having saved me from Hell which I have so often deserved. I love thee, o most amiable Lady; and for the love which I bear thee, I promise to serve thee always and to do all in my power to make others also love thee. I place in thee all my opes and I confide my salvation to thy care."

        "Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin! O my Mother! Thou who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the advocate, hope, and refuge of sinners! I, the most wretched among them, now come to thee. I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on my in the past; most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell, which I had so often deserved. I love thee, Lady most worthy of all love, and, by the love which I bear thee, I promise ever in the future to serve thee, and to do what in me lies to win others to thy love. In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation. Receive me as thy servant, and cover me with the mantle of thy protection, thou who art the Mother of mercy! And since thou hast so much power with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the grace ever to overcome them. From thee I ask a true love of Jesus Christ, and the grace of a happy death. O my Mother! By thy love for God I beseech thee to be at all times my helper, but above all at the last moment of my life. Leave me not until thou seest me safe in heaven, there for endless ages to bless thee and sing thy praises. Such is my hope. Amen."

Morality And Evolutionary Psychology

        Modern day atheists are prone to argue that human morality has developed as a result of the process called natural selection. It is claimed that our moral standards are simply genetic chemical compounds that are shaped according to evolutionary needs. In other words, the formation of human morality is supposedly prompted by the conditions of current physical surroundings, in the same sense that the physical components of the body adapt to environmental changes. The naturalistic worldview maintains that our morals have developed by mere chance. In short, evolutionists claim that continually changing behavioral patterns are what morality consists of. Adherents of this so-called new science called evolutionary psychology believe that everything regarding the human personality can be explained adequately by evolutionary forces.

        It is illogical to the highest degree to equate morality with physical adaptations that evolve in response to environmental conditions. If our moral codes were determined individually by our chromosomal makeup, then how could we reward or condemn the actions of other people? If no distinction is made between mankind and the animal kingdom, then why should we be disgusted when people engage in acts of bestiality? Why not love our pets rather than friends and relatives? Why not act uncivilized as do wild animals? Why even wear clothing? If morality evolves, then that means things we deem moral today may be evil in the future and visa versa. These so-called evolutionary explanations are simply imaginary, subjective, hypothetical constructs. It is not coherent philosophy because it is not consonant with the reality of our nature. Evolutionary Theory cannot account for how or why we ought to be moral beings.

        While proponents of evolutionary psychology claim that moral behavior observed in social animals demonstrates morality's evolutionary origins, such examples fail to address the unique intellectual and spiritual dimensions of human morality. Acts of cooperation or altruism among animals are better understood as instinctual behaviors aimed at survival rather than conscious decisions guided by an understanding of good or evil. Human imagination, while a remarkable faculty, can also mislead us by causing us to project complex moral reasoning onto animal actions where none truly exists. Further, the argument that morality functions as a cooperative strategy necessary for survival does not account for the existence of moral codes that transcend self-interest or immediate societal benefit. For instance, individuals who sacrifice their lives for abstract principles or the well-being of unrelated strangers defy any evolutionary imperative tied strictly to survival or reproduction. Such actions, far from being explained by materialistic forces, point toward the presence of objective moral laws grounded in a transcendent source.

        We know that moral laws are not concrete objects, but rather abstract realities that can only be grasped through mental perception. Moral laws are intangible entities. They are not chemical or biological. Moral laws are spiritual and intellectual propositions that are communicated from the mind of one individual to another. Moral laws have been internally inscribed into our hearts by God (whether a person has the mental capacity to understand them is a separate issue). They enable us to formulate rational distinctions between good and evil or different degrees between either category. Not only do human beings naturally feel obligated to obey these moral codes, but we also feel guilty when we choose to violate them. Lastly, it is important to note that exterior conduct in and of itself does not prescribe us with a pattern of sound morality to follow, but rather offers us a description of various moral patterns. The objective moral standard referred to here governs our behavior because it judges whether it is good or bad.

        The evolutionary worldview, by definition, fails to give account for the existence of transcendent moral laws. We must not adhere to the "survival of the fittest" worldview, for it is utterly cruel and selfish. The inherent self-centered design of the Evolutionary Theory opens the door to much persecution and discrimination of the lower-class, minority groups of our society. Not only does evolution leave absolutely no room for objective reasons for protecting the vulnerable, but the notion of natural selection is also totally indifferent to the suffering, weak people of this world. Why should we do good to others? The fact that we are able to choose acting in a morally sound manner is beside the point. Society can still adopt the abhorrent lifestyles. If there are no objective moral standards existing for us to abide by, then why should we not choose to act evil? What is evil? Why should we really care what other people think? If we educate our children into believing that they are nothing but animals, then they will also behave in that fashion.

        If, on the other hand, there exists objective moral laws that are transcendent to the laws of nature, then it logically follows from the premise of the argument that there must also be a supernatural Law Giver. It follows that we can differentiate between good and evil. It follows that we actually have purpose in this life. It follows that life has objective value and meaning. These things can only exist, if a supernatural Law Giver inscribed them into the innermost part of our being, the soul. Morality is the foundation for all building blocks in life. Evolution only seeks to explain it away. Truth establishes all principles which form the basis of morality, and only through God that we can have such things. If naturalists continue on chiseling the concept of personhood in accordance with their materialistic philosophy, then they will inevitably be rendering our unique characteristics to mere projections of the human mind. The deconstruction of reality is a very dangerous thing.

A Christian Examination Of The LGBTQ Flag

          Most people are familiar with God's covenantal promise to never again send forth waters from the heavens to cover the land, which was made to Noah afterward. It was used as a means of executing judgment on mankind for continually godless behavior. God used a rainbow as a covenant symbol to convey the promise of never again casting judgment on the human race in the same way (Genesis 6:5-8; 8:20-22; 9:11, 12:9-17). Tragically, however, the LGBTQ community has developed a new method for mocking God's wonderful promise to us through the innovation of a flag that displays only six of the seven colors of the rainbow.

          Having its origin in California by Artist Gilbert Baker, this flag was designed by lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals to represent their own diverse values through the gay pride movement, which has now been popularized throughout the Western world. What is striking about this flag is that its colors mock that of God's covenantal promise, the rainbow, to man to never again judge man by means of a flood. While the rainbow has seven different colors, the LGBTQ flag only has six colors of the rainbow. It is missing the color indigo. The number six is the spiritual number for fallen man. Seven is God's number, meaning completeness or perfection. It takes little effort to interpret this flag as mockery of our divine creator.

          The foundation of the gay pride movement is self-exaltation. This has manifested itself through wild parades, festivals, clownish apparel, and rainbow imagery on public business signs or logos. Furthermore, the most radical members of the LGBTQ community have literally fought to silence all forms of disagreement, even if objections are established on scientific or philosophical grounds. Dissenters are called haters, bigots, and even accused of having phobias. This, ironically, puts on display the name-caller's own hatred and phobia of traditional morality.

          Gay pride is contrary to everything that the Bible states regarding humility and sexuality. God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble (Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; James 4:5-8). People who exalt themselves will be humbled (Matthew 23:12). He absolutely detests pride (Proverbs 8:13). Scripture emphatically condemns homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). God's rainbow was meant to serve as a symbol of remembrance, not as a means of pride. He will not tolerate the celebration of sin. Thus, all faithful Christians have been called to speak out against the LGBTQ flag.

A Christian Response To Transgenderism

          In today's society, much debate and perplexity has emerged over some of the most basic aspects of life. Unfortunately, some people have found themselves unable to answer questions about themselves that are foundational in nature, such as their gender identity. While the Book of Genesis presents us with the age-old framework of there being only the two genders of male and female, liberal educators, psychiatrists, and politicians believe that it is wrong for parents to be labeling their children as being boys or girls at birth. It has been suggested that things are not as they appear to our eyes, which defies basic logic. Thus, these people maintain that our children should be able to choose their own personal gender identities, even receiving surgery on their genitalia that corresponds with such. 

          Gender is a biological reality determined by our DNA. The same elementary scientific principle regarding the determination of gender is equally applicable to our skin and hair color. Furthermore, we know that only two different gender possibilities exist because only two different pairs of genitalia exist. There are only XX (female) and XY (male) genes. If transgenderism is to be accepted as normal and valid, then why not also choose to identify as two or three different persons at once? Can a human being cease to be human? Can we identify as an age other than our date of birth? Can we claim that our weight and height do not actually correspond to what is found on a scale or stadiometer? The only thing that medical procedures can do is change the outer appearance of people.

          Any notion of common sense can exist only in an environment in which there is a common morality accepted. Ever since the existence of objective moral truths has been denied, Western culture has degenerated exponentially. Although any amount of conditioning through physical, psychological, or sexual abuse may cause a person to experience confusion regarding his gender, such struggles can be overcome through sufficient encouragement, discipline, and psychological training. We can assume, imagine, or have a desire to be different from what we are, but having such wishes does nothing to change our internal genetic makeup. Our beliefs do not determine reality. This, an affirmation of transgenderism is an assault on the nature of truth itself.

          In 2016, the Obama Administration ordered public school systems to allow members of the opposite sexes to share restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Since then, other public places such as grocery stores, parks, and universities have adopted the idea of using "transgender" bathrooms. Can anybody not see the inherent moral flaws of this ideology? First of all, any pervert can claim to be any random gender. Secondly, our right to privacy has been violated. Thirdly, the innocence of our children is at an elevated risk of being corrupted. They have no understanding of the real world. And fourthly, it is evil to brainwash people into believing that they can choose to be a different gender only to be enslaved to a lifetime exposure of carcinogenic, toxic hormones. It is wrong to mutilate healthy functioning parts of the body.

          God created man in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). He also called creation "good" upon completing it (Genesis 1:31), and our natural bodily design is an integral part of that. The creation narrative affirms that God made male and female. The dichotomy between man and woman is a foundational and unchangeable reality. If that proposition is rejected, then any notion of the fixed categories making up reality becomes illusory. After all, things are not as our senses tell us. Identity is fluid and has no set meaning. Romans 1:22 says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."