No "Papacy" in Augustine's Sermon 295

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Do you like vacuous statements?
I don't have a problem putting up with yours

Difference: your statement are actually vacuous while you just think my statements are vacuous.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I find it interesting that you keep quoting Anglicans/Methodist who are simply interacting with the imagery as opposed to claiming there is a direct theological connection between "the key of the house of David" and "the keys of the Kingdom of God".
The Evangelical New Bible Commentary states on Isaiah 22 --

"Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3...Godward he is called my servant(20)...manward he will be a father to his community (21)...The key...of David (22) comes in this context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v. 22...emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' means the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).... Ultimate authority, however, is claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8)." (NBC page 647)

You sure do like wasting my time. I'm not even reading them at this point.

on verse 15: "...in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king..."; on verse 22: "...key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David's dynasty -- perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the 'keys of the kingdom' given to Peter (Mt 16:19) ."

Do you know how to make a logical argument? Your dealing with insularly issues while ignoring the primary one. Whats the necessary connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16? Oh yeah, a lot of people say so. Such is not an argument with any logical force.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm not saying there are not Protestants who see a connection; I'm saying you haven't proved the connection. You've simply declared it and quoted people to seem to agree with you. Such isn't all that meaningful. Reason and evidence require you present an argument, not the opinions/conclusions of other men.
I find this fascinating since all you have done is given us [Catholics] your personal, fallible interpretations. We can go back and forth but the bottom line is this -- you have no more authority to interpret anything than I do. However, I follow the Church that Christ empowered with full authority ['whatever you bind...'; etc.]

No, I've presented a reasoned argument. Unlike you, I don't assert my conclusions; I give you the rational that lead me to my conclusion. This is exactly how men like Athanasius argued with the Araians. This is how Augustine argued with the Pelagians. This is how Irenaeus argued against all those heresies. When are you going to stop this game and present an actual argument?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Deal with the text; now we are talking, but Catholics haven't bother doing such for hundreds of years.
broad brush strokes again? So you disagree with the scholars, fine... that does not mean your personal, fallible interpretations are a reason a Catholic should convert.

You don't get it. I'm not arguing from authority; I'm presenting a reasoned argument. If Rome teaches truth, then she would have a reasoned response. If she can't present a reason response, her positions are likely false.

You still have no reason to believe these keys were given exclusively to Peter
WOW.... you, a protestant, who complains about the way we read text -- where do you see anyone else receiving the keys that Christ gave Peter?

Seriously, you don't even see Peter get the keys. Matthew 16 is future tense. Either Peter got the keys in Matthew 18, with the rest of the Apostles, or at Pentecost, with the rest of the Apostles. Either way, all the Apostles got the same gift.

God Bless
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
mica:
when will you do that?
imagine that! and they are 'clergy' of your rcc! those you call 'father' - what a great example of a father - right? those are the ones you believe teach you the truth of scripture, you can confess to and have your sins forgiven, those you claim are apostolic... which apostle did they learn that from?

what's logical about someone you claim represents Christ on earth and molests little kids / rapes nuns etc? what's apostolic about that? they're your leaders in a 'church' you claim is His church.
you are beginning to sound like balshan. why don't you two start a thread on 'the sins of the catholic clergy' and catholics can respond to you there. may i remind you that the topic of the thread is about 'no papacy in augustine's sermon 295'

peace be with you!
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
The sins of the clergy over the centuries is very logical because it is bad fruit and bad fruit that was ignored by centuries of popes. This shows they are not apostolic in any way and proves:

1. The RCC is the bad tree revealed in scripture
2. That the apostolic succession claim is a big hoax.
3. They do not do the duties of the apostles which is to teach the truth, to protect the sheep.

If they do not act as the apostles did, then they are not apostolic. The fact that no pope has exposed the sin of the clergy, reveals that they are part of the bad fruit. The claims of the RCC are fallacies and my facts are not arguments from silence. A study of the real history of the RCC backs up what I have posted.

You will never agree because you are enamoured with the blind guides.
apostolicity means lineage and doctrine that goes back to the apostles. it has nothing to do with the sins of the clergy. even the apostles themselves are not sinless, but like you and me are with sins.

peace be with you!
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
imagine that! and they are 'clergy' of your rcc! those you call 'father' - what a great example of a father - right? those are the ones you believe teach you the truth of scripture, you can confess to and have your sins forgiven, those you claim are apostolic... which apostle did they learn that from?

what's logical about someone you claim represents Christ on earth and molests little kids / rapes nuns etc? what's apostolic about that? they're your leaders in a 'church' you claim is His church.
mica:
when will you do that?
you are beginning to sound like balshan.
ty. haven't you noticed my 'like' on her posts?

why don't you two start a thread on 'the sins of the catholic clergy' and catholics can respond to you there. may i remind you that the topic of the thread is about 'no papacy in augustine's sermon 295'

peace be with you!
sure. and I'll remind you that my post was a reply to one of yours.
 

mica

Well-known member
apostolicity means lineage and doctrine that goes back to the apostles.
your rcc leaders have neither. their teachings and actions support that.

it has nothing to do with the sins of the clergy.
catholic 'clergy' has nothing to do with any lineage and doctrine that goes back to the apostles.

even the apostles themselves are not sinless, but like you and me are with sins.

peace be with you!
post verses supporting that any apostle abused kids / women, that they taught contrary to His word, taught false beliefs - like those taught by the rcc on salvation, regarding Mary etc. post where Peter claimed to be the leader of all believers and claimed to hear confessions and forgive sin.
 
Last edited:

ramcam2

Well-known member
Ramcam;
Quit the 2 -Bit small teenage school yard replies

Ram; once again
he that hath the key of David,
-------------Isaiah 22:------------------------Rev.3:7

----------so he shall open,---------------he that openeth,
---------and none shall shut;----------and no man shutteth;
---------and he shall shut,-----------------and shutteth,
--------and none shall open.----------and
no man openeth;

What good are the Keys
if Peter nor any other Man can use them to Open or Shut ????

Ramcam;
Learn to read Scripture in its entirety,
not just a cheery picked verse or two

Song of Solomon 1:5
I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,​
as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.​
6 Look not upon me, because I am black,​
because the sun hath looked upon me:​
my mother's children were angry with me;​
they made me the keeper of the vineyards;​
but mine own vineyard have I not kept.​

still can't decide if jesus is the king or he is just the steward?

Buzzard
; once again...
he that hath the key of David/heaven is eliakim/peter...
-------------Isaiah 22:------------------------Rev.3:7--------------------Matt16:17--------

----------so he shall open,---------------he that openeth,-------- whatever thou shall loosed---
---------and none shall shut;----------and no man shutteth;----shall be loosen---------
---------and he shall shut,-----------------and shutteth,-----------whatever thou shall bind---
--------and none shall open.----------and no man openeth;-----shall be bound-------

What good are the Keys if Peter nor any other Man can use them to Open or Shut ????

As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes, without losing the authority those keys represent. Peter identifies Jesus as the messiah in matt16 acknowledging his kingship. Jesus showing his kingly authority gave the keys of heaven to Peter making him the messianic equivalent of eliakim. If you argue the other way around, Jesus fulfilling the role of eliakim in isaiah 22, then we must conclude Jesus is not the true messianic king but merely the prime minister of the kingdom of heaven, the Messiah’s chief representative. the keys were given to peter alone but the power to bind and loose was given also to the other apostles.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
your rcc leaders have neither. their teachings and actions support that.


catholic 'clergy' has nothing to do with any lineage and doctrine that goes back to the apostles.
catholic clergy lineage/hierarchy goes all the way the apostles. you can google catholic hierarchy in the internet and you can get the lineage of catholic clergy all over the world going back to the apostles. lineage has nothing to do with personal sins of the clergy. for the doctrines, we have the writings of the early christians as a testament to the belief of the apostolic church. of course, one of two early christians may have heretical views but majority of them are orthodox and faithful to the doctrine of the apostolic church.

post verses supporting that any apostle abused kids / women, that they taught contrary to His word, taught false beliefs - like those taught by the rcc on salvation, regarding Mary etc. post where Peter claimed to be the leader of all believers and claimed to hear confessions and forgive sin.

argument from silence.
peace be with you.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
your rcc leaders have neither. their teachings and actions support that.


catholic 'clergy' has nothing to do with any lineage and doctrine that goes back to the apostles
catholic clergy lineage/hierarchy goes all the way the apostles. you can google catholic hierarchy in the internet and you can get the lineage of catholic clergy all over the world going back to the apostles. lineage has nothing to do with personal sins of the clergy. for the doctrines, we have the writings of the early christians as a testament to the belief of the apostolic church. of course, one of two early christians may have heretical views but majority of them are orthodox and faithful to the doctrine of the apostolic church.
yes, your false church has its unbiblical teachings posted all over the internet. that doesn't make them true / biblical.

mica said:
post verses supporting that any apostle abused kids / women, that they taught contrary to His word, taught false beliefs - like those taught by the rcc on salvation, regarding Mary etc. post where Peter claimed to be the leader of all believers and claimed to hear confessions and forgive sin.
argument from silence.
peace be with you.
as usual you have no verses to support what the rcc teaches and that you blindly believe.
 

balshan

Well-known member
apostolicity means lineage and doctrine that goes back to the apostles. it has nothing to do with the sins of the clergy. even the apostles themselves are not sinless, but like you and me are with sins.

peace be with you!
It means nothing as it is a false doctrine. Your doctrines do not go back to the apostles, your institution does not teach what the apostles taught, they do act like the apostles and the do things the apostles would never do. You are wrong and you follow blind guides. The apostles were not blind guides. The fruit of whether something/someone is or is not apostolic is in what they teach and their actions. Your institution fails the fruit test and that is no surprise.
 

balshan

Well-known member
catholic clergy lineage/hierarchy goes all the way the apostles. you can google catholic hierarchy in the internet and you can get the lineage of catholic clergy all over the world going back to the apostles. lineage has nothing to do with personal sins of the clergy. for the doctrines, we have the writings of the early christians as a testament to the belief of the apostolic church. of course, one of two early christians may have heretical views but majority of them are orthodox and faithful to the doctrine of the apostolic church.



argument from silence.
peace be with you.
Yep written by men who do not know God, so their writings do not know the truth at all. Yours is the argument from silence it has nothing to support it at all. You cannot even defend it.
 

balshan

Well-known member
mica:
when will you do that?

you are beginning to sound like balshan. why don't you two start a thread on 'the sins of the catholic clergy' and catholics can respond to you there. may i remind you that the topic of the thread is about 'no papacy in augustine's sermon 295'

peace be with you!
I really love Mica's posts they tell us the truth whereas yours are a disappointment. You just wish that the fruit of your institution did not reveal the true facts that your institution is the bad tree.
 

A new day

Well-known member
There is nothing in Scripture that even hints that Peter asserted dominion over the other apostles or acted in a superior way over others. But we do read of him preaching the gospel message.

On the day of pentecost, Peter preached the gospel message, “opening the door” for the Jews who heard and believed the gospel message to get into heaven. In Acts 8, Peter again preached the gospel message to the Samaritans, opening the way for them to believe, and get into heaven. The same with Roman centurion’s and his household

No one can get into heaven except by believing the gospel message. Part of the gospel message is that faith is necessary. Without faith in Christ, the door to heaven remains shut.

Those who responded in faith to the apostles preaching of the gospel message, were granted access to the Kingdom of Heaven; and those of whom rejected the gospel of God’s saving grace were shut out of the Kingdom. God’s will is that sinners be granted access to heaven through the righteousness of Christ.

If the gospel message is distorted or ignored, the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven are being shut in people’s faces

So the key (s) is the preaching of the gospel message, mixed with faith in Christ.
 
Last edited:

ramcam2

Well-known member
There is nothing in Scripture that even hints that Peter asserted dominion over the other apostles or acted in a superior way over others. But we do read of him preaching the gospel message.

On the day of pentecost, Peter preached the gospel message, “opening the door” for the Jews who heard and believed the gospel message to get into heaven. In Acts 8, Peter again preached the gospel message to the Samaritans, opening the way for them to believe, and get into heaven. The same with Roman centurion’s and his household

No one can get into heaven except by believing the gospel message. Part of the gospel message is that faith is necessary. Without faith in Christ, the door to heaven remains shut.

Those who responded in faith to the apostles preaching of the gospel message, were granted access to the Kingdom of Heaven; and those of whom rejected the gospel of God’s saving grace were shut out of the Kingdom. God’s will is that sinners be granted access to heaven through the righteousness of Christ.

If the gospel message is distorted or ignored, the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven are being shut in people’s faces

So the key (s) is the preaching of the gospel message, mixed with faith in Christ.
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

..... catholic answers.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
yes, your false church has its unbiblical teachings posted all over the internet. that doesn't make them true / biblical.



as usual you have no verses to support what the rcc teaches and that you blindly believe.

Yep written by men who do not know God, so their writings do not know the truth at all. Yours is the argument from silence it has nothing to support it at all. You cannot even defend it.
how about this for an argument from silence? just google 'the hierarchy of catholic church' for the lineage of the catholic clergy all over the world (western and eastern rites) and it goes back to the apostles. can you show us the lineage of your leaders? I highly doubt you have one going all the way back to an apostle.
 

mica

Well-known member
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

..... catholic answers.
do you know that Peter was always speaking to Jews except for those verses regarding Cornelius? I don't think any other verses were to Gentiles. why was that?

I didn't look up the verses you refer to - history here has shown me that they usually don't say / mean what you think they do.
 

A new day

Well-known member
Since the bible says

Acts 4:10-12
then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

The above verses is speaking of Jesus. No where in Scripture does it say this of Peter or anyone else. There is no biblical foundation for claiming any human to be a representative of Christ on earth. No man could do what Christ has done, or what Christ is now doing on behalf of humankind

In putting Peter up on a pedestal, the Rc institution, has in effect rejected the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ. Christ Himself declared that the Holy Spirit would come in His name and be with us always. NOT human. There is no mention by Jesus, sending anyone other than the Holy Spirit to us, after He had went back up to heaven.

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:12-15
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

The bible is the yardstick by which all others are measured against, and it is essential that we use it to compare ANY church or denomination's teachings to it, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path
 

mica

Well-known member
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

..... catholic answers.
..... catholic answers.
your source is noted. it is not scripture.
 

mica

Well-known member
balshan said:
Yep written by men who do not know God, so their writings do not know the truth at all. Yours is the argument from silence it has nothing to support it at all. You cannot even defend it.
how about this for an argument from silence? just google 'the hierarchy of catholic church' for the lineage of the catholic clergy all over the world (western and eastern rites) and it goes back to the apostles. can you show us the lineage of your leaders? I highly doubt you have one going all the way back to an apostle.
which leads to a catholic source.

do you have any biblical source?
 
Top