Bonnie
Super Member
Forgiving or retaining sins is part of the "keys "yep... no keys though
All Christians are members of the Kingdom of God. Not just Peter.
Upon this rock/Keys
- Thread starter dingoling.
- Start date
All Christians are members of the Kingdom of God. Not just Peter.
Bonnie
Super Member
Still waiting for answers to my questions:
My husband performed 3 marriages during his 15 years as an active pastor. Are those marriages legit, since you seem to think there is no apostolic succession in our church, since Luther was not a bishop? Though he was a priest..
...So show me from the Bible where a bishop must put hands on a man to ordain him.
Please show me from the Bible where the first century church was headquartered in Rome, and Peter was the undisputed head of the entire church.
My husband performed 3 marriages during his 15 years as an active pastor. Are those marriages legit, since you seem to think there is no apostolic succession in our church, since Luther was not a bishop? Though he was a priest..
...So show me from the Bible where a bishop must put hands on a man to ordain him.
Please show me from the Bible where the first century church was headquartered in Rome, and Peter was the undisputed head of the entire church.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
First of all, you cited no Scripture.
Secondly, if you did cite Scripture my reply would be that I didn't ask you to cite the Scriptures that talk about testing Spirits, the biblical requirements for leaders, or the work of evangelization.
I asked you to cite the Scripture that says all believers were given the keys as opposed to only Peter. I am still waiting for the verse. What Scripture or Scriptures teach that all believers were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?
leonard03782
Well-known member
What difference would it make? You would still reject it because it would not affirm what you believe or what the rcc teaches.
dingoling.
Well-known member
It is clear from scripture that Jesus gave authority over his church to Peter and his successors. Jesus, nor any of the apostles established scripture alone as the final/sole authority for the Christian faith. So the Catholic church teachings are scriptural and the nCCs are not.
leonard03782
Well-known member
As far as I am concerned, Jesus established that the Scriptures were the were the source of authority because all HE did was to preach from them. HE never said anything good about tradition.
I don't need to cite scripture, you ignore scripture anyway so no point really.
No blind guides like to keep the power to themselves.
Every believer are Peter's successor, we are all called to be apostles and spread the good news. Apostles are messengers. Your evil leaders have no authority. They have not earned the privilege at all.
Only clear to those taught by the blind guides of the RCC.
The author of this gospel is Jewish, and one would assume that his mindset/understanding is evident in his narrative, no?
Here's what he wrote:
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
Are we to now suppose that no one else in the history of humanity has ever had this revealed to them? We have the New Testament itself which testifies that no one can be saved unless they confess Christ, and that can only be through revelation from God. Flesh and blood can only inculcate these ideas. They can never produce a genuine confession of faith, only a profession of faith.
"18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
The usual argument for this verse goes something like this:
Protestants claim that the Greek "petros" refers to a stone while the Greek "petra" refers to a massive immovable rock.
The Catholic church points out that this distinction is quite accurate for Attic Greek, but no longer existed by the time people were speaking, and writing the Koine Greek of Matthew's gospel narrative.
The Protestants then point out that the Greek "petros" is masculine, but the Greek "petra" is feminine, and therefore "upon this rock" (taute te petra) cannot refer to "petros". Greek grammar requires references to agree in gender, number and case. This verse doesn't allow for the Catholic interpretation.
However, the Catholic response is intriguing in that they point out that the gospel writer couldn't very well give Peter a feminine name, could he? Of course not, but our Catholics have forgotten their own argument because there is no reason why "upon this rock" need be in the feminine to begin with. It could just as easily have been in the masculine, e.g. "tautw tw petrw". Why? Because the distinction between stones and boulders, rocks etc. no longer existed remember??? A rock is a rock is a rock.
The Catholics will then point out that in the gender neutral Aramaic language these gender distinctions didn't exist, and since that is the language they were undoubtedly speaking, this argument becomes a moot point. The problem with this analysis is that it is essentially claiming that the gospel writer goofed. He didn't know what he was doing. He was quite simply uninspired, and for some unknown reason completely lost his ability to continue this narrative observing elementary Greek grammar. Yeah, right. smh. Moving on...
"19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The future periphrastic "shalt bind.. contains the past perfect preterit "having been bound", A better way to say it would be "whatsoever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven", and this is the case throughout scripture. For example, the pattern of the temple Moses is given to construct already exists in heaven. Christ says to pray that God's will be done on earth as it already is in heaven. Satan is cast from heaven prior to being cast to the earth.
Peter is not being given authority to bind or loosen anything. He's being given the ability to see what is already bound or loosened in heaven, and act accordingly. In other words, he now sees that to lust after a woman is to commit adultery. Anyone who is able to see the workings of their own heart, and given the gift of repentance, and takes hold of their calling from God is given those same keys to bind and loosen. This does not put them in a position of authority, but into servitude to God and humanity.
Moreover, to assume that Christ is pointing out that whatever Peter binds or loosens now has Celestial approval and blessing is to bestow authority even he doesn't possess himself. He admits that he only does what he sees his father doing, and only says what is given to him from God to say. He may ask, but ultimately, he concludes that it is "not my will, but Thine be done"
dingoling.
Well-known member
Well that is a nice interpretation of scripture. But you haven't been given authority over the interpretation of scripture.
Nowhere did I provide an interpretation of scripture. I quoted scripture, and provided irrefutable evidence to support the fact that the Catholic church has no problem ignoring elementary Greek grammar as well as their own legitimate arguments when it doesn't suit them.
Agreed which is why I never interpreted any of it. I simply quoted it for your edification.
pilgrim
Well-known member
This is Protestant wishful thinking^
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In the New Testament.
In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis," "the key-power of the Church." https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
This is where one needs to read scripture as a whole and we have posted so many verses that reveal the rock refers to God or Jesus and not Peter. It does not matter what the Greek word is used. The Jewish people always saw the rock that followed them in the desert as God following, Paul mentions this tradition but he states that rock is Jesus.
1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Please note most of us are not protestants or RCs.
I would really like to see you make a biblical case for the idea that Jesus gave authority to the alleged "successors" of Peter. So in what sense is it "clear" from Scripture?
dingoling.
Well-known member
In any organization, when an authority is established, that authority doesn't end with the death of the person holding that authority. E.g. when David died his authority was passed on to Solomon......, Aaron's authority was passed on to his son....the US constitution establishes offices - those authority of those offices doesn't end with the person holding that office.
It is still your onus (since you claimed it is "clear from Scripture") to show that Peter obtained an "office" that was meant to be passed on. Not even the Protestant scholars that Arch Stanton triumphantly claims supporting the idea of Peter as a "primus inter pares" state that such an idea is exegetically warranted.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
EDITED--OFF TOPIC
Last edited by a moderator:
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
........................................ ^^^
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Where is the Churches expiration date?
I should have used a 🎺 to announce those protestant scholars.