B
- Status
B
Bishopite
Guest
Catholic Christians are NOT bound by nor do we follow, nor does the Church teach we any longer follow the Mosaic law. And even though the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law; and, in Christ Jesus, we yet we are saved apart from the Mosaic Law, through a Covenant of grace, not law. Therefore** as a matter of law, we are not bound to the Ten Commandments again, AS A MATTER OF LAW.** If we were bound by them as a matter of law, then the punishments associated with them as a matter of law would be applicable to us (e.g. if you commit adultery, you get stoned to death). So, we are clearly not bound by the Ten Commandments as a matter of law.
**HOWEVER, we ARE bound to the righteousness BEHIND the Ten Commandments, which is manifested in the Person of Jesus Christ. For Christ is the Word of God and the perfection of the Law. So, if we are in a Covenant with Christ, then we are bound, not only to keep the righteousness of the Ten Commandments, but to surpass what is demanded (as a matter of mere law) in the Ten Commandments. Go read Matt 5. There, Jesus says, “You have heard it said of old, ‘Thou shall not kill’ …But I say to you, whoever calls his brother ‘raqa’ (that is, ‘fool!’)” has broken this commandment. He also says, "You have heard it said of old, ‘Thou shall not commit adultery,’ " but if we look at a woman lustfully, we have already committed adultery with her in our hearts. Jesus calls us to go beyond the mere requirements of the Law (the Ten Commandments), and to be perfect even as He is perfect, John 5:48. For, under the law, it was (technically) okay to beat a man within an inch of his life, just as long as you don’t actually kill him. It was also okay to lust over your friend’s teenaged daugter, just as long as you don’t actually cheat on your wife and sleep with her. This is how the Pharisees saw it. They were pure legalists. They held God to the bare letter of what His Law said, and so tried to “get around” the spirit of the Law as much as they could. However, Christ calls His disciples to a greater commitment, to a true and living Covenant. And so, we are not bound by the legal dimensions of the Ten Commandments. Rather, we are bound by their righteousness that is, to live righteously, because we are in a relationship with Christ, and in a Covenant of grace with Him; we are obliged to obey the moral aspects of the law/ten commandments (or the moral law) of Christ, and Christ did abolish the Mosaic law or law of Torah, but He didn’t abolish the moral aspects of the ten commandments; they are immutable.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As you know, the Bible was not written as an exhaustive work of systematic theology. Most of it was written as private correspondence between the Apostles and the communities they were discipling, and much of what they wrote was in response to problems that arose from misunderstandings of what they had preached and taught in person.
The Apostles did not have to mention the primacy of Peter specifically because it was understood that Peter had the first place among them. Simply review the Gospels to see this.
I’ll say it again…the epistles do not assert the primacy of Peter because it was assumed. Where it is asserted in the early Church it is done with a sort of “ho-hum, as you all know” sort of attitude. Only with the rejection of the papacy by various heretical groups was a deeper understanding and more thoroughly developed defense deemed necessary.
But to be clear, since the early church did not dispute the position of Peter, there was no “situation” or misunderstanding that needed to be corrected and addressed within the pages of scripture itself.
Nonetheless, Jesus made sure to distinguish Peter - repeatedly - in preparation for his role as leader of the Church. Consequently, there is more in the Bible that justifies the Papacy than there is to justify sola scriptura or sola fide. And this is why the Church has always taught the former doctrine while rejecting the latter two.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
A
Atemi
Guest
A simple search on Blue Letter Bible brought up 158 references to “Peter” and 164 references to “Paul.”Earlier you used the arguement that the Holy Spirit used Paul more than any of the other Apostles thus attempting to show that he is more relevant than was Peter or perhaps equal to him in authority, yet when someone uses the same type of argument showing Peter’s name mentioned above the others (including Paul) you say it "does not prove nor teach [Peters] “supremacy?”
This can be adjusted with a little homework, but it seems clear to me that “Paul” is mentioned more by the Holy Spirit in the NT than Peter.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Only if you’re hung up on a physical key as opposed to a position of authority.
No, it’s a historical account of what actually happened with a real king and a real minister, and the Jews not only knew that story but the very real authority that the “key” symbolizes. Thus, Jesus was able to apply some imagery to Peter that everyone would understand. He didn’t hand him a physical key and introduce a new concept…he built on the ancient tradition of the key to annoint Peter as leader of the Apostles.
Neither Jesus nor Peter is holding a physical key. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to speak of Jesus as the holder of the key (he is the true king, after all) and Peter as the keeper of the key (as minister) at the same time. One owns the key and one wields the key in his place.
The reference to Isaiah 22 teaches us that a king would name a minister who would hold the authority of the king and act in his name while he was away. The minister held an OFFICE and the Office passed from one office holder to another.
Regardless of how you choose to view the keys, there is no avoidance of the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys representing real authority, and the Office of Pope exists to this very day with those same keys - that same authority - firmly in hand. No Protestant has this distinction or authority.
But the Bible tells us more:
Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Who has all authority? Jesus.
Who sent Jesus? The Father.
How did the Father send Jesus? With all authority.
Did Jesus send the Apostles? Yep.
How did Jesus send the Apostles? “As the Father sent me”
How did the Father send Jesus? With all authority
How did Jesus send the Apostles. With all authority.
This troubles you, doesn’t it? Then consider this from the Word of God:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
What does the word “whatever” mean in this sentence? No, don’t skip over this…what does “whatever” mean?
Need help?
Okay, from the word of God:
Matthew 28:18-20
**Then Jesus came to them and said, **"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Who has all authority? Jesus.
What does he do with it? Gives it to the Apostles and sends them out.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh, two more quick questions from this passage:
How could Jesus be with the Apostles to the end of the age IF THEY DIED BEFORE THE END OF THE AGE?
How could these eleven Apostles make disciples of all nations if they could not physically travel to all nations during their own lifetimes?
(Here’s a hint: Apostolic Succession)
Assertions, sure. Assumptions? Hardly. For 2,000 years the Church has taught nothing less.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
How could Jesus be with the Apostles to the end of the age IF THEY DIED BEFORE THE END OF THE AGE?
How could these eleven Apostles make disciples of all nations if they could not physically travel to all nations during their own lifetimes?
(Here’s a hint: Apostolic Succession)
Too many for what? For a non-Catholic who has been taught that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon to accept? Too many for someone who refuses to acknowledge that the Pope really is the Vicar of Christ to stomach?
Assertions, sure. Assumptions? Hardly. For 2,000 years the Church has taught nothing less.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
oh oh oh, the Paul is mentioned more than any Peter argument. Let me diffuse this now.
Paul vs Peter in Scripture
This is done via a SQL search.
First of all let’s us exclude those verses where the Author refers to himself by his name.
First Let us do a search on verses that contain all of Peter’s names. Those being:
Peter, Simon, Cephas, and Kephas.
I get 200 verses: Now Lets break it down:
Matthew = 30 verses ( 1 of these denotes Simon the Cyrenian )
Mark = 27 ( 1 of these denotes Simon the Cyrenian )
Luke = 31 ( 1 of these denotes Simon the Cyrenian )
John = 38
Acts = 62 ( 5 of these refer to another Simon )
1st Corinthians = 4
Galations = 6
1st and 2nd Peter = 2 ( will exclude these two from the total count )
Total verses using Peter in some form or another = 190 from 7 different books.
Now let us do a search on Paul and Saul:
I get 180 verses : Peter beats him out on this count by using the 190 count alone.
Acts = 151
Romans = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
1st Corithians = 7 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2nd Corithians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Galatians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Ephesians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Phillipians = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Colossians = 3 ( will exclude these from the total count )
1 Thessalonians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2 Thessalonians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
1 Timothy = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2 Timothy = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Titus = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Philemon = 3 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2nd Peter = 1
Paul is mentioned 152 times by an outsider in only two books and 151 of those are in the book of Acts written by Luke who was his disciple, and Luke only lists Pauls name to clarify who is talking.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
?? your theory on “my commandments” has already been disproven here on this forum. Do I need to go find them for you or will calling you on it, work for you?
A
apophasis
Guest
Semantics. It’s no different than saying whether you got your instruction/information in the classroom or the provided textbook. It’s the SAME instruction/information.
What are you confused about? I didn’t conclude that it proved Paul’s supremacy over Peter, the other Apostles and the Church. I didn’t conclude, based on that fact, that Paul was “vicar of Christ on earth,” did I?Earlier you used the arguement that the Holy Spirit used Paul more than any of the other Apostles thus attempting to show that he is more relevant than was Peter or perhaps equal to him in authority, yet when someone uses the same type of argument showing Peter’s name mentioned above the others (including Paul) you say it "does not prove nor teach [Peters] “supremacy?”
A
apophasis
Guest
So, if we are in a Covenant with Christ, then we are bound,** not only to keep the righteousness of the Ten Commandments, but to surpass what is demanded (as a matter of mere law) in the Ten Commandments.** Go read Matt 5.Then in trying to surpass the demand of the letter of the Law have you torn out your right eye yet? Have you cut off your right hand as Jesus instructed there?
Everything about the 10 Commandments is legal and binding. That’s why Paul calls them a ministry of “death” and “condemnation” in 2 Cor. 3.
But the believer’s righteousness is a foreign righteousness - Christ’s. His righteousness which is* imputed* (not infused) to the one who believes in Him:Rom 3:19-22 "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law {comes} the knowledge of sin (not righteousness). But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe…"The true believer’s righteousness is divinely provided, not strived for. A righteousness legally provided through the redemptive work of God the Son:Rom 3:23-24 "…for all sinned (in Adam) and are falling short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;The righteousness which the true believer now possesses is not something found behind the 10 Commandments, but totally “apart” from them. Those Commandments could only provide the “knowledge of sin,” (hence, a ministry of “death” and “condemnation”) but righteousness is provided by Christ, giftwise (His own) for all who believe.Phil 3:9 "…and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from {the} Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which {comes} from God on the basis of faith,
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think it will work, Sean. Apophasis does not believe that keeping God’s commandments has anything to do with salvation. I think he does not believe that Jesus did any works, which means that the signs Jesus said were from the father were actually not sacred at all, since there ARE no sacred works in the Apophasis universe. The corollary would be that Jesus did not work during His agony in the garden, and his sufferings that we commemorate this week, the scouraging, abuse, crowning, and crucifixion were all a walk in the part, requiring no effort on His part.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, at least we agree on THAT point!
Here is one of those anti-Catholic slurs. This is a denial of the efficacy of the sacraments. You are right about one part of it, though, grace IS imparted, as well as infused. This is an example of one of those forum rules you break consistently:
- Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
I know you believe that Catholics are not “true believers” Apo, because we believe that we must strive in faith throughout this life. However, our faith is Divinely infused, and proceeds from His grace. We have an obligation to cooperate with this grace, and hold fast to the gift that has been given.
I am not sure what that means, 'behind the commandments". Perhaps you mean “because” of them? Or, “as a result”? Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and by living with, through, and in His Love we fulfill the Law, and the Commandments.
Faith WORKING THROUGH LOVE!
A
apophasis
Guest
Randy Carson:
We see in Rev. 3:7 that it is Jesus Himself (not Peter) that possesses the “key of David.” It does not say “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” So based on the obvious differences in the Biblical texts, I must conclude they are totally different “keys.”
Jesus doesn’t say to Peter, “I will give you My keys to the kingdom of heaven,” nor does He say He will give him the “key to the house of David.”
Now the phrase, “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” is not defined." So one must glean from subsequent Scriptures what this phrase might mean. Keys are used to unlock something. In this case, spiritually speaking, to unlock the “kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus, in Matt. 16:19, gives Peter the privilege* of unlocking “the kingdom of heaven,” and He gives this privilege to Peter alone. Now where does this occur? We see it in the Book of Acts. Peter was given the privilege to be the first to preach the gospel message of divine salvation through the cross of Christ and personal faith in Him to his fellow Jews (Acts 2:14ff) and then to the Gentiles, which began with the house of Cornelius (Acts 10-11). Paul, however, is officially the Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:7-8).
This, I believe is what Jesus meant in Matt. 16:19. The “keys to the kingdom of heaven” is not an “office” with a successive line of replacements (an extrabiblical teaching), nor a divine decree of spiritual “authority” over the hearts of men. Peter, who was personally and harshly rebuked by Christ (and Paul), and denied Him three times, was by pure GRACE given the privilege of unlocking “the kingdom of heaven” first for his fellow Jews and then Gentiles.
The Scriptures you quoted in your post made reference to ALL the Apostles. And you agreed:
Dah! You’re the one who brought up the idea of a duplicate key based on your real estate experience.
Matt. 16:19 says, “keys to the kingdom of heaven,” while Is. 22:22 says, “the key to the house of David.” The former is plural, the latter is singular. The former refers to the “the kingdom of heaven,” while the latter refers to “the house of David.”
We see in Rev. 3:7 that it is Jesus Himself (not Peter) that possesses the “key of David.” It does not say “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” So based on the obvious differences in the Biblical texts, I must conclude they are totally different “keys.”
Jesus doesn’t say to Peter, “I will give you My keys to the kingdom of heaven,” nor does He say He will give him the “key to the house of David.”
Now the phrase, “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” is not defined." So one must glean from subsequent Scriptures what this phrase might mean. Keys are used to unlock something. In this case, spiritually speaking, to unlock the “kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus, in Matt. 16:19, gives Peter the privilege* of unlocking “the kingdom of heaven,” and He gives this privilege to Peter alone. Now where does this occur? We see it in the Book of Acts. Peter was given the privilege to be the first to preach the gospel message of divine salvation through the cross of Christ and personal faith in Him to his fellow Jews (Acts 2:14ff) and then to the Gentiles, which began with the house of Cornelius (Acts 10-11). Paul, however, is officially the Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:7-8).
This, I believe is what Jesus meant in Matt. 16:19. The “keys to the kingdom of heaven” is not an “office” with a successive line of replacements (an extrabiblical teaching), nor a divine decree of spiritual “authority” over the hearts of men. Peter, who was personally and harshly rebuked by Christ (and Paul), and denied Him three times, was by pure GRACE given the privilege of unlocking “the kingdom of heaven” first for his fellow Jews and then Gentiles.
The Scriptures you quoted in your post made reference to ALL the Apostles. And you agreed:
and sends them out.However, carefully read Matt. 28:18-20 again. Jesus states that “all authority in heaven and earth” is given to Him. He does not at all go on to say (as you suggest) that He gives that authority over to His Apostles, not even to Peter.
Well, obviously you don’t take His words literally - nor do I. However, I see absolutely no teaching in Scripture about any “Apostolic succession.” So I must conclude that Jesus had in mind all true believers throughout all subsequent generations until the “end of the age.”
It was not taught for 2000 years and, historically, the authority of the Roman Papacy was never, and is still not, unanimously accepted by the whole Body of Christ. Since the beginning of its assertion it’s been disputed and repudiated. It is, and always was, uniquely Roman.*
A
apophasis
Guest
Sean Boyle:
The issue was Paul’s contribution. Not only are the number of Epistles he wrote proof, but as I said, their doctrinal content, as well. Through Paul’s writing we get extensive teachings on the great Christian doctrines such as: redemption, reconciliation, sanctification, justification, adoption, propitiation, the two “Adams,” God’s program for the Church, His prophetic program for national Israel, the distinction between Law and Grace, etc.
The former.
A
apophasis
Guest
Of course you distort things I’ve said. But it is true that I do believe that men are saved by Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross only. Not His sign-works prior to the cross, not His agony in the garden.
And I do believe that those who believe in, trust in. His substitutionary, sacrificial work on the cross on their behalf, are forever kept by His High Priestly work in heaven:Heb. 7:25 "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them"His substitutionary, sacrificial work on the cross forever redeems us; His High Priestly work in heaven forever keeps us. We were bought with the price of His shed blood (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Pet. 1:18-19).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
A
apophasis
Guest
“Keys” are used for unlocking, not forgiving. Forgiving required shed blood via a substitutionary sacrifice. Forgiveness of sins is not something they did, but what they proclaimed based on that, once for all, sacrifice (Acts 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Col. 1:14)
This was also stated for the whole church in the context of discipline. It is not unique to Peter.
The first two pertain to appointing ELDERS, not their “replacements.” And one of the qualifications for an elder was that he was to be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). As I said before, you don’t continue to build a foundation, which the Apostles are (Eph. 2:20-21). The last verse pertains to choosing men for a specific duty so as not to interrupt the Apostles themselves from prayer and “ministering the Word.”
NONE of those verses state anything about Apostolic succession.
Then you have yet to show me where “more than this” is explicitly expressed, taught and demonstrated in subsequent Scripture. “…and upon this rock I will build My church,” to me, clearly refers to the divine revelation given by the Father concerning Jesus, not Peter. And once Peter “unlocked” “the kingdom of heaven” through preaching the gospel (good news) of Christ to his fellow Jews and then the Gentiles, those “keys” did not need to be handed down to any so-called “successor.” The job was done. The “binding and loosing” was not unique to Peter and was in the context of church discipline.
So unless you can show me where “the chair of Peter” is explicitly taught in Scripture, then I must conclude that it’s uniquely Roman and extrabiblical. Obviously the doctrine has served the church at Rome quite well. Can’t argue that.
B
Bishopite
Guest
- Status