E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
**Stick with the topic and stop the bickering. **
- Status
J
JMM1957
Guest
It seems to me you are under the impression that I have not read anything from a non-Catholic authored Reformed perspective, as if in doing so I would not be asking the questions that I am. Why is that?
I’m still waiting for a better answer to my question in post #55, giving a two word answer “Holy Spirit” is hardly sufficient, many Christian churches claim the same source of authority and enlightenment. Are they all teaching the same thing, one mind, one heart, one purpose, no divisions as Paul many times pleaded for?
P
pablope
Guest
So…would you call these protestant bible commentators, that disagree with you…full of royal steward siliness too?
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm
BIBLE COMMENTARY ON “KEYS” OF MATTHEW 16:19
M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” “binding” and “loosing” from Matthew 16:19 –
“The ‘kingdom of heaven’ is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven’s power rule in earthly things…Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church…The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8), here gives the primary disciple the authority to teach in his name – to make authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the church.” (Boring, page 346)
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) –
“The ‘keys’ are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house – symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). ‘Bind’ and 'loose” are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page 355-356)
Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) –
“In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the ‘keys of the Kingdom of heaven’ are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as ‘binding and loosing’ …the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding” and ‘loosing’ refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding…For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter…Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer, page 343)
R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) –
“The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements * which are to be ‘binding’ on the people of God. In that case Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper… but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” (R.T. France, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 54)
The older The Interpreter’s Bible –
“19. The keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority. In Isa. 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (I Cor. 3:11), and in Rev. 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph. 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys. Post-Apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the apostles the prerogatives of Jesus (cf. 10:40). In rabbinical language to bind and to loose is to declare certain actions forbidden or permitted [a Jewish source Terumoth 5:4 is quoted]…Thus Peter’s decisions regarding the O.T. law (e.g., in Acts 10:44-48) will be ratified in heaven.” (George Arthur Buttrick, et al The Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1951], volume 7, page 453)
Willoughby C. Allen, in a still older commentary that interprets the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 as the “revealed truth” of the Messiahship of Christ, nevertheless writes in his The International Critical Commentary –
Or is it only Randy that meets your siliness criteria?
By the way, going back to another…Scott Hahn…he recounted this story…when he was stil a protestant…and writing I think his doctoral thesis on the Keys and the royal steward…he actually saw this connection with the keys back to the royal steward…and he was till protestant then…so would you then say he was also being silly, as a protestant…in making the connection of the keys back to Isiah 22 and the royal stewards of King David’s time?*
E
Erich
Guest
Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.
Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.
In rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.
That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.
For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.
James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.
E
Erich
Guest
Presbyterians don’t even agree with each other, much less with other Protestants, as evidenced by this Wikipedia chart:
There are currently nine branches of Presbyterianism in the USA (judging from the number of lines that extend to the right side of the above chart). Would it be fair to say that at least eight of these branches have wandered away from the Westminster Confession to a certain extent? And that the ninth branch (assume for the moment it’s the “Evangelical Presbyterian Church” branch) is the only one that’s “got everything right”? And what about the fact that the ninth branch (whichever one it is) differs from Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and for that matter all the rest of the branches that consider the Reformed church as their historical foundation?
If one takes “This is the job of the Holy Spirit” to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Protestants understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Protestants, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.
Did the Apostles teach different things to different people? Of course not. The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. From 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.
In fact, Jesus and the Apostles demanded conformity to the doctrines they taught. Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, wrote that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3) - no mention here that it’s okay to teach different doctrine, as long as it is “non-essential.” Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.
So… why is it that Catholics (and Orthodox, for that matter) teach that Mary is the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of Heaven, the New Eve, Most Holy, Ever-Virgin, etc, and **pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations teach different doctrines one from another? Why is it okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can anyone think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God? **
In 1 Tim 4:1, Paul even states that there will be those who fall away from the faith by believing false doctrines. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ. It teaches the truth and nothing but the truth, unless one believes that the true Body of Christ can teach error. Also, Scripture tells us Satan is the father of all lies. So, if there is false doctrine, that doctrine is the spawn of Satan, and believing something that is of Satan would never meet with the approval of the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Thanks for taking the time to present it the way you did, very well done. As many times as we need to demonstrate our faith that was handed on from the Apostles, we “must” do it. Paul pleaded from his heart with the early believers for unity: 1 Cor. 1:10.
K
KjetilK
Guest
While that might be – and in my mind is – true when we think about many of the so-called free churches, it is not (necessarily) true of the historical Churches. My Church, the Church of Norway, has had a visible structure since it was founded over a period of some 30-50 years, from when Olaf Tryggvason brought Christianity to the realm* until the years following the martyrdom of St. Olaf and the erection of the Archdiocese of Nidaros. The question is: Can a Church reform itself without ceasing to be visible, and can a Church cut its ties to the Papacy and still be Catholic? As a Greek Orthodox Christian I cannot imagine you thinking otherwise.
Remember that the Church of Norway rejected most of the Lutheran confessions that arose, and held only fast to two – Confessio Augustana and Luther’s Small Catechism.
Well, the Lutheran position is not that anyone can claim to be a true Church, but that the one true Church is, in the words of art. VIIConfessio Augustana, “the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”
But that leaves a few questions: What does it mean to ‘rightly teach’ the Gospel, and what does it mean to ‘rightly administer’ the sacraments? Well, if you read the entire confession, the right teaching of the Gospel is that which takes as its starting point the Christology and Theology of Nicea and Chalcedon; which identifies Scripture as the norm; and which is read in accordance with Tradition (focusing on the Creeds, the Dogmas, and the consensus of the Fathers). But there is more: Not only must the preaching be in accordance with Scripture and Tradition (with the aforementioned Theology and Christology as its centre), but the persons who preach – and administer the sacraments – must be properly called and ordained (cf. art. XIV). The foremost office is that of the bishop (cf. art. XXVIII). The magisterium is first and foremost the bishops, but the priests also have a ‘magisterial responsibility.’
The view of succession that can be found in the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches – not the free churches – is that succession is twofold: personal and doctrinal. A man who takes part of the succession needs to be properly called and ordained, and he has a responsibility to preach and administer the sacraments in accordance with Scripture and Tradition.
- There were Christians in the realm before this time, too, but not of an official manner.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Then I would have to disappoint you. If we should follow your demands, no one could ever claim succession, thanks in part to Napoleon Bonaparte.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Rubbish.
Bonaparte may have destroyed the written records, but he did not destroy the living witnesses - the Bishops themselves.
It would be nice to have documents, but they are not absolutely necessary in order for us to believe that there was no time in the past when
*]all of the Catholic bishops died simultaneously thus breaking the line of apostolic succession or that
*]“fake” bishops inserted themselves into the lineage of the Catholic Episcopacy so successfully that
A) no one noticed them doing this and that
B) they outnumbered the authentic bishops thus breaking the line of succession.
J
JMM1957
Guest
You deny the power of God with comments like this, do you think for a minute that Napoleon Bonaparte could foil the plan of God to accomplish what He set out to do? Like Randy Carson said, “rubbish”.
B
bjryman
Guest
Very good research here. I’ve always felt the the primary reason that apostolic succession was rebutted during the Reformation is one of authority recognition. Once the reformers split with Church, they simply HAD to deny that succession, otherwise the link to Peter and his being the head of Church could not be negated.
K
KjetilK
Guest
-
Well, when you are ready to reply to my post, and not a strawman, give me a word.
I did not say that one couldn’t be sure of succession. Why would I? I believe in it myself. But the records do not exist anymore. And THAT was your (JMM1957) claim. The accurate historical records do no longer exist.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Yes, and they also might say that the Catholic church hierarchy was always corrupt, but there were always true believers present in the church and even outside of it (invisible church), who found the opportunity to break away when the Reformation came to be. So to the first Protestant’s, Apostolic Succession, pre-Reformation, was really nothing but a long line of power hungry Catholic bishops.
So the result of all this is that the Reformer’s didn’t continue a different branch of Apostolic Succession with their own Pope’s, but they started a whole new church which claimed Apostolic Succession was not biblical anymore, instituted sola scriptura, disposed of most the sacraments, and many other things were tossed out.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Which is partly true, partly not.
The Scandinavian Lutherans retained, and claimed, apostolic succession, the same way Orthodox do even though they don’t either have “their own Pope’s” except, perhaps, the Patriarchs (which are really Eastern equivalents of Archbishops).
J
JMM1957
Guest
What part isn’t true?
K
KjetilK
Guest
Some individual Lutherans did reject succession, mostly in Germany, but many did not. It is not true, then, that all Lutherans rejected succession.
B
bjryman
Guest
This thread is an excellent example of man setting the rules via Tradition as the Church grew. Using Scripture as a foundation, the early church fathers …generation by generation…decided how the organization was to be run. Much of that process was biased when the Roman Empire set the Catholic Church up as the primary State Church.
That major event drove the Church to take on Roman trappings, buildings, etc. Over time the Church actually began to add ever more rituals, rules, guidelines for the faithful to follow.
But…if one goes back to the original 12, and the very early pre-Roman church practices, the process was simply, holy, humble and joyful all at once.
Trying to keep ahold of that essence while building a significant brick, motar, and codified religion has always been the challenge of the Church…and has come to a head with the current preaching of Popr Francis.
After reading Church history from many different points of view over the past two decades, I have not lost my love for the basic, core teaching of Christ. I will never be one of those that can live blissfully innocent in their faith just because a “bunch of old men throughout the generations” have mandated such.
E
Earl_of_Funk
Guest
My question as I am going through RCIA and learning much more about the early church and the past few (thousand) years of the church is along the lines of this post. I see all of the verses and reference points to appointing the teachers/bishops/heads of the church to follow on the heels of the original apostles but my struggle is with the confession aspects of this succession.
Growing up Protestant I new I could always take my sin straight to Jesus as he is “the only mediator between God and man” I Timothy 2:5. So while I see AS in that the early church and the apostles received training and the right to teach and in the case of the apostles the binding and loosing I am struggling with the notion that if I confess my sins to the local priest he has the right or the power to forgive them. I could confess my sins to the Lord and he is faithful and just to forgive me of them and to cleanse me from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9). So I see AS in some ways but the power to forgive is one that puts things into a different level.
Growing up Protestant I new I could always take my sin straight to Jesus as he is “the only mediator between God and man” I Timothy 2:5. So while I see AS in that the early church and the apostles received training and the right to teach and in the case of the apostles the binding and loosing I am struggling with the notion that if I confess my sins to the local priest he has the right or the power to forgive them. I could confess my sins to the Lord and he is faithful and just to forgive me of them and to cleanse me from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9). So I see AS in some ways but the power to forgive is one that puts things into a different level.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You are correct on one level, but read on:
Confession and Forgiveness of Sin via the Priesthood Proved from Scripture
Some people object to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly called “Confession”) on the basis that they only need to confess their sins directly to God rather than to a priest. Is this perspective correct? Let’s see what the Bible has to say.
Leviticus 5:5-6
5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.
Notice that the Word of God says, “the priest shall make atonement.” Clearly in the Old Testament, the priesthood existed to offer sacrifices and make atonement for the sins committed by the people. Does this idea continue in the New Testament?
Hebrews 10:1
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.
Here the author of Hebrews instructs us that the Old Testament prefigures and foreshadows New Testament truths; the Old is revealed more fully in the New. This seems to suggest that the role of the priest (ie, making atonement) as described in Leviticus should reveal something to us about the New Testament priesthood. So, what does the New Testament teach us about confession of sin?
1 John 1:9
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
We should confess our sins, and God will forgive us, but do we confess our sins to God alone? No!
James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.
Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.
Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.
Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.
Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.
Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)
Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.
Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.
Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)
Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.
- Status