Catholics, what do you do with 1 John 5? It contradicts RCC doctrine concerning the assurance of salvation. See for yourself.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmmcounts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the Haydock Bible Commentary 1 John 5:6-10

Ver. 6. Came by water and blood. The sense seems to be, by water, with which he ordered every one to be baptized and made Christians; 2ndly, by his blood shed on the cross for our redemption. (Witham) — Blood: not only to wash away our sins by the water of baptism, but by his own blood. (Challoner) — And it is the Spirit that testifieth that Christ[2] is the truth. By the Spirit, which is not here called the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, as in the next verse, is either meant the Spirit or soul of Christ, which dying he recommended into the hands of his Father, and which shewed that he was truly man, against Cerinthus, and some heretics of those times; or else it may signify the spirit of grace, given in this world to the faithful, in the same sense as St. Paul says, (Romans viii. 16.) that the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our Spirit, that we are the sons of God: and of which may be understood what is said here, (ver. 10.) He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the testimony of God in himself. (Witham)

Ver. 7. There are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one: i.e. one in nature, in substance, and in all perfections, in the same sense as when Christ himself said, (John x. 30.) I and the Father are one, or one thing. The Socinians object that this verse is wanting in many Greek manuscripts; and even Erasmus in one edition, and Mr. Simon in his Critics, have questioned it, or rejected it, as a false reading, but without any sufficient proofs and grounds, as hath been shewn by many learned Catholics, and also by Protestant writers, who receive in their translations this verse as canonical. It is easy to account for the omission of this verse; for as both the seventh and eighth verse begin and end with the same words, this gave occasion to the oversight and omission of the transcribers, whereas it is not credible that such a whole verse could be added. And that it was only by the mistake and oversight of transcribers may further appear, because we find part of the seventh verse, to wit, and these three are one, cited by Tertullian, lib. contra Praxeam. chap. xxiii. p. 515. Ed. Rig. and twice by St. Cyprian, Epist. 73. ad Jubaianum. p. 125. Ed. Rig. in the Oxford Edition, p. 310. and in his Treatise de Unit. Ecclesiæ, p. 181. Ed. Rigal. and in the Oxford Ed. p. 79, where also Dr. Fell defends this verse of St. John to be genuine. Tertullian and St. Cyprian wrote long before the dispute with the Arians. The Socinians also object that this passage is not brought by St. Athanasius and some other fathers against the Arians, which they could scarce have omitted had they read this verse, but this only proves that this omission had happened in some manuscripts in their time, or, as some conjecture, that the Arians had corrupted some copies. St. Fulgentius made use of it against the Arians, and also others about that time. See the Benedictines of St. Maur against Mr. Simon, in the first tome of St. Jerome, p. 1670. Both Catholics and Protestants, after a diligent examination, have received this verse, which is found in the best manuscripts. See Greek Testament at Amsterdam, in the year 1711.[A.D. 1711.] The three divine Persons, who are present everywhere, though said to be in heaven, gave testimony concerning Christ. The Father by a voice from heaven, both at his baptism (Matthew iii. 17.) and at his transfiguration, (Matthew xvii. 5.) saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him:” and also by all the miracles wrought by the same power of all the three divine Persons. 2. The Son testified to the Jews on many occasions, that he was sent from God, that he was the only Son of God, that he and his Father were one, &c. as in the annotations on John iii. The Holy Ghost confirmed the same, particularly by coming down upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost, and inspiring them to teach the same doctrine concerning Jesus Christ. (Witham) — An express proof of the three distinct persons and unity of nature and essence in the blessed Trinity.

Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) — As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ’s divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner)

Ver. 10. He that believeth not the Son, maketh him (God) a liar, by refusing to believe the testimonies given by the three divine Persons, that Jesus was the Messias and the true Son of God, by whom eternal life is obtained and promised to all that comply with his doctrine. In him we have also this lively confidence, that we shall obtain whatever we ask, according to his will, when we ask what is for our good with perseverance and in the manner we ought. And this we know and have experience of, by having obtained the petitions that we have made. (Witham)
🙂 And just what did you prove? You left out verses 1-5 those verses are just as important and are the word of God. Nancy
 
The only Christians at the time that the canon of the Bible was established were Catholic Christians. Therefore, all those who were involved in discerning the Holy Spirit were Catholic Christians. It was Catholic Christians who wrote the New Testament, because they were former Jews who became Catholic Christians.

So God worked with and through Catholic Christians to ensure the compilation of what became the New Testament, the preservation of the Old Testament (before some Jews at the end of the 1st century AD rejected some works which they felt were most ‘prophetic’ regarding Jesus and thus hoped that by repudiating those texts as Jewish scripture this would keep people from following Christ), and the discernment to ‘avoid’ many other good, but not ‘inspired’ works such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermes, as well as ‘bad’ works and forgeries such as the gospel of Thomas.

Each individual who was chosen by God to receive the guidance of the Spirit could have, at any time, rejected or refused to cooperate with the Spirit. But these individuals chose, freely, to cooperate with God to bring about the canon of Scripture.

So yes, Nancy, Catholics are responsible for cooperating with God in bringing “The Bible” together. Catholic men wrote the New Testament, and established the canon of the Bible, in cooperation with and under the divine inspiration of God, but in their own authentic human CATHOLIC voices.

The idea that God would basically force people to do what He wishes (which appears to be the contention of those who say that “Catholics had nothing to do with the Bible, God wanted it and they had NO CHOICE but to do what he wanted” ignore the simple fact that if this in fact were God’s ‘policy’, Adam and Eve would never have been able to sin in the garden of Eden.
 
Hi, Nancy,

This is an interesting concept.

I guess the question now is: how do you think the Bible got here.

Here is a hint: On Pentecost Sunday - the birthday of the CC - the Holy Spirit did not deliver a book! 🙂

Here is another hint; the ‘Reformers’ already had the Bible from which they removed 7 books they did not agree with because these books did not support their break away false teachings.

So, seriously, just how do you thnk is the actual history of the Bible itself?

God bless
The Bible is the inspired word of God and the Catholic were not there in Genisis or on Pentecost.The beleivers were there the decipals of Christ The church of Christ. If you deny the Word of God then you deny the Son of God for he is the Word.Where do you think the Catholic got their Bible from? The Scriptures they took from the church of Gods beleivers.
 
Mmmcounts, if I may be so bold, and if you are willing to share some of them, what good works have you done over the past six months?

Also, I frankly don’t understand the logic that if one has faith in Christ, then one necessarily, as if they were some sort of robot, will do good works. Most of the time, it takes determined effort, doesn’t it? This implies an act of the will. You have to actually want to do something before you do it. Have you never heard of laziness? Haven’t you ever not done something that you knew you should have, or done something you knew you shouldn’t have? I know I have, and many times. We could call the latter a “bad work” - the more common term is “sin.” Actually, this is quite incorrect, both of these are sins. You could say that these are definitions of sin, not doing God’s will, placed in us by the Holy Spirit, or doing something we know is contrary to God’s will, again, as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. Did I not have any faith in Christ on that day, or was I just being a lazy, sinful human? I must not have not have had faith in Christ on that day, according to your logic, because you say that faith always and without failure produces good works. If I didn’t have faith in Christ on that day and if I were to have died that day, wouldn’t I have gone to hell? Please tell me why or why not. What’s to prevent me from doing this on a consistent basis? If I do this on a consistent basis, then does this indicate that I have lost my faith in Christ? But since that is not possibIe, I guess that means I didn’t have faith in Christ to begin with, I was just fooling myself before, correct? How sad, that Jesus would allow me to think such a thing, that I had been saved by His mercy and goodness towards me, when in fact I was not.

If you claim to have had faith in Christ for every moment of every day since He gave you that precious gift, and you must claim this if you also claim that if at any point you would have died, you would absolutely have gone to heaven, no question about it, then doesn’t that mean that you would never, since that time, have not done something you knew you shouldn’t have or that it never happened that you didn’t do something that you knew you should have? That is, that every time the opportunity presented itself to do a good work, you did it. So, did you do this? If you say “yes” then you claim to be without sin, and you know what the Good Book says about people who claim that they have no sin. I’m sure you would not claim this, but then what is the consequence of these sins on your theory? This is why James writes that faith without works is dead. Because that faith cannot save us. Love is missing. The devil believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the sole Savior of the world, who died on the cross to save humanity from their sins. He knows and understands this better than we do - and he shudders at that fact and hates that it is so. Yet he is certainly is not saved, because love is (eternally) missing from his heart. Paul writes, “If I have not love, I am nothing.” And Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” And His commandment is “to love one another, as I have loved you.” A daunting task, to say the least. Faith is just the beginning, my friend.

I think if you take an honest look at the evidence of what goes on in all of our lives, you will see that you are holding on to a man-made doctrine based upon a flawed interpretation of Sacred Scripture that doesn’t match up with reality. And God is not the God of confusion. Truth is symphonic. It all fits together and makes perfect sense, when you have found it, or rather, when He has revealed it to you, without the need to bend observations to prove theory.
 
The Bible is the inspired word of God (yes, of course, and Catholics don’t disagree with this)and the Catholic were not there in Genisis (um, by that ‘logic’ there were no ‘Christians’ of any type as well, were there, Nancy?) or on Pentecost (wrong, Pentecost is the birthday of the Catholic Church).The beleivers were there the decipals of Christ (yes, the disciples were former Jews and later former Gentiles of various beliefs who became CATHOLIC Christians) The church of Christ. (Which is the Catholic Church) If you deny the Word of God then you deny the Son of God for he is the Word.(We are not denying HIm and we never did. Why do you say we do?) Where do you think the Catholic got their Bible from?(I already told you, hon, the Catholics were the ones who cooperated with God through the Spirit–that is, St. Peter, St. John, St. Paul, etc. and all the members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which is the Catholic Church, and they were the ones who wrote the New Testament, and who canonized the Scriptures). The Scriptures they took from the church of Gods beleivers.(The Catholic Church did not ‘take’ from some other ‘God believers’, there were no other 'God believers, no Protestants, no ‘invisible’ church, no 'real Church that was driven into hiding for 1500 years by the evil empire, etc. )
 
Nancy, you said:

I’m sorry I had to but in. Scott you seem to beleive that the bible comes from the Catholics rather then from God which would make the word void.

Nancy, who do you think collected, selected, assembled, codified and canonized the bible, out of a bevy of pseudo-writings, for the first 300 years? No C.C. --no bible! That is a scholarly fact! Jesus wrote nothing! He charged His established Church with the mission, to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth --with the mission of teaching His commands to the world, and said He would be with His established Church forever:

*Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” *Matthew 28

*But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." *Acts 1

If you think salvation only comes from the Catholic church…

**Jesus built one church circa 33 AD, on the apostles and prophets, with Him as the Divine Cornerstone. Before I continue with my train of thought --will you concede this historical fact??? I can’t seem to get any non-Catholic to concede this point; very frustrating! :confused: Perhaps you would oblige? **

…than read 1st Timothy:2:15 and refute that.

**OK…
**
*But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus…

Do you believe that the sacred scriptures to which Timothy was familiar since his infancy, include the 27 books of your N.T.?

…All scripture, (Not --ONLY scripture! Is that a fair statement Nancy?) —is inspired by God (selected and canonized by the C.C.) --and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. *2 Tom. 3:15

**All catholics agree!!! That is why I read my bible everyday. After all, It is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. I use the bible exclusively, to refute protestant claims, and their retort is always sketchy at best. I am very open-minded to reason and logic; if I am wrong, I will definitely concede! **

**Remember, Jesus built His church for a reason, wouldn’t you agree? God doesn’t build in vain! ****He didn’t write the bible; His Apostles taught orally for the most part; their disciple, eventually, committed those oral traditions to writing, and their disciples, for the next 300 years, protected those writings from never-ending heretical movements, by comparing all writings to their sacred tradition! Sacred tradition was the benchmark, by which all sacred writings were either included or excluded, right up to the 5th century. **

What does 2 Tim. 3 have to do with the following comment:

If you think salvation only comes from the Catholic church…:confused:

**1John: 5 is the inspired word of God, just as the rest of the bible is the inspired word of God. If the bible is the inspired word of God, then, logically speaking, the church, that is responsible for canonizing the inspired word of God, is inspired as well, considering the fact that the Holy Spirit is forever guiding the inspired church that canonized the inspired word. Is that a fair statement, Nancy? **
 
Nancy, you said:

I’m sorry I had to but in. Scott you seem to beleive that the bible comes from the Catholics rather then from God which would make the word void.

**Nancy, who do you think collected, selected, assembled, codified and canonized the bible, out of a bevy of pseudo-writings, for the first 300 years? No C.C. --no bible! That is a scholarly fact! Jesus wrote nothing! He charged His established Church with the mission, to be His witnesses **in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth --with the mission of teaching His commands to the world, and said He would be with His established Church forever:

*Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, *baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28

*But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." *Acts 1

If you think salvation only comes from the Catholic church…

**Jesus built one church circa 33 AD, on the apostles and prophets, with Him as the Divine Cornerstone. Before I continue with my train of thought --will you concede this historical fact??? I can’t seem to get any non-Catholic to concede this point; very frustrating! :confused: Perhaps you would oblige? **

…than read 1st Timothy:2:15 and refute that.

**OK…
**
*But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus…

Do you believe that the sacred scriptures to which Timothy was familiar since his infancy*, include the 27 books of your N.T.?

…All scripture, (Not --ONLY scripture! Is that a fair statement Nancy?) —is inspired by God (selected and canonized by the C.C.) --and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Tom. 3:15

**All catholics agree!!! That is why I read my bible everyday. After all, It is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. I use the bible exclusively, to refute protestant claims, and their retort is always sketchy at best. I am very open-minded to reason and logic; if I am wrong, I will definitely concede! **

**Remember, Jesus built His church for a reason, wouldn’t you agree? God doesn’t build in vain! ****He didn’t write the bible; His Apostles taught orally for the most part; their disciple, eventually, committed those oral traditions to writing, and their disciples, for the next 300 years, protected those writings from never-ending heretical movements, by comparing all writings to their sacred tradition! Sacred tradition was the benchmark, by which all sacred writings were either included or excluded, right up to the 5th century. **

What does 2 Tim. 3 have to do with the following comment:

If you think salvation only comes from the Catholic church…:confused:

**1John: 5 is the inspired word of God, just as the rest of the bible is the inspired word of God. If the bible is the inspired word of God, then, logically speaking, the church, that is responsible for canonizing the inspired word of God, is inspired as well, considering the fact that the Holy Spirit is forever guiding the inspired church that canonized the inspired word. Is that a fair statement, Nancy? **
What you say I feel is the truth,but without the words taken down so they could studyand teach,everything would be alot worst.When was the first canon done what year and do we have proof somewhere? I was told that the Romans killed the prophets and I dont get anysite on the net that is nutral or not Catholic I’d like a nonchtholic nutral historian get in touch with me and prove somethings that I have on my mind. Do you know I could be a very good witness for any faith if I truly beleived and understood. I will read this again tomorrow it’s time for bed God Bless and thank you for your kindness Nancy,and the scripture I gave you was on salvation 1 Tim:2:15.
 
What you say I feel is the truth,but without the words taken down so they could studyand teach,everything would be alot worst.When was the first canon done what year and do we have proof somewhere? I was told that the Romans killed the prophets and I dont get anysite on the net that is nutral or not Catholic I’d like a nonchtholic nutral historian get in touch with me and prove somethings that I have on my mind. Do you know I could be a very good witness for any faith if I truly beleived and understood. I will read this again tomorrow it’s time for bed God Bless and thank you for your kindness Nancy,and the scripture I gave you was on salvation 1 Tim:2:15.
Hi Nancy,

In my post 992 in another thread, I gave you several links for reading. One of them is a timeline of how the Bible came to us.

If you are asking this question here again, obviously you have not gone to that link to read.

So I am posting it here again. I gave that link to NonCatholic and he did not even bother reading it at all and instead kept asking the same question over and over again.

Please don’t be like him.

If you are sincere in your question, then you will read the answer.

So here is the link.
Timeline of how the Bible came to us

And by the way, it is not a historian’s job to get in touch with you. That is a very arrogant position.

It is for you to do your research and find out the truth. That is if you are truly interested in the truth.

And why would you not read a Catholic historian when up till now, all you have ever swallowed are the lies that you have been fed by protestants?
 
mmmcounts;4742228:
*I don’t believe I’ve called anyone rude or obnoxious to this point. I ask questions. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. This time, it looks like you didn’t want to answer, but you decided to call me names instead. If you’re going to do this, please do it in a PM and don’t clutter up the thread with irrelevant frustration *
I noticed you totally avoid responding to any of my posts. Why is that?
Let me hazard a guess. Fear and ignorance.

I posted questions to him as well and he failed to respond.
 
Probably the same reason that mmmcounts hasn’t answered mine. There is no answer that justifies mmmcounts’ un-historical and un-Christian soteriology.
Okay, so there’s a queue forming. Someone better bring out some drinks and snacks. We might be here a while.🙂
 
What you say I feel is the truth,but without the words taken down so they could studyand teach,everything would be alot worst.When was the first canon done what year and do we have proof somewhere? I was told
Who told you you? A Protestant? How do you know he is neutral?
that the Romans killed the prophets
Which Romans? Which Prophets?
and I dont get anysite on the net that is nutral or not Catholic
So if a site is Protestant, it is neutral? As a matter of fact, protestant sites are probably the most biased.

Ever heard of Loraine Boetner? Probably all the lies that you’ve heard can be traced back to him in one way or another. You probably cannot find a more biased and uneducated account of Catholic Church history**.**
,and the scripture I gave you was on salvation 1 Tim:2:15.
So what do you mean by quoting this?

You think being a mother is what will save you? Does that mean then that childless women are not saved? Also, does that mean that all women who have children are saved regardless of whether they believed in Jesus or not? Regardless of whether they are evil mothers or not?
 
** Catholicism really sells itself, if one just removes ones biases and reads the bible in a logical straightforward manner. **👍
This is very similar to another convert’s (Leif Erickson’s) comment. He said that after becoming Catholic, he did not have to work too hard at apologetics becuase the Faith is so biblicial and so logical and rational.

Judging by the irrational argument’s I have seen on a lot of threads, you are all correct:D .
 
Hi Nancy,

In my post 992 in another thread, I gave you several links for reading. One of them is a timeline of how the Bible came to us.

If you are asking this question here again, obviously you have not gone to that link to read.

So I am posting it here again. I gave that link to NonCatholic and he did not even bother reading it at all and instead kept asking the same question over and over again.

Please don’t be like him.

If you are sincere in your question, then you will read the answer.

So here is the link.
Timeline of how the Bible came to us

And by the way, it is not a historian’s job to get in touch with you. That is a very arrogant position.

It is for you to do your research and find out the truth. That is if you are truly interested in the truth.

And why would you not read a Catholic historian when up till now, all you have ever swallowed are the lies that you have been fed by protestants?
🤷 I went to your site Thank You.The reason I dont like to go to the sites of any organization is they claim to add or subtract and it’s good to try the spirit to see if there realy is truth as they claim,we all have that right. Also I learned alot by praying and asking God,what I did learn of the Baptist or non denominations were not lies it was in the scriptures and I did the best I could Maybe I shouldn’t ask questions on the forum?Maybe a Jewish forum could answer without Pregidest,remarks. I beleive I mentioned that on my last post?
 
I believe he is saying that we must believe in Jesus to be saved.
When we believe in Jesus, that means we will want to know him and live according to his examples and parables and Scriptures.
When we follow Jesus, we will come to see the truth. All that believe will know that Jesus saves sinners who believe in him, ask for forgiveness and mercy, and strive to follow the commandments and his scriptures. Jesus reminds us that we all are sinners, but only through him and his mercy, can we be saved.
 
The Bible is the inspired word of God and the Catholic were not there in Genisis or on Pentecost.The beleivers were there the decipals of Christ The church of Christ. If you deny the Word of God then you deny the Son of God for he is the Word.Where do you think the Catholic got their Bible from? The Scriptures they took from the church of Gods beleivers.
Nancy-

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

What you do not realize is that as early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the Catholic Church. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

As a side note, it is interesting that the believers in Antioch coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.

As for where we got the Bible, there is no question that it was inspired by God. However, it was written by men, and these men were thoroughly Catholic. As one famous person wrote, “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Commentary on St. John, ch. 16)

Who was that famous person? Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Reformation.
 
Randy,

I do not understand how you can say the Jesus wants us to follow the Bishop instead of him. No where in scripture does he say that. Jesus wants us to follow him. However, he does warn in many places to keep away from false idols.
 
Randy,

I do not understand how you can say the Jesus wants us to follow the Bishop instead of him. No where in scripture does he say that. Jesus wants us to follow him. However, he does warn in many places to keep away from false idols.
Truthseeker-

Thanks for your question…you are seeking truth, and I appreciate that.

There is no dichotomy between following Jesus and following the Bishops of the Church. Several passages of scripture suggest this. For example:

Luke 10:16
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

Jesus tells the disciples that whoever listens them them listens to Him. Pretty clear language, I think.

1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Here John suggests that one way of discerning who the real Christians are is by determining who listens to himself and the other Apostles. Pretty sobering, eh?

But perhaps the most important passage is this one:

John 21:15-19
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top