Peters Keys to the Kingdom

[Sellers1]

See post #43.

What does Wisconsin Lutherans have to do with what is being discussed?

Everything. You seem to think that it matters who Catholics declare as having valid Sacrements and I merely said that WELS Lutherans do not believe that your Sacrements are valid.

 

[Sellers1]

And yet you have nothing to offer to refute it.

The snyde comments like this one, and the one to Ufamtobie really diminish your credibility in discussing the issue in a calm and deliberate manner.

Everyone has tried to remain calm and respectful up to this point, let’s all do our best to keep it that way, shall we. This includes me by the way.

Peace

Nothing to offer in refutation?? Why don’t you try proving the validity of the popes by Scripture for starters. There’s some solid refutation right there my friend because you cannot do it. You haven’t been able to do it in 500 years. This is one big reason (amongst many) why the Reformation was so successful and big.

 

[Sellers1]

Hi Seller1,

Yes the scriptures are indeed very clear, The church is founded on Christ however he has passed this authority on to St Peter here on earth. This is why he said to him whatever you bound on eartn shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Why would Christ change his name and his status (by calling him the rock)? This seems to be a significant act if our lord was not bestowing some sort of role on Peter right?

Why did it take 1500 years until this was seriously (and incorrectly i might add) challenged? The Papacy is strongly supported both in scripture and in tradition.

Bind and loose are legal terms. They have nothing to do with exclusivity or the Catholic church for that matter. And by the way, why don’t you explain for me and everyone else here how it is the papacy is supported by Scripture. Tradition is something that has been severely manipulated by Catholics for centuries so I’m not really interested how you tie it together through your so called tradition.

 

[pete_29]

Nothing to offer in refutation?? Why don’t you try proving the validity of the popes by Scripture for starters. There’s some solid refutation right there my friend because you cannot do it. You haven’t been able to do it in 500 years. This is one big reason (amongst many) why the Reformation was so successful and big.

As I said on another thread, Your church began when some MAN disagreed with the Catholic Church.

 

[Sellers1]

As I said on another thread, Your church began when some MAN disagreed with the Catholic Church.

And what church is that??

 

[pete_29]

And what church is that??

Pretty much any protestant denomination.

 

[adstrinity]

Every Protestant denomination.

Fixed.

 

[Sellers1]

Pretty much any protestant denomination. QUOTE]

You are a very rude person my friend and not funny in the least. You expect us to respect you when you pop off with something like this? I won’t respect you a bit until you can do alot better than this.

 

[pete_29]

pete 29;5424943:

Pretty much any protestant denomination. QUOTE]

You are a very rude person my friend and not funny in the least. You expect us to respect you when you pop off with something like this? I won’t respect you a bit until you can do alot better than this.

I’;m only rude in your mind because I dare to disagree with you. Please tell me, what part of my statement wasn’t true.

 

[Louie1983]

Bind and loose are legal terms. They have nothing to do with exclusivity or the Catholic church for that matter. And by the way, why don’t you explain for me and everyone else here how it is the papacy is supported by Scripture. Tradition is something that has been severely manipulated by Catholics for centuries so I’m not really interested how you tie it together through your so called tradition.

It will be my absolute pleasure, although i already provided examples of this on page 1 of this topic i will be happy to provide them again to ease your confusion.

You won’t accept tradition? Because it is lethal towards your argument, you have no way to refute it is why you won’t accept it. Fair enough i can stick to scripture but this unfortunately means for you that you will have no where to hide after i show where in the bible it supports the papacy.

Here are a couple of examples:

• 2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.
• Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
• Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.
• Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
• Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.
• Luke 12:41-42 - when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master’s household of God. “Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household…?”

I await your response.

 

[j2c99]

I just wanted to say this thread has been amazing, and even though many have posted and not been recognized, I commend all of you in defending the faith and providing an avenue of inspiration for people all over the forums who browse this thread, guest or registered.

Thanks!

 

[pete_29]

I realize that I shouldn’t have put in the smilies. That was over the top and I apologize, but to me its a valid statement. If the Catholic Church isn’t the true Church, then who is? The First Baptist Church? The Second? The Third? The Lutherans? The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? The Pentecostals? The Episcopalians? I’m sure they all think they are right and they are all filled with good, holy people, but from what I’ve read in the Bible, it seems clear that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded, and from what I’ve read of history, the Protestant Churches were all founded by men who disagreed with the Catholic Church. I don’t write these things to take anything away from my Protestant bretheren. Go to your Churches and worship God with your heart mind and soul. Jesus is wherever two or three are gathered in His name, but I believe that we in the Catholic Church have a physical relationship with Jesus in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to me it’s a shame that you can’t experience that, but of course that is for you to decide for yourself and not a fool like me. Let us all keep each other in our prayers, and worship God as best we can.

 

[Sellers1]

Sellers1;5424950:

I’;m only rude in your mind because I dare to disagree with you. Please tell me, what part of my statement wasn’t true.

By your uncharitable and disrespectful statement of “pretty much any Protestant denomination”, you clearly show that you aren’t the least bit interested in which church I belong to and it also seems prevalent that you believe that all Protestants are the same. You can’t really be this naive can you?

 

[ParkerD]

Come on my friend, you are not serious are you? I mean you are parsing the words in Mathew and you are not using the original Greek. You have to be kidding right? Here is one for you, let us say that when Christ said " You are Peter and on this…" at the same moment Christ placed his hands on Peter to indicate " this " referred to Peter. I do not know? Where you there? I was not.

I not sure why it is so difficult to understand that you cannot definitively interpret written language-this is why you need an authority to do so. Who is that authority? Was one established? Well let us see, we can at least say at the minimum (to even have a discussion) that Christ appeared on earth, suffered, died, rose again and left the earth. We seem to know this from 12 apostles that He selected. Well, if Christ made an authority that He is speaking through, it would seem to be the decendants of those apostles. If not, I suppose we can interpret all day and never have an answer. But can we at least agree that the original Greek should be read.

Worthy5,
I do absolutely agree with your last sentence, that the original Greek should be read. I understand why your church would put a lot of confidence in that particular verse and their interpretation of it. But “this rock” does not necessarily mean “Peter”. The word “it” clearly refers grammatically to the antecedent “this rock”, because of the word “this” that has pointed out the most important emphasis in the sentence.

But I do wish I read Greek. Do you?

 

[Sellers1]

It will be my absolute pleasure, although i already provided examples of this on page 1 of this topic i will be happy to provide them again to ease your confusion.

You won’t accept tradition? Because it is lethal towards your argument, you have no way to refute it is why you won’t accept it. Fair enough i can stick to scripture but this unfortunately means for you that you will have no where to hide after i show where in the bible it supports the papacy.

Here are a couple of examples:

• 2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.
• Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
• Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.
• Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
• Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.
• Luke 12:41-42 - when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master’s household of God. “Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household…?”

I await your response.

I appreciate what you did here, but still the question begs: how does any of this establish the so called succession of popes from St. Peter? Scripture doesn’t piece any of this puzzle together in how Catholics define it. In fact during the time Peter was to be martyred in Rome, St. Paul was preaching to the Romans (around 35 or 40AD) and never once mentioned it in any of his letters to the Romans. I find this very strange given the supposed great position given St. Peter.

 

[cascherman]

Worthy5,
I do absolutely agree with your last sentence, that the original Greek should be read. I understand why your church would put a lot of confidence in that particular verse and their interpretation of it. But “this rock” does not necessarily mean “Peter”. The word “it” clearly refers grammatically to the antecedent “this rock”, because of the word “this” that has pointed out the most important emphasis in the sentence.

But I do wish I read Greek. Do you?

I’ll jump in real quick…

Has anyone shown you how the peers of Matthew interpreted what he wrote concerning “what” the rock is? Unfortunately, it will not go in your favor on this one. The early christians are almost unanimous on this.

Not to mention, even modern protestant biblical scholars are shying away from the interpretation that the rock was not Peter because they view it as not necessarily adhereing to truth wherever it leads, but simply being reactionary against anything Catholic. Which they very wisely see is a fallacious way to discern truth.

 

[pete_29]

pete 29;5424959:

By your uncharitable and disrespectful statement of “pretty much any Protestant denomination”, you clearly show that you aren’t the least bit interested in which church I belong to and it also seems prevalent that you believe that all Protestants are the same. You can’t really be this naive can you?

Ah, but I don’t see it as uncharitable and disrespectful. I simply stated, what as far as I know, is a fact. Which Protestant denomination was not started by a man?

 

[cascherman]

I appreciate what you did here, but still the question begs: how does any of this establish the so called succession of popes from St. Peter? Scripture doesn’t piece any of this puzzle together in how Catholics define it. In fact during the time Peter was to be martyred in Rome, St. Paul was preaching to the Romans (around 35 or 40AD) and never once mentioned it in any of his letters to the Romans. I find this very strange given the supposed great position given St. Peter.

To base an argument on someone not saying what you think they should have said in a particular case is not putting forth a reasonable argument.

The word pope was not used by the early christians, Peter was though considered the leader of the early christian church and there is more than enough evidence that places him as bishop of Rome.

Apostolic succession has plenty of biblical support as well. Timothy is a great example.

 

[Sellers1]

Sellers1;5425188:

Ah, but I don’t see it as uncharitable and disrespectful. I simply stated, what as far as I know, is a fact. Which Protestant denomination was not started by a man?

I say that your church was started by a man and continues to be running itself off the bluff by men. I would say that is a fact and you would call me rude and uncharitable so what’s the difference?

 

[pete_29]

pete 29;5425224:

I say that your church was started by a man and continues to be running itself off the bluff by men. I would say that is a fact and you would call me rude and uncharitable so what’s the difference?

I wouldn’t call you rude. I would say that you are stating your opinion.