Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

… And since Christ Himself instructed the Faithful to “Tell it To The Church” it seems clear enough that there should be, “some authority to determine the correct interpretation of these ambiguous texts should be.”

Peace
James

Yes, it seems so. But speaking of Christ and ambiguity, do you think that when Christ spoke to Peter He knew His words would be ambiguous and taken the wrong way by people who were sincerely trying to understand Him, yet sincerely getting the wrong idea?
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

(I know we’ve spent a lot of time discussing the meaning of this passage, and i don’t think we need to rehash all that. But the answer to this question of ambiguity remains unclear to me.)

 

[michaelsmth626]

Excepting the sarcastic tone, Michael makes a good point. The OT does shed a lot of light on the NT. If the OT was wiped away, why include it in the Bible? The OT provides the “type” (read template or pattern) for many things in the NT. Jesus was well aware of this, and so were the Apostles. There was even a “type” for the keys to the Kindom of Heaven, it was the key of the house of David (“When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open” IS22:22).

Couldn’t help one question to the peanut gallery:
Michael, are you saying Jesus became flesh to fix God’s mistakes from the OT?

Okay, I’ll resume resisting those impulses now.

I would think that any born again Christian would know that their was there was no perfect sacrifice for mankind during the OT times. This was recorded and played out before all the nations, God testimony that He is LORD and HE will provide HIMSELF a sacrifice for the nations. Pointing to the coming of the One that would take the throne of David forever. He holds the keys and those who abide in Him to also posses them. Just as any parent, Jesus does not let a 5 year old take the Corvette out on a Saturday night cruse . If you cant learn to take the trash out when your told you will never obtain higher responsibilities.

All the way back to Abraham’s offering of Isaac.
Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”
8 And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together. (Gen. 22:7-8)

Prophetic words indeed.

 

[JRKH]

Perhaps, but i’m not yet convinced. When Jesus said this"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."

(Matthew 16:19)

you made a convincing argument that Christ was speaking to Peter alone and ***not ***to the other Apostles. Reason was on your side, for the context of the passage made it clear that what you said is true.

Now you appear to be contradicting yourself. You seem to be saying that these words of our Lord apply not only to Peter but to all Apostolic Successors, as well! So please tell me. Which interpretation of Matthew 16:19 am i to believe–your former or you later?

Why is it not possible to believe Both?
If Jesus Gives Peter the Keys and Authority to “Bind and Loose”, and Peter “Binds” that the Bishops of the Church (The Apostolic Successors) have the same authority to Bind and loose, then it follows that they do.
Since it can be shown that The Church (Led by Peter) chose someone to replace Judas by selecting Matthias, it is shown that The Apostles had successors. Since the Apostles ordainded successors by the laying on of hands and the invoking of the Holy Spirit, it follows that these successors, trained at the feet of the Apostles and guided by that same Holy Spirit, would continue that “Apostolic” authority which was rightly “bound to them” by their ordination.

Peace
James

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Binding and losing is not an open ended promise. …

Then what is binding and loosing, Michael? The meaning of the figure of speech still eludes me.

 

[JRKH]

At first thought, what you say rings true, for Paul writes to Timothy:For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

(1 Timothy 2:5-6)

But when i further consider a mediator, i wonder if a Pope really is considered one by the Catholic Church. For i think of a mediator as one who helps to settle a dispute between two sides who are at odds with one another. The mediator’s purpose is to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution where both sides benefit from the result, and a labor dispute is a typical example demonstrating the purpose of a mediator. A labor union might call for its members to go on strike when they perceive the management for the business is acting unjustly. A mediator, who represents the interests of both management and labor, will attempt to find a way to settle the dispute.

Paul’s words seem to indicate that this kind of mediation is what he had in mind when he says Christ is the only mediator between God and man. For he writes that “Christ Jesus … gave himself as a ransom for all men”. The kind of mediation of which Paul appears to be speaking is not daily communicating God’s will, but settling the enmity between God and man once for all by His passion on the cross. Now, once a dispute is settled, the two that were adversaries are no longer so, so there is no need for a mediator. Since management and labor are no longer waring against one another, they can communicate directly with one another.

If this assumption is correct, then one could not correctly call the Pope a mediator. For Christ already mediated a resolution to the conflict. Thus, labor, headed by the labor union president (in other words the Pope) is no longer in need of mediation with management, headed by the CEO (in other words, God the Father). Rather than a mediator, the Pope (if i’m understanding the Catholic view correctly) is thought to be a representative and communicator. He represents the people of the church, by bring their requests to God. He also communicates God’s will to the people. So it seems there is no mediation, only representation and communication. But am i mistaken in saying the Catholic Church does not believe the Pope to be a mediator between God and man?

Museums — Glasgow Life

I LIKE this
Very Well said and illuminating.

Amazing how we can all learn from each other.

Peace
James

 

[michaelsmth626]

Rather than a mediator, the Pope (if i’m understanding the Catholic view correctly) is thought to be a representative and communicator. He represents the people of the church, by bring their requests to God. He also communicates God’s will to the people. So it seems there is no mediation, only representation and communication. But am i mistaken in saying the Catholic Church does not believe the Pope to be a mediator between God and man?

Museums — Glasgow Life

This representation priest / teacher is carried by all mature Spirit filled believers. Acting as the sole entity on earth takes us back to the OT before Jesus fulfilled the prophesy’s and took the Throne of David forever. The High Priest is in office today teaching mediating if you want to call it that I don’t. Mediating is someone on the phone whom you speak to that relays the message to the other party in this definition, and the same is done by the outer party threw the mediator to you. The High Priest today has many priest that teach His his word threw the HS.

If God was not changing mode of operations to a personal relationship “less the mediator” then the old covenant would have continued. Without the HS the old covenant would have no choice but to continue, there would be no other way for the people of Christ to know Him or His salvation.

But God did not describe that He described men being filled with the HS.

Jeremiah 31-31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the LORD. 33 **But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
35 Thus says the LORD, **

He is describing the restored Spirit relationship. Not another Levitical line that rises from Mat 16:18.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, it seems so. But speaking of Christ and ambiguity, do you think that when Christ spoke to Peter He knew His words would be ambiguous and taken the wrong way by people who were sincerely trying to understand Him, yet sincerely getting the wrong idea?
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

(I know we’ve spent a lot of time discussing the meaning of this passage, and i don’t think we need to rehash all that. But the answer to this question of ambiguity remains unclear to me.)

Christ, being God, knows ALL. He even knows enough to know that:

1. There is not language of Humans which is capable of fully conveying the majesty of God and His Love.
2. ANY statement made by ANYONE can be misunderstood or misused by another.

For Each and Both of these reasons Jesus chose not to physically, himself, before teh crucifiction, write a book which He certainly could have done. INstead He founded a Church upon a group of specially trained men who were with Him when He spoke these “ambiguous words”. The Father then sent the Holy Spirit into The Church to “guide them into All Truth…”
These men, thaught by the Master and protected by the Holy Spirit, passed on their understandings of the master,s meanings to their successors AND layed hands upon these successors invoking the Holy Spirit to Guide them.
Again we see the central and divine wisdom of Christ in establishing the Church with Authority. To clear up ambiguities.

Peace
James

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I LIKE this
Very Well said and illuminating.

Amazing how we can all learn from each other.

Peace
James

Why else would God give us two ears and one mouth, but so that we’d be reminded to listen twice as much as we talk? (BTW, i’m learning a lot from you and others, too!)



But i don’t think i can take credit for the idea. I’m pretty sure it was something that someone here at the forum told me many months ago.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Then what is binding and loosing, Michael? The meaning of the figure of speech still eludes me.

I have told you several times but as you say it eludes you.
Did you see my post about Jesus is the vine and we are the branches, apart from Him we can do nothing. The power to bind and loose is being played out before your very eyes. It is being in Christ, Speaking in the power and knowledge of Jesus threw the HS. Setting the captives free, those that dont know the truth, Binding the words and teachings of those not born of the Spirit, with the Sword of the Spirit the word of God, that they might hear and believe just as Cornelius and his house hold did and receive the HS. After you are Born of the Spirit you see how foolish it is to claim you belong to a visible church. I have been to many and found brothers in the Spirit in many. But mostly what I see are those that think they are born of the spirit. Truly the gate is narrow and few find it.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Why is it not possible to believe Both?
If Jesus Gives Peter the Keys and Authority to “Bind and Loose”, and Peter “Binds” that the Bishops of the Church (The Apostolic Successors) have the same authority to Bind and loose, then it follows that they do.
Since it can be shown that The Church (Led by Peter) chose someone to replace Judas by selecting Matthias, it is shown that The Apostles had successors. Since the Apostles ordainded successors by the laying on of hands and the invoking of the Holy Spirit, it follows that these successors, trained at the feet of the Apostles and guided by that same Holy Spirit, would continue that “Apostolic” authority which was rightly “bound to them” by their ordination.

Peace
James

Why? Well, i could be wrong about this, but can the opposite of the truth also be true? Please let me know if you are not sure what i’m getting at.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I have told you several times but as you say it eludes you. …

LOL! You sound like my wife. (My absentmindedness frustrates her, too!)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Did you see my post about Jesus is the vine and we are the branches, apart from Him we can do nothing. The power to bind and loose is being played out before your very eyes. It is being in Christ, Speaking in the power and knowledge of Jesus threw the HS. Setting the captives free, those that dont know the truth, Binding the words and teachings of those not born of the Spirit, with the Sword of the Spirit the word of God, that they might hear and believe just as Cornelius and his house hold did and receive the HS. After you are Born of the Spirit you see how foolish it is to claim you belong to a visible church. I have been to many and found brothers in the Spirit in many. But mostly what I see are those that think they are born of the spirit. Truly the gate is narrow and few find it.

Fascinating! So would you say that when Jesus said this to Peter
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."

(Matthew 16:19)

He was saying that
the keys to heaven = binding and loosing

or is this not what Christ meant?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This representation priest / teacher is carried by all mature Spirit filled believers. Acting as the sole entity on earth takes us back to the OT before Jesus fulfilled the prophesy’s and took the Throne of David forever. The High Priest is in office today teaching mediating if you want to call it that I don’t. Mediating is someone on the phone whom you speak to that relays the message to the other party in this definition, and the same is done by the outer party threw the mediator to you. The High Priest today has many priest that teach His his word threw the HS.

If God was not changing mode of operations to a personal relationship “less the mediator” then the old covenant would have continued. Without the HS the old covenant would have no choice but to continue, there would be no other way for the people of Christ to know Him or His salvation.

But God did not describe that He described men being filled with the HS.

Jeremiah 31-31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the LORD. 33 **But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
35 Thus says the LORD, **

He is describing the restored Spirit relationship. Not another Levitical line that rises from Mat 16:18.

Not sure i follow you. Are you saying you agree that Christ finished His mediation, or are you saying His mediation continues to this day?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Christ, being God, knows ALL. He even knows enough to know that:

1. There is not language of Humans which is capable of fully conveying the majesty of God and His Love.
2. ANY statement made by ANYONE can be misunderstood or misused by another.

For Each and Both of these reasons Jesus chose not to physically, himself, before teh crucifiction, write a book which He certainly could have done. INstead He founded a Church upon a group of specially trained men who were with Him when He spoke these “ambiguous words”. The Father then sent the Holy Spirit into The Church to “guide them into All Truth…”
These men, thaught by the Master and protected by the Holy Spirit, passed on their understandings of the master,s meanings to their successors AND layed hands upon these successors invoking the Holy Spirit to Guide them.
Again we see the central and divine wisdom of Christ in establishing the Church with Authority. To clear up ambiguities.

Peace
James

Yes, but couldn’t Christ have been more clear about this whole thing we are discussing? First, it was unclear whether or not He was calling Peter the rock. A careful choice of words, as i said, would have cleared that up, at least for people like me. Now He appears to be unclear about this whole binding and loosing thing. While He might not be ambiguous, in this case, He is certainly lacking clarity. It’s as though He wanted us to not get it; as though He wanted us to struggle with His words, and ask what they meant, and seek the truth. Don’t you think?

I mean, i don’t consider myself an unreasonable guy. (Difficult? Yes! Unreasonable? No.) Look how hard it is for me to get it and to decide, just from considering only Christ’s words, exactly what He meant.

 

[JRKH]

Why? Well, i could be wrong about this, but can the opposite of the truth also be true? Please let me know if you are not sure what i’m getting at.

Please Explain.

Peace
James

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Please Explain.

Peace
James

Well, the argument that i found so convincing was that Christ was speaking to Peter alone in Matthew 16:19. Since He was speaking only to Peter, the reasoning went, Peter alone had the authority to bind and loose.

Now Pax points out that in Matthew 18 Jesus says the rest of the Apostles were also given the power to bind and loose. So how can it be that

a. Only Peter has the authority to bind and loose

and

b. All of the Apostles have the authority to bind and loose

are both true? Since (b) is the opposite of (a) both cannot be true, reason tells me.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, but couldn’t Christ have been more clear about this whole thing we are discussing? First, it was unclear whether or not He was calling Peter the rock. A careful choice of words, as i said, would have cleared that up, at least for people like me. Now He appears to be unclear about this whole binding and loosing thing. While He might not be ambiguous, in this case, He is certainly lacking clarity. It’s as though He wanted us to not get it; as though He wanted us to struggle with His words, and ask what they meant, and seek the truth. Don’t you think?

Perhaps Christ DID carefully use and craft his words here. Perhaps it is not a problem with ambiguous words but with ambiguous understanding. heh?

I mean, i don’t consider myself an unreasonable guy. (Difficult? Yes! Unreasonable? No.) Look how hard it is for me to get it and to decide, just from considering only Christ’s words, exactly what He meant.

But you see here you are falling into the SS Trap.
First thing to consider:
Did Christ write a book or found a church?
Second thing to consider:
How long was the Gospel preached before any of the Biblical texts were recorded? How long before the last was recorded?
Third thing to consider:
How many Texts were recorded during apostolic times that were not included in the canon of the Bible?
Fourth thing to consider:
How long was the Gospel preached before the Canon of the Bible was officially determined.

The answers to the above, should demonstrate that Christ founded a chuch based upon Oral teachings which were passed on orally and then some were written down. These were preserved and the most realiable were gathered into the volume we call the Holy Bible. ALL of this was done By The Church.
And since it was the Church who determined which books went into the Bible, it seems odd that one would think that they would include things that contradict church teaching.

Now, since the Reformation, The Bible, a part of Catholic Tradition, has been used against her by people who deny everything catholic - EXCEPT The Bible.

So -

My dear Sorates, this is my long winded way of saying tha tyou are falling into the trap of trying to understand the Church from the Bible instead of the Bible from the Church.
REmember your “Chicken and egg” question earlier? Well which came first, the “Bible” (as we know it today with the OT and NT), or The Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Well, the argument that i found so convincing was that Christ was speaking to Peter alone in Matthew 16:19. Since He was speaking only to Peter, the reasoning went, Peter alone had the authority to bind and loose.

Now Pax points out that in Matthew 18 Jesus says the rest of the Apostles were also given the power to bind and loose. So how can it be that

a. Only Peter has the authority to bind and loose

and

b. All of the Apostles have the authority to bind and loose

are both true? Since (b) is the opposite of (a) both cannot be true, reason tells me.

I guess you will have to explain to me why you think these two things are opposites.

Peace
James

 

[pneuma07]

I have told you several times but as you say it eludes you.
Did you see my post about Jesus is the vine and we are the branches, apart from Him we can do nothing. The power to bind and loose is being played out before your very eyes. It is being in Christ, Speaking in the power and knowledge of Jesus threw the HS. Setting the captives free, those that dont know the truth, Binding the words and teachings of those not born of the Spirit, with the Sword of the Spirit the word of God, that they might hear and believe just as Cornelius and his house hold did and receive the HS. After you are Born of the Spirit you see how foolish it is to claim you belong to a visible church. I have been to many and found brothers in the Spirit in many. But mostly what I see are those that think they are born of the spirit. Truly the gate is narrow and few find it.

Hi Michael.

I must confess that something in your exposition eludes me too.

Am I to understand that the power to bind and loose belongs to every member of the invisible Church, ie those who speak *in the power and knowledge of Jesus * ?
You also say that,being born of the Spirit, you see how foolish is to belong to a visible church.​

The power we are speaking about is given in Matthew 18.

16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established(A) by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them,(B) tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church,(C) let him be to you as(D) a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you,(E) whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven.

You may note the you Jesus is using here is clearly plural in greek. HE’s is not saying

if one of you, any of you binds…

he is speaking collectively here. Differently from 16.19, where the singular is used in addressing Simon Peter.
Therefore we cannot safely state any one hearer is given such power acting by himself . Hearers where the disciples, likely the Apostles, BTW.

I wonder then how I can know that Jesus is speaking even to any single member of the invisible church.

---

The Lord just told them to tell it to the church. That means I can find an invisible church or assembly, speak to it, listen to its voice, assuming it has one.

You have been to many visible churches and
found brothers in the Spirit in many. But mostly what I see are those that think they are born of the spirit.

In other words you can see those who belong …to the invisible church, and those who do not.
Whereas many others think they belong to it, but they do not.

Whence can I know whether I can see who belongs to the invisible church,
or whether on the contrary I myself am deceived into believing I am a member ?

Bless you.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Fascinating! So would you say that when Jesus said this to Peter
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."

(Matthew 16:19)

He was saying that
the keys to heaven = binding and loosing

or is this not what Christ meant?

It is exactly what it means to bind and loose, but it comes with conditions and it was said to Peter first. It is for any mature christian that is a part of the vine. The vine and the branches define that this is not an open ended license to do as you please, it also available to all born of the Spirit. In this verse below Jesus says ask what ever you wish does that mean I get a Maserati? It does if you take it out of context like presuming Peter has a license to kill.

John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

**The underlined [If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.] would include the keys and everything else that Jesus possess. But it comes with a condition, it is not your own it is the Lord working His will and good pleasure threw you. **
To bind and loosen is to be with Christ born and trained up threw the HS. Like I said a good Father teaches, and disciplines, you are raised in to maturity, it is not something that is immediately bestowed on a man.

If you cant figure out the difference between a mediator and direct communication threw the HS you are over thinking a simple statement. Did you not read and understand the catholic official statements to the world that they are the only conduit to God.

In this Church of Christ the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of his sheep and his lambs, has been granted by God supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the care of souls. He is endowed with the primacy of power over all the churches (Vatican Council II, Volume 1, The Conciliar and the Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P.).

There are others that are worded more directly in the presumption that the CC occupies the apex of the hour glass as mediator to Jesus on earth. That is the function of the HS. If you can’t see that mat 16:18 is establishing the old Covenant and a mediator then IMHO you will never see the fist grade. You may well receive the HS but you will never grow an inch until you come to terms with the true gospel. I am of the opinion that people dont receive the HS until they sort out the garbage and find the true meaning enlightened by the HS’s gentle prodding form those who speak it, for a person yet to receive its a still small voice barely heard in the sea of tossing waves. Only Jesus commands the wave to be silent.