Protestant interpretations...

[Randy_Carson]

I do not attend church. I have no affiliation.

A follow up, if I may…

Hebrews 10:25
Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

How is your lack of church attendance scriptural?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have already addressed all these versus in previous posts in this thread I believe. The keys are authority from heaven given to all the apostles, they are in relation to the power and authority to loose and bind, permit or forbid, based on accepting or rejecting the gospel message.

Let’s begin here, JB.

I agree with your description of the authority represented by the keys - though I’m not sure exactly what you meant when you wrote “based on accepting or rejecting the gospel message”. That aside, I agree that the key-holder has the authority to loose and bind, to permit or to forbid. I applaud you for this…many non-Catholics would be hesitant to extend such authority to the holder of those keys.

Now, I do have a concern…a question, I suppose. Would you please provide the full verse in which Jesus gives those keys to all the Apostles? I would like to read it in context.

Thanks.

 

[Ginger2]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
Ginger, If this is correct and you do not attend a Church how do you receive the sacrament of Communion?

You remember that one don’t you? Let me show it to you

Jn 6:51 54 56 Jesus said I am the living bread that came down for heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live for ever he who eats my flesh an drinks my blood has eternal life and abides in me, and I in him!

Tell me Ginger, I can’t wait to hear you try to explain that one away?

You know, rinnie. You are right.

I have not attended a church in over a year due to my great disappointment in Christians. We are called to an often difficult life filled with persecution from unbelievers, sacrifice, giving up things we want to seek something we won’t see until after death. It disappoints me greatly to see people stamp “Christian” across the forehead, and then live as does the world. To use Scripture to justify their action as well as inaction.

Being a Christian is supposed to be a way of life, and many who claim the title wear it in name, only.

But you are absolutely correct. With drawing is not living according to God’s will either.

I have been like Elijah, and I don’t even have anyone trying to kill me.

I guess God sent me an angel to wake me and feed me, too. And then to send me back out.

Thank you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The next few versus the apostles begin to argue over who will be the greates; they obviously didn’t believe it was Peter and Jesus could have said “hey boys, we just talked about that a few days ago and you know I have assigned this to Peter”.

Look more closely. Jesus never states that there will be NO leader of the Church.

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Note that Jesus did not tell the Apostles that no one would be the head of the Church. He said, “If anyone wants to be first…”. That is not the same as saying “No one will be first”, is it? Instead, He teaches them what the characteristics of the leader must be. According to Jesus, the one who wants to be first must be the servant of all. That is the understanding that we should have concerning the head of the Church. Later, in John 20, for example, we will see Jesus commissioning Peter as the shepherd of the flock. Isn’t Jesus the Good Shepherd? Isn’t there one shepherd and one flock? Of course, but Jesus is able to leave His earthly flock in the capable hands of Peter who is given the responsibility for caring for the flock in Christ’s absence. And that, my friend, is exactly what the Royal Steward of the household was supposed to do in the Davidic kingdom.

By the way, Paul echoes this in the following words:

1 Timothy 3:1
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:1-3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29717a)] he desires a noble task.

[a](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:1-3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29717a)] Traditionally bishop; also in verse 2

So, the scriptures do not teach that there will be no overseers or bishops nor does the scripture suggest that no one would be the leader of the Apostolic band.

Naturally, if you think otherwise, I am interested to read the verses that support your position.

 

[LionHeart777]

Just do a thorough study of your saints you pray to; they can’t wipe them away without admitting error; yet a detailed study shows a good portion are based on myth or legend. Rather than admitting they made a mistake in calling a saint that does not exist and remove it; they continue to publish the names and the myths and the legends. If you were to study greek and roman mythology you would find quite a few saints that really reseemble Roman saints. The question is why? Do you know when must of the praying to the saints originates? Anyway I want to avoid Catholic bashing it makes no sense and helps no one and is not Christlike. I believe it is worth pointing out that it.

Greetings JB,

please, if you could, do you have some sources to back up your claims here. Maybe you could p.m. so I don’t end up derailing things.

Also, no offense, but it floors me that you don’t see any One visible Church, Roman Primacy, or Priests w/ the authority to forgive/retain bind/loose in the ECF’s

Have you ever read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles? (which I believe are full of exhortations to holding to the unity of the Church and obeying the Bishop/Presbyters/Deacons, and harsh warning for schismatics.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

You know, rinnie. You are right.

Praise the Lord! What a blessing to have heard the voice of the Holy Spirit, Ginger!

I understand your frustration with the behavior of others, but Jesus told us to expect this. Here’s an article I wrote in response to those who attack the Catholic Church because of scandals in the clergy. Look beyond that to the underlying principle…I think it will be comforting to you.

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

Of course, sin and corruption in Church leadership should never be condoned but neither should they surprise us. The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sin would be present in the Church, but He also taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If there were numerous passages, we would not be debating this; so that is untrue. No efc’s understood the papal authority, which is Peterine Primacy as Catholics see it. The efc’s recognized Christ as the head and Scripture as the authority. All you have to do is look the the evolution of the papacy.

Evolution…development…how is this a problem?

Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.” (Mt 13:31-32)

Since heaven does not “grow”, we know that Jesus was referring the Church on earth as the “kingdom of heaven”, and since the king, Jesus, is in heaven, it is understandable why He left His steward in charge of His earthly kingdom. But I digress.

The Church is expected to grow and develop over time. Thus, when the offices of the papacy or the priesthood began humbly and grew to full maturation, there is no problem. This is organic and healthy.

However, the ECF’s clearly understood the primacy of Peter as a few quotes will prove.

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

---

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen (248 A.D.)

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

I have lots more. Let me know if you need them.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Infant baptism was disputed by the ecf’s, no unity at that time just as there is at this time.

Disputed? I look forward to your quotations from the ECF’s which state that no infants should be baptized. Shall I expect your post soon?

Early Church Fathers on Infant Baptism

---

Polycarp (69-155 AD)

“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (*Martyrdom of Polycarp *9: 3)

(Do the math…Polycarps is claiming to have served the Lord from infancy…not from the age when he "accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.)

Irenaeus (c.120-c.200 AD)

“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4).

How are infants “born again”? By faith? Nope…by baptism.

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

**Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) **

“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

"And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them." (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Carthage (254 AD)

"We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born."

Cyprian

**“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” **(To Fidus 1: 2).

“In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Priesthood was never taught by the ecf’s; and is not in Scripture as you claim. Was there any room for doubt about the sacraficial priesthood in the OT? No room for any doubt. But the resemblance of the Catholic priesthood is not remotely described by any of the writers of the NT.

Concerning Bishops, Priests and Deacons, I have the embarassment of riches for there is so much material from the ECF’s on this.

Here is a sampling:

Early Church Fathers on Bishops, Priests and Deacons

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… Our Apostles know through Our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Pope St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [80 A.D.])

Ignatius

“Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D.110, [13,1])

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishops presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D. 110, [6,1])

“Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic; he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, A.D. 110, [3,2])

“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.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110, [8,1])

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living in the manner not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, - and such is your practice, that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [2,1])

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. Every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2, [155 A.D.])

“Although he [Paul] writes to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for their correction, nevertheless it is shown that there is one Church spread abroad though the whole world.” (Muratorian Fragment, [155 A.D.])

Irenaeus

“Let us be careful, then, if we should be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,3])

“And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,1])

“The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,3])

“It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [4,26,2])

“For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches; and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in various devious paths; and on this account the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of these, however, who belong to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,20,1]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

If the Eucharist is symbolic, then anyone should be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, correct? You could do it all by yourself…do you?

On the other hand, the Catholic Church teaches that only priests who have been validly ordained may say mass and consecrate the bread and wine offered such that it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

So, what did the early Christians believe?

Did the ECF’s believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and by implication an ordained priesthood?

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Again, I have LOTS of quotes on this…let me know if you need them to solidify your growing conviction that the Catholics have this right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic Church teaches that we should confess serious sin to a priest. Yet, Protestants will argue that this died out after the death of the last Apostle.

Is this what the earliest Christians taught? Well, let’s take a look at what was being said hundreds of years after the last Apostle passed from the scene.

Origen, writing his Homilies on Leviticus, around 244, refers to the repentant sinner as one who “does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.”

Cyprian of Carthage, writing seven years later in The Lapsed, says,“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who . . . confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience.”

In the 300s, Aphraates offers this advice to priests: “If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises 7:4; see the Catholic Answers tract “Confession” for additional quotations from the early Church Fathers).

These men, writing almost a thousand years before the Lateran Council of 1215, refer to a practice that was already well-established. In fact, it dates back to the time of Jesus, for Christ commissioned the apostles this way: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23).

Hmmm…it looks like more evidence for the NT priesthood to me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

JohnnyBeth-

I don’t actually expect you to read or respond to all the quotes I just provided…I just wanted you to know that the ECF’s were thoroughly Catholic in their understanding of scripture and the distinctive doctrines that form our faith. Trust me…there is LOTS more where all that came from.

What I really want to see is your response to my post #777.

Thanks.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Let’s begin here, JB.

I agree with your description of the authority represented by the keys - though I’m not sure exactly what you meant when you wrote “based on accepting or rejecting the gospel message”. That aside, I agree that the key-holder has the authority to loose and bind, to permit or to forbid. I applaud you for this…many non-Catholics would be hesitant to extend such authority to the holder of those keys.

The defintion of the Greek term is “a key”. The authority is NOT the Lording, nor ruling over the church, that is forbidden by Scripture and disqualifies an overseer and is an attribute seen in all false religions and by individual false teachers in individual congregations. The authority originates in heaven and is tied specifically to the ability to loose or permit and bind and forbid. Entrance to the single door of heaven based on the acceptence or rejection of the gospel. Accept the Gospel and you are permitted entrance; reject and you are forbidden to enter, which is why what is loosed on earth and bound on earth is loosed and bound in heaven. Everyone is simply relating the authoritative message from the heaven, which was manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ. Think about it; what is a key used for? To open or shut something; in this case we are speaking of the Kingdom of heaven.

The only way, from a gramattcal perspective that Matthew 16:19 could strictly be Peter as the “you”, would be if the receiving object, the “keys” were either a door that required more than one key to open, a multiple keyed door or there is more than one door into heaven, which Scripture does not speak of. Therefore, the key has to be singular and by definition in the Greek; the meaning is “a key”. As an example; Jesus uses the term of the “keys to death and hades”; there is an example of 2 different singular keys, one of each used to open to separate doors. One for death and one for hades. Some principle he has more than one key in His hand, but each key is used for an individual door. Every single use of the word key or keys in the OT and NT is a singular or individual key. If you just look and imagine yourself as one of those disciples. You all come up to the Master and he asks all of you (2nd person singular) who do people say that I am (paraphrasing)? They say some John, some Elijah, some a prophet etc. Then Jesus asks all of you another question, “who do you say that I am”? Peter speaks up and makes the heavenly confession, which all of them got the message since in verse 20 Jesus warns them not to tell anyone He is the Christ. Jesus turns His attention to Peter and says blessed are you Simon Barjona flesh and blood…Father who is in heaven. verse 18 I say to you that you are Petros and upon this Petra I will build my church. Who builds the church? Jesus. I believe the Lord stressed the Speaking to Peter at this point by using the “you” twice for emphasis. Then, again put yourself as an apostles at the scene, Jesus looks and speaks to all of them. I will give each of you a key to the kingdom of heaven or it can be phrased as it is I will give you the keys (like the mutliple & identical ones here in my hand). Jesus finishes out the conversation with the warning to the you (2nd person singular because it each of the individuals He is speaking to) in the next verse, #20.

Right after that Peter is called Satan by Jesus, then in Chapter 20, right after Jesus speaks gathers His disciples together after dismissing the crowd, He tells them again that He will be killed and gives detail as to how it would take place, then mother of the sons of Zebedee (James & John) commands Jesus to make her sons to the left and right of Him. Jesus could have said the matter was settled a few days ago and Peter is the preiminent one among this group, but He did not. Aparently the other disciples did not get that about Peter for the Scripture records the 10 were sorely ticked off at the two. So no one else got the message that Catholics seem to have.

This is worth noting here is the passage I just referred.
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” - Doesn’t the “you” here appear to be speaking to the mother? He is not, she asked, but He turns His attention to them, probably knowing they put their mother up to it. The next sentance is "They said to Him, “We are able.” Although at first reading it seems like Jesus was answering and speaking directly to the mother, the reality is He turned his attention to James and John.

Backing up to chapter 18, we know He spoe again about the loose and binding during another sermon and spoke it directly to the crowd. He did not need to repeat that to His disciples; He told them in Chapter 16. In case you doubt that Chapter 18 was a sermon; notice He used a little child who was right there and the other parts of the message contain the exact same verbiage as chapter 5 at the Mount.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

You know, rinnie. You are right.

I have not attended a church in over a year due to my great disappointment in Christians. We are called to an often difficult life filled with persecution from unbelievers, sacrifice, giving up things we want to seek something we won’t see until after death. It disappoints me greatly to see people stamp “Christian” across the forehead, and then live as does the world. To use Scripture to justify their action as well as inaction.

Being a Christian is supposed to be a way of life, and many who claim the title wear it in name, only.

But you are absolutely correct. With drawing is not living according to God’s will either.

I have been like Elijah, and I don’t even have anyone trying to kill me.

I guess God sent me an angel to wake me and feed me, too. And then to send me back out.

Thank you.

Take courage; finding a church is tis day and age with godly & qualified leaders is becoming a rarety. I will send you some resources to consider when seeking a new church to help discern if Jesus is doing the building or man is; it begins with leadership at all levels of teaching. Many churches are falling short, very short on being qualified to be leaders according to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and few congregations will enforce 1 Timothy 5:19-22, which in turn lowers the expectations of the church because of tolerance of sin.

There are many tares among the wheat, but there are folks out there that need you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The defintion of the Greek term is “a key”. The authority is NOT the Lording, nor ruling over the church, that is forbidden by Scripture and disqualifies an overseer and is an attribute seen in all false religions and by individual false teachers in individual congregations. The authority originates in heaven and is tied specifically to the ability to loose or permit and bind and forbid. Entrance to the single door of heaven based on the acceptence or rejection of the gospel. Accept the Gospel and you are permitted entrance; reject and you are forbidden to enter, which is why what is loosed on earth and bound on earth is loosed and bound in heaven. Everyone is simply relating the authoritative message from the heaven, which was manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ. Think about it; what is a key used for? To open or shut something; in this case we are speaking of the Kingdom of heaven.

The only way, from a gramattcal perspective that Matthew 16:19 could strictly be Peter as the “you”, would be if the receiving object, the “keys” were either a door that required more than one key to open, a multiple keyed door or there is more than one door into heaven, which Scripture does not speak of. Therefore, the key has to be singular and by definition in the Greek; the meaning is “a key”. As an example; Jesus uses the term of the “keys to death and hades”; there is an example of 2 different singular keys, one of each used to open to separate doors. One for death and one for hades. Some principle he has more than one key in His hand, but each key is used for an individual door. Every single use of the word key or keys in the OT and NT is a singular or individual key. If you just look and imagine yourself as one of those disciples. You all come up to the Master and he asks all of you (2nd person singular) who do people say that I am (paraphrasing)? They say some John, some Elijah, some a prophet etc. Then Jesus asks all of you another question, “who do you say that I am”? Peter speaks up and makes the heavenly confession, which all of them got the message since in verse 20 Jesus warns them not to tell anyone He is the Christ. Jesus turns His attention to Peter and says blessed are you Simon Barjona flesh and blood…Father who is in heaven. verse 18 I say to you that you are Petros and upon this Petra I will build my church. Who builds the church? Jesus. I believe the Lord stressed the Speaking to Peter at this point by using the “you” twice for emphasis. Then, again put yourself as an apostles at the scene, Jesus looks and speaks to all of them. I will give each of you a key to the kingdom of heaven or it can be phrased as it is I will give you the keys (like the mutliple & identical ones here in my hand). Jesus finishes out the conversation with the warning to the you (2nd person singular because it each of the individuals He is speaking to) in the next verse, #20.

Right after that Peter is called Satan by Jesus, then in Chapter 20, right after Jesus speaks gathers His disciples together after dismissing the crowd, He tells them again that He will be killed and gives detail as to how it would take place, then mother of the sons of Zebedee (James & John) commands Jesus to make her sons to the left and right of Him. Jesus could have said the matter was settled a few days ago and Peter is the preiminent one among this group, but He did not. Aparently the other disciples did not get that about Peter for the Scripture records the 10 were sorely ticked off at the two. So no one else got the message that Catholics seem to have.

This is worth noting here is the passage I just referred.
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” - Doesn’t the “you” here appear to be speaking to the mother? He is not, she asked, but He turns His attention to them, probably knowing they put their mother up to it. The next sentance is "They said to Him, “We are able.” Although at first reading it seems like Jesus was answering and speaking directly to the mother, the reality is He turned his attention to James and John.

Backing up to chapter 18, we know He spoe again about the loose and binding during another sermon and spoke it directly to the crowd. He did not need to repeat that to His disciples; He told them in Chapter 16. In case you doubt that Chapter 18 was a sermon; notice He used a little child who was right there and the other parts of the message contain the exact same verbiage as chapter 5 at the Mount.

Not what I asked is it?

“Would you please provide the full verse in which Jesus gives those keys to all the Apostles? I would like to read it in context.”

 

[Ginger2]

…a question, I suppose. Would you please provide the full verse in which Jesus gives those keys to all the Apostles? I would like to read it in context.

Thanks.

Before JB answers, can you tell us exactly what difference these keys make? Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying they don’t make any difference - I just would like to know clearly what power Peter had thru these keys that the other Apostles were denied.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Look more closely. Jesus never states that there will be NO leader of the Church.

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Wrong book, verse and chapter - See Matthew chapter 20. The first shall be last of all and servant of all? This is clearly an opportunity for Jesus to proclain Peter as the least and sevant of all and thus the greatest, but He didn’t because he isn’t. This is a good example as to why shepherds are wothy of double honor and the coincing warning about being a Teacher. Pastor, Elder and Overseer are used interchangeably in Scripture; the distinctive qualification between a Deacon and Elder is the ability to “teach”. There shepherds are assigned to each individual church and depending on the size their is a plurality of leaders put in charge of feeding and tending the flock God entrusts to them. There is no central authority other than Christ.

Note that Jesus did not tell the Apostles that no one would be the head of the Church. He said, “If anyone wants to be first…”. That is not the same as saying “No one will be first”, is it? Instead, He teaches them what the characteristics of the leader must be. According to Jesus, the one who wants to be first must be the servant of all. That is the understanding that we should have concerning the head of the Church. Later, in John 20, for example, we will see Jesus commissioning Peter as the shepherd of the flock. Isn’t Jesus the Good Shepherd? Isn’t there one shepherd and one flock? Of course, but Jesus is able to leave His earthly flock in the capable hands of Peter who is given the responsibility for caring for the flock in Christ’s absence. And that, my friend, is exactly what the Royal Steward of the household was supposed to do in the Davidic kingdom.

You are getting desperate in reaching for a head of the church when Scripture tells us that Jesus is the head on both earth and heaven over the church and all things for that matter. John 20 applies to all assigned shephers, tend and feed the flock, but Peter was being restored by Jesus for his previous 3 denials a fews days before. Keep trying.

By the way, Paul echoes this in the following words:

1 Timothy 3:1
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:1-3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29717a)] he desires a noble task.

[a](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:1-3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29717a)] Traditionally bishop; also in verse 2

So, the scriptures do not teach that there will be no overseers or bishops nor does the scripture suggest that no one would be the leader of the Apostolic band.

Naturally, if you think otherwise, I am interested to read the verses that support your position.

I addressed that above, but Scripture teaches and shows us there is leadership structure at every local level; but not on a global level as you have been misinformed and apparently believe. Unless you believe the Pope and His office are taking the place of the Trinity and particularly the Holy Spirit. Good luck showing that from Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The defintion of the Greek term is “a key”. The authority is NOT the Lording, nor ruling over the church, that is forbidden by Scripture and disqualifies an overseer and is an attribute seen in all false religions and by individual false teachers in individual congregations.

Could you explain exactly who you believe is “Lording” or ruling over the Church, JB? I want to hear it from your own lips, so to speak.

The authority originates in heaven and is tied specifically to the ability to loose or permit and bind and forbid. Entrance to the single door of heaven based on the acceptence or rejection of the gospel. Accept the Gospel and you are permitted entrance; reject and you are forbidden to enter, which is why what is loosed on earth and bound on earth is loosed and bound in heaven. Everyone is simply relating the authoritative message from the heaven, which was manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ. Think about it; what is a key used for? To open or shut something; in this case we are speaking of the Kingdom of heaven.

So, it is your argument that all believers have been given the key to the kingdom of heaven in the sense that by accepting or rejecting the gospel they either bind or loose what is in heaven?

Is that really what the text says, JB? Hardly. The text says, “19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bef] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg] loosed in heaven.”

Using your approach, the text means, “whatever you reject on earth will be rejected in heaven, and whatever you accept on earth will be accepted in heaven.”

Hmmm…that’s troubling, isn’t it? If someone rejects truth on earth will it be rejected in heaven? If someone accepts error on earth, will it be accepted in heaven?

The only way, from a gramattcal perspective that Matthew 16:19 could strictly be Peter as the “you”, would be if the receiving object, the “keys” were either a door that required more than one key to open, a multiple keyed door or there is more than one door into heaven, which Scripture does not speak of.

You’re concerned about Mt 16 referring to “keys” while Is 22 and Rev 7 refer to a single key.

This is an interesting issue, and I’ll let Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore respond:

Firstly, it is well known that Matthew (unlike Mark or Luke) has a preference for the plural (e.g. Matt 4:3; 8:26; 12:46; 15:36). Also, in Matt 16, we are dealing with a Heaven-earth relationship, rather than a mere earthly kingdom (as in Isaiah 22). Thus, Peter holds two keys: one Heavenly and one earthly, since his Master is a two-fold King: both the earthly successor to David and the eternal King of Heaven. Another possibility is that the “keys” (plural) in Matt 16 refer to Christ’s juxtaposition of the “Kingdom of Heaven” vs. the “gates of hell.” We also see this in St. Ephraem the Syrian, who writes:

“Thee, O Simon Peter, will I proclaim the blessed, who holds the Keys which the Spirit made. A great and ineffable word that he binds and loosens those in Heaven and those under the earth …” (Ephraem, Asseman. Bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 95) in Colin Lindsay, Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 31.
There is also a possibility that the “keys” (plural) in Matt 16 imply that Peter would succeed to the office of prime minister for the united Kingdom of Israel under Jesus. As any student of Scripture knows, the Kingdom of David and Solomon split into two during the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. At this point, there existed two Israelite Kingdoms (north and south), each with its own king; and each king had a prime minister or “major domo” (see: 1 Kings 16:9, 18:3 vs. 2 Kings 15:5 which refer to the prime minister of northern Israel vs. the prime minister of Judah in the south). However, in the reign of Jesus, the northern Israelites (the Samaritans) are called back into the unity of the Messanic Kingdom (e.g. John 4:21-42, Acts 8:4-17, etc.). And so, if the “key” (singular) was the symbol of authority for both the prime minister of Judah in the south and the prime minister of Israel / Samaria in the north (i.e., each official possessed one key), then it may very well be that Peter is given the keys (plural) for both these kingdoms, north and south, to show that the true Israel (the Church) is now one, united Kingdom under Jesus the Messiah.
​

 

[Randy_Carson]

Before JB answers, can you tell us exactly what difference these keys make? Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying they don’t make any difference - I just would like to know clearly what power Peter had thru these keys that the other Apostles were denied.

In the other thread, you said you were done talking with me.

Are we still on speaking terms? :clapping::extrahappy::dancing:

 

[Ginger2]

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not going back to the RC. But rinnie did make a valid point. It has troubled me that I should be attending church. I have never attending because it’s the thing to do, but rather because I love the Lord. rinnie is right.

Back on track…

I am very curious about about the keys and exactly what that really means. And also, Matthew 18:
18 `Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. YLT

I looked up YLT because it is supposed to be literal.

Look at how it is worded. I’ve always seen the underlined words translated as “shall be” future tense in English, but in YLT there are written in the English past tense.

KJB online concordance (which is not very reliable) has this word in future tense also.

Was the original in future tense or past tense in the Greek?

If it was originally written in past tense, the translation should read: “Whatsoever ye bind on earth has (already) been bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth has (already) been loosed in heaven.”

What do you think?