(SPLIT) Mike Gendron's "Who Holds the Keys?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter crochet_lady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crochet_lady said:
Code: 
vs 2 "As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
Click to expand...
What an interesting verse that I never noticed before. How would mortal man minister to the Lord? He could only do so if the Lord were physically present, in a Real Presence.
 
ShanPO said:
Do you think those churches taught opposing things, like churches do today?
Click to expand...
Y’know…that’s a real good point.

There’s a lot of historical writings by the early Christians that would sure indicate that that wasn’t how it went.

Really…I don’t think there was much of that at all until about 500 years ago. :hmmm:
 
ShanPo

Churches Then and church Today — did / do ‘they’ teach opposing ‘things’.? Well – God’s Word tells us / told Them to be ware of false teachers. There were false teachers way back then, too. Did they teach the crucified / risen Savior? Some were trying to tell others that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Those were situations from back Then.
The Big ‘thing’ was the Jesus Christ the Risen Savior. That’s what Paul and Silas were teaching the people. People then and now had problems in life – need encouragement from fellow believes. Acts comments on how long they stayed at various places – sharing with the people.

So - the question is Why do churches of Today teach opposing ‘things’? By ‘opposing’ you’re referring to Some that teach that speaking in tongues is necessary for true salvation? Some churches Don’t Teach Bible. There are SDA groups that teach Saturday worship as manditory. That Any group that meet / worship on Sunday are being deceived by Satan. There’s the Church of Satan. There are Wicca groups, etc, etc, And there are the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists teachings. Not familiar with those.
Obviously there were those who disagreed with some teachings of the RCC / Catholic Church. They felt that some of the practices were not Scriptural. God created each person with a brain to be Used. We have the ability to Reason. To Think.
Churches of Today are paid by the congregations – well – some groups appoint leaders for their various churches. One thing about This country – we are free to worship as we feel led to. There Are countries with a state religion
So Why all the different teachings? The different ‘groups’ – because God didn’t create us to be ‘puppits’ We are free to accept or reject Him / His Word. Various groups put their own ‘spin’ on His Word.
 
crochet_lady said:
ShanPo

Churches Then and church Today — did / do ‘they’ teach opposing ‘things’.? Well – God’s Word tells us / told Them to be ware of false teachers. There were false teachers way back then, too. Did they teach the crucified / risen Savior? Some were trying to tell others that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Those were situations from back Then.
The Big ‘thing’ was the Jesus Christ the Risen Savior. That’s what Paul and Silas were teaching the people. People then and now had problems in life – need encouragement from fellow believes. Acts comments on how long they stayed at various places – sharing with the people.

So - the question is Why do churches of Today teach opposing ‘things’? By ‘opposing’ you’re referring to Some that teach that speaking in tongues is necessary for true salvation? Some churches Don’t Teach Bible. There are SDA groups that teach Saturday worship as manditory. That Any group that meet / worship on Sunday are being deceived by Satan. There’s the Church of Satan. There are Wicca groups, etc, etc, And there are the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists teachings. Not familiar with those.
Obviously there were those who disagreed with some teachings of the RCC / Catholic Church. They felt that some of the practices were not Scriptural. God created each person with a brain to be Used. We have the ability to Reason. To Think.
Churches of Today are paid by the congregations – well – some groups appoint leaders for their various churches. One thing about This country – we are free to worship as we feel led to. There Are countries with a state religion
So Why all the different teachings? The different ‘groups’ – because God didn’t create us to be ‘puppits’ We are free to accept or reject Him / His Word. Various groups put their own ‘spin’ on His Word.
Click to expand...
So do you think Paul taugh opposing things to the different churches he started? Did he teach infant baptism to the Phillipians and adult baptism to the Galatians? It’s a simple yes or no question.
 
ShanPo

Infant baptism isn’t taught in the New Testament – only adults / those old enough to understand and accept Him were baptized.
 
Crochet lady, would you mind responding directly to post #222? I think that I made some good points there.
 
crochet_lady said:
ShanPo

Infant baptism isn’t taught in the New Testament – only adults / those old enough to understand and accept Him were baptized.
Click to expand...
My point was did Paul teach opposing views to different churches? I only used baptism as an example. Pick any two differing positions and ask yourself, would the Holy Spirit allow the apostles and Paul to teach opposing views strictly to cause chaos?
 
The question is “Who Holds the Keys?” This of course refers to the Scripture that has Jesus giving the Keys to Heaven to Peter. Mike Gendron and I assume CL grab a bunch of scripture to explain that Jesus wasn’t given Peter the Keys but the key would be scripture. This doesn’t make sense
  1. Jesus never told anyone to write down anything but instead said go and teach
  2. The compilation of the New Testament and what was scripture from the Old took centuries. That would mean that those people who lived during that time had no key to open and shut.
  3. It would make no sense since what Jesus said was I will give You the keys to whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." binding and loosing was given to Peter.
  4. Set in the context of just after renaming Simon to rock and saying that this rock Jesus would build His church it is proof texting to say it was scripture.
 
crochet lady is correct that the use of reason is a gift from almighty God and meant to be used to achieve perfect union between the human soul and God.

however, the use of reason guarantees nothing. it is necessary that we use right reason and sound reasoning if we are to benefit from God’s gift.

all of those who take full advantage of God’s great gift of reason will all arrive at the same conclusion.

the use of right reason and souind reasoning cannot divide those who use it. it will always lead its users to the same conclusions.
 
eddie_too said:
crochet lady is correct that the use of reason is a gift from almighty God and meant to be used to achieve perfect union between the human soul and God.

however, the use of reason guarantees nothing. it is necessary that we use right reason and sound reasoning if we are to benefit from God’s gift.

all of those who take full advantage of God’s great gift of reason will all arrive at the same conclusion.

the use of right reason and souind reasoning cannot divide those who use it. it will always lead its users to the same conclusions.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
eddie_too said:
crochet lady is correct that the use of reason is a gift from almighty God and meant to be used to achieve perfect union between the human soul and God.

however, the use of reason guarantees nothing. it is necessary that we use right reason and sound reasoning if we are to benefit from God’s gift.

all of those who take full advantage of God’s great gift of reason will all arrive at the same conclusion.

the use of right reason and souind reasoning cannot divide those who use it. it will always lead its users to the same conclusions.
Click to expand...
While I agree with what you’re saying, I’d also add that reasoning would dictate that if someone doesn’t know how to interpret something, they would know to look to someone/something more equipped to do so. My reasoning tells me I can’t know most of the things I’ve learned about (and from) scripture because they might not be explicitly stated, so I look to the Magisterium to answer those things I can’t answer on my own. Unfortumately, not everyone does so, and just relies on those who set themselves up as “pope” and follow their lead.
 
agree with shan po.

the use of reason is mastered to varying degrees by every human being. this is due both to innate, God-gifted abilities and to personal development of what we have been given.

as a consequence, it is an entirely sound use of the gift of reason to conclude that some of us have been gifted with and developed our use of reason to a degree far above others; and, that we should become aware of and allow the highly developed use of reason found in others to guide our own development of the use of reason.

Jesus had the perfect use of human reason. He also spent three years with the twelve apostles continually developing their use of reason.

that is why the magisterium rightfully have priority above all others when it comes to applying human reason to reality.
 
eddie_too said:
agree with shan po.

the use of reason is mastered to varying degrees by every human being. this is due both to innate, God-gifted abilities and to personal development of what we have been given.

as a consequence, it is an entirely sound use of the gift of reason to conclude that some of us have been gifted with and developed our use of reason to a degree far above others; and, that we should become aware of and allow the highly developed use of reason found in others to guide our own development of the use of reason.

Jesus had the perfect use of human reason. He also spent three years with the twelve apostles continually developing their use of reason.

that is why the magisterium rightfully have priority above all others when it comes to applying human reason to reality.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you and also with shan po. no one person can understand all tat Scripture says and means. If it was that easy to understand then all would be able to understand it but in truth much of Scripture is not easy to understand since what Scripture says and what Scripture means is often two different things. What the author intended to mean maybe different from what we modern s think it means and what we think it say maybe different from what the author was actually saying. This is why we have as Catholic’s the magisterium to help us in understanding what Scripture says and means.
 
spina1953 said:
I have to agree with you and also with shan po. no one person can understand all tat Scripture says and means. If it was that easy to understand then all would be able to understand it but in truth much of Scripture is not easy to understand since what Scripture says and what Scripture means is often two different things. What the author intended to mean maybe different from what we modern s think it means and what we think it say maybe different from what the author was actually saying. This is why we have as Catholic’s the magisterium to help us in understanding what Scripture says and means.
Click to expand...
So getting back to the topic at hand, Crochet Lady, those of us in this thread who are Catholic have used our reasoning to allow the Magisterium to interpret that the verses in question are Jesus giving the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. Who did you decide to follow in their interpretation, and is that person infallible? And if that person is you, are you infallible?
 
As per request #222 James the Just – some important questions you wanted a response from – the fasting and laying on of hands – Yes, those things Are done on occasion. So, please Don’t ‘assume’ a ‘no’. The times of the Apostles are Over. A unique time in history – those who were appointed to Be apostles because they’d been with Jesus Christ from the beginning of His ministry through His ascension back to heaven to the Father.

The subject of baptism and children of households being included. Your comment – it being ‘nigh inconceiveable for a household to Not include children’. Well --a person Can Assume anything they Want to. And how do you know that the ‘entire’ family didn’t consist of Older kids who were able to understand and accept just as the parents had?

And you Did make some good points – but I don’t know how to ‘reproduce’ the specific comments as others do. So – #222 will be responded to in parts.
 
i missed crochet lady’s citing of scripture that prohibits infant baptism.

most certainly the tradition of infant baptism has been part of the Church from the beginning so far as can be determined from history and tradition.

remember when reading any of crochet lady’s posts that she does not claim to have ANY authority to be telling people how sacred scripture should be interpreted.

what she writes here comes entirely from her own imagination. sometimes what she writes agrees with a few people and other times it agrees with other people.

crochet lady, whether it is her intention or not, comes across as a church of one with no co-believers. there is a reason she speaks for no one but herself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top