The keys given to Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwinG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Tom:
He left us His Church. Yes He is in His Catholic Church
Hi Tom,
He didnt leave, but for a moment. He is alive and with us, now, really alive, we just cant see Him, we need faith.
He is in you Tom and He is in me. God is not interested in names of different organisations. Some people may have a pride in their denomination, but it wont count on that day. He will only be interested in the work you did when you followed the Holy Spirit. Passively by many and actively as well by some. Me I want to be as close to Him as I can and be as obedient as is possible for me to be. I am blessed to be in a situation where following Him is easy.
walk in love
edwinG
 
Edwin, all of the references you mention point to an earthly Church, in the care of humans.
40.png
edwinG:
Acts15:4 " And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up , saying, " It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and the elders came together to consider this matter.
Acts 15:7 And when there had been so much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: Men and bretheren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
then Barnabas and Paul spoke then James spoke and it was to James that all listened after hearing from Paul and Barnabas.
40.png
edwinG:
Now as Peter was pope, and in charge it is note worthy that
  1. there was a group within this circle who believed in the law of Moses
  2. 15:6 only the apostles and elders15:7 such dispute within the apostles and elders
    15:7 James was the speaker of authority of this group.
    I see no infallibility here.
Again, you’re trying to make infallibility something it is not. NOT all that the pope says is infallible. Never was never will be, so yes popes can make errors, that’s NOT what infallibility is. There are requirements for a teaching to be considered infallible, these requirements are not met in this case therefore there is no claim of infallibility. You have a basic misconception of infallibility. Perhaps if you understood the Catholic teaching on infallibility it would help. Try these references, they may help.
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp
 
40.png
Tom:
If they reject you, they reject Me, if they reject Me they reject the One who sent Me. Don’t reject His Church, it is a Church He established on earth with men in charge.
Hi Tom,
I recognise the block lettering as scripture. I definitely dont reject Him. I love Him and am blessed by His teachings.
Do you mean to write "Dont reject His Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church which He established on earth with men in charge…
I thought men were in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

I dont reject His church because His church IS Christ. But I have no allegience to any denomination. People have personalities and God made us this way. THerefore, some people like some personalities and are not at ease with others. We are not meant to lose our personalities. Look at denominations as personalities. Christ doesnt want all personalities like Peter or like Moses, one very outgoing one very modest. We are a colourful mix. Christ has given us a range of “personalities” as " denominational churches" Thank Him for them all, and be a brother to all.
walk in love
edwinG
 
Hi Edwin,

You said:

“These keys along with the authority to bind and loose which was given to all of the apostles was not the passing on of infallibility. Peter proved himself fallible (I corrected your typo for clarity) after Christ died by playing the hypocrite and leading others away from the truth, damaging their faith. So that is not the answer…I believe this is from the Holy Spirit. The keys and authority were given so that Peter and the apostles would establish a societal law here on earth.”

“I am sorry if I come across as knowing all things. I hardly know any thing. But it is wrong for me to ignore His teachings and store them up for myself. If I do He will find someone else. If the words strike a place with you, they do, if not, they don’t.”

“I disagree with your statement that only if we follow the (Catholic) Church will we be led to ( all) truth. We both seem to agree that Christ only reveals individually that which is necessary to the work He has given that individual. No one has a handle on all of the truth. I dont find infallibility available for anyone. In fact, as I have witnessed, some times the Holy Spirit lifts His protection so we can be led astray as a teaching.

Edwin, do you see the inconsistency in your statements? First, you tell us that what you are teaching us is from the Holy Spirit. Question #1 – If this teaching is from the Holy Spirit, is there a possibility that you could be wrong? I think you would answer “No,” because you are telling us this teaching is from the Holy Spirit. By claiming that your teaching is from the Holy Spirit, you are claiming infallibility, not for everything you believe, but just for that teaching. Don’t you agree?

Then you say that no one has infallibility but at times the Holy Spirit “lifts His protection so that we can be led astray as a teaching.” Question #2 – If the Holy Spirit is “protecting” you so that you cannot be led astray, is not the Holy Spirit then giving you infallibility? I hope you see that the answer to this is a big “Yes.” You are telling us that no one person can know all the truth, but individuals can know parts of the truth because the Holy Spirit is leading them to this truth. You are claiming infallibility for that individual truth that the Holy Spirit is teaching you even though you don’t use the word infallible

So the bottom line here is that what you deny to the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you are granting to yourself, even if it is only for one particular truth and not the whole Truth.

Finally, in another post, you said: “Surely in your own mind, if you think God wanted a dynasty to be infallible it would be spelt out most clearly.” Edwin, this is your opinion. You want it all spelled out for you in one place. However, the good news for you is that it is there. It is there in the Old Testament and in the New Testament and we see it believed and acted on by the early Christians.

Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? It is not spelled out in the Bible all in one place, but it is there, in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

It is the same with the teaching authority that God has established for His people.

What do you think?

Grace and peace,

Gene
 
Hi,
These keys along with the authority to bind and loose which was given to all of the apostles was not the passing on of infallibility. Peter proved himself infallible after Christ died by playing the hypocrite and leading others away from the truth, damaging their faith. So that is not the answer.
I believe this is from the Holy Spirit.
The keys and authority were given so that Peter and the apostles would establish a societal law here on earth. The old testament law of an eye for an eye was given as a law of mercy to limit the degree of revenge taken against a person. It, in it’s mercy, was a law of limitations. Imagine the setting. No laws and someone kills a son. The family seek revenge and kill the 4 sons belonging to the family and the husband and rape the lady. God stepped in with a law of mercy, limiting the revenge to an equivalent.
Christ came and fulfilled the law. He filled the law up. So the law which went from no law to a law of limits now was a law of absolute limits. Now you could not take the life, in fact you could not even be angry and still more, you had to forgive. Man that is really filled up. And that is what applies to us who follow Jesus. We are under this law, but only Noah, Job and Daniel were righteous under the old law of mercy or limitations. Who could now be righteous under the fulfilled law? Well the law has passed from the physical to the spiritual so now in Christ we have the Holy Spirit and His strength if we follow His leading.WIthout Him your dead in the water. You had better start listening to the Holy Spirit.
But what about the other people who live but have yet to to find Christ and the Holy Spirit. Are they to suffer under the law of limitations.
No and this is why Christ gave the keys to Peter who with the desciples blessed the whole world with a system of laws for people in society, who have not yet come to Christ. And see how widespread this societal law is. How blessed we are in Christ, in God’s wisdom and in Peter and the apostles.
So societies law given by Peter and the apostles is so much more merciful than the law of limitations but less than the fulfilled law that applies to those in Christ, but still a stepping stone and a barrier of protection for those without armour.
How almighty is our God in His love for us.
Praise Him and worship Him
walk in love
edwinG
EdwinG,

Is this another “infallible” interpretation? To whom will I believe; you or the ones given authority to interpret Sacred Scriptures?

I hope you don’t make of yourself a “mini-magisterium”.

Pio
 
40.png
Tom:
Edwin, all of the references you mention point to an earthly Church, in the care of humans.

Again, you’re trying to make infallibility something it is not. NOT all that the pope says is infallible. Never was never will be, so yes popes can make errors, that’s NOT what infallibility is. There are requirements for a teaching to be considered infallible, these requirements are not met in this case therefore there is no claim of infallibility. You have a basic misconception of infallibility. Perhaps if you understood the Catholic teaching on infallibility it would help. Try these references, they may help.
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp
Hi Tom,
It shows that even then there was a power struggle going on and even without the sect of the pharisees the elders and the apostles had a raging dispute over a core issue. What could be more basic to our faith than teaching to follow the law of Moses as well as what Christ taught. This is a total mis understanding of Christ.
People are people and it is not easy to submit ones self completely to Christ so that when we disagree with someone we dont argue but submit and go to Christ and leave the outcome to Him. These people were just beginning in Christ and all though they had the benefit of seeing Him, His teachings were radical and today we are in a far easier position because we dont have so much apparant loyalty to cast aside.
Infallibility is a tough one for the Catholic Church to defend. I am glad I dont have to defend it, slipping in and out of hairline discussions. Like well the pope did it but he did not think what he was doing was infallible. I ask, why was he doing it then. Surely he always takes the narrow path, the holiest decision, the Christ like one. Is the pope filled with doubt, this may be an infallible teaching but this one, may be wrong but I will do it anyhow in a state of confusion. This I have trouble with Tom.
The pope is or the pope isnt . To me He isnt ootherwise Christ could be dead because He is not needed.

Walk in love
edwinG
 
40.png
hlgomez:
EdwinG,

Is this another “infallible” interpretation? To whom will I believe; you or the ones given authority to interpret Sacred Scriptures?

I hope you don’t make of yourself a “mini-magisterium”.

Pio
Hi Pio,
We are to test all revelations against the word of God. Please apply scripture to this and lets us put it to a fiery test. The word will decide, not me.
Thank you for joining in the thread.
walk in love
edwinG
 
Hi Pio,
We are to test all revelations against the word of God. Please apply scripture to this and lets us put it to a fiery test. The word will decide, not me.
Thank you for joining in the thread.
walk in love
edwinG
Thank you.

But let me just make this simple. What is your way of “testing the spirits”? Will you test it according to your interpretation or the Church’s? For I tell you, there have been many who tested their interpretations by their own selves–and ended up as heretics, people who interpret Scriptures on their own, not the Church’s. Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, etc. etc. Do you wish yourself to be counted with them?

The Church living Magisterium will ultimately decide which interpretation is correct, not you or me.

Pio
 
40.png
edwinG:
Hi Tom,
It shows that even then there was a power struggle going on and even without the sect of the pharisees the elders and the apostles had a raging dispute over a core issue. What could be more basic to our faith than teaching to follow the law of Moses as well as what Christ taught. This is a total mis understanding of Christ.
People are people and it is not easy to submit ones self completely to Christ so that when we disagree with someone we dont argue but submit and go to Christ and leave the outcome to Him. These people were just beginning in Christ and all though they had the benefit of seeing Him, His teachings were radical and today we are in a far easier position because we dont have so much apparant loyalty to cast aside.
Infallibility is a tough one for the Catholic Church to defend. I am glad I dont have to defend it, slipping in and out of hairline discussions. Like well the pope did it but he did not think what he was doing was infallible. I ask, why was he doing it then. Surely he always takes the narrow path, the holiest decision, the Christ like one. Is the pope filled with doubt, this may be an infallible teaching but this one, may be wrong but I will do it anyhow in a state of confusion. This I have trouble with Tom.
The pope is or the pope isnt . To me He isnt ootherwise Christ could be dead because He is not needed.

Walk in love
edwinG
Edwin, you insist on a defination of infallibility which is incorrect, yet, you are with the Holy Spirit. How can this be? You were never promised that the Holy Spirit would lead you to all truth. Even though you are filled with the Holy Spirit you are wrong. Since this is a Catholic term, you need to understand the Catholic defination.
Papal Infallibility

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
 
Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
 
Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).
 
Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with “Bible Christians.” For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
 
Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain “errors of the popes.” Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).
 
The rejection of papal infallibility by “Bible Christians” stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.
The New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.
One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).
If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.
All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Sorry for pasting so much, but it was getting tiring answering points on what infallibility is NOT. Edwin, to make you feel better, I would have problems with infallibility also if it meant what you believed it meant.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you
Tom
 
40.png
hlgomez:
Thank you.

But let me just make this simple. What is your way of “testing the spirits”? Will you test it according to your interpretation or the Church’s? For I tell you, there have been many who tested their interpretations by their own selves–and ended up as heretics, people who interpret Scriptures on their own, not the Church’s. Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, etc. etc. Do you wish yourself to be counted with them?

The Church living Magisterium will ultimately decide which interpretation is correct, not you or me.

Pio
Hi Pio,
Thanks for staying with the thread.
Well it is hard for me to test it as I am so close to it, but others may offer scripture which opens up the truth or denies some aspect or supports some aspect.
Does any scripture come to your mind to deny this or support it? You can only help by placing it beside scripture you feel is revelant.
Where else would I go to have scripture placed beside a seeming revelation. LOL not a football club.
walk in love
edwinG
 
Gene C.:
Hi Edwin,

Edwin, do you see the inconsistency in your statements? First, you tell us that what you are teaching us is from the Holy Spirit. Question #1 – If this teaching is from the Holy Spirit, is there a possibility that you could be wrong? I think you would answer “No,” because you are telling us this teaching is from the Holy Spirit. By claiming that your teaching is from the Holy Spirit, you are claiming infallibility, not for everything you believe, but just for that teaching. Don’t you agree?
Well, yes, I believe it is from the Holy Spirit, but I also believe that all relevation should be tested against the word. I know because I have been deceived and I know I can not discern. I also know I am attacked because satan is aware of my love for Jesus. So these words have been revealed. Are they from the Holy Spirit. Help me put them to the test in a spirit of willingness. Of course I believe they are from the Holy Spirit. If I felt otherwise, I would not post them. I also believe that He is not going to let me be deceived at random. This has nothing to do with infallibility. Does a person have to be continually wrong in all aspects of their life to miss being labelled infallible.
Then you say that no one has infallibility but at times the Holy Spirit “lifts His protection so that we can be led astray as a teaching.” Question #2 – If the Holy Spirit is “protecting” you so that you cannot be led astray, is not the Holy Spirit then giving you infallibility? I hope you see that the answer to this is a big “Yes.” You are telling us that no one person can know all the truth, but individuals can know parts of the truth because the Holy Spirit is leading them to this truth. You are claiming infallibility for that individual truth that the Holy Spirit is teaching you even though you don’t use the word infallible
So the bottom line here is that what you deny to the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you are granting to yourself, even if it is only for one particular truth and not the whole Truth.
Nice try, Gene. You have got me smiling here. I have said and you have acknowledged this that the Holy Spirit has allowed me to be deceived. I also witnessed to this. Now you are building a case saying that when I am not being led astray, I am infallible. Man that word infallible sure has some strange meanings.
Finally, in another post, you said: “Surely in your own mind, if you think God wanted a dynasty to be infallible it would be spelt out most clearly.” Edwin, this is your opinion. You want it all spelled out for you in one place. However, the good news for you is that it is there
. It is there in the Old Testament and in the New Testament and we see it believed and acted on by the early Christians.
Can you give me the references for these please, Gene. That is the references in the old testament and the new testament where a dynasty of infallibility will be given to us.Christ is eternal, He is not a dynasty. He still lives and is our Teacher.
Abraham was not, Moses was not, David was not , Peter was not, but Christ was. The only contenders I can think of are Noah, Job and Daniel, but then we are not aware of much of there lives. I truly doubt that they were infallible.
Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? It is not spelled out in the Bible all in one place, but it is there, in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.
It is the same with the teaching authority that God has established for His people.

What do you think?
Grace and peace, Gene.

Yes Gene, I believe in the Trinity. Yes I am grateful for the terminology. But this does not prove infallibility. Being right once is not a test for infallibility. Being right 99% of the time is not infallible.
walk in love
edwinG
 
40.png
edwinG:
Hi Catholic Dude,
" And lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." So if Jesus says He is with us, He is. So now that we understand that He is with us what do you want to ask Him, what do you want to talk about, do you want to follow Him, because the Holy Spirit will take you to Him every time you ask. And Christ has authority over all things and He loves you. It is His love and His wisdom which stops Him giving us some of the things we ask for. It is our obedience to the leading of the Holy Spirit which pleases Him and brings us to joy and peace and an abundance in Him.
I have no disagreement here. The problem that we are tying to get across is that its a jungle out there, (literally where you live), and we need solid teachers whom have had such authority passed on to them to teach us. One great passage that will help you get a better understanding of how the Church is set up is this one when I was having a discussion with a Jew on these forums pointed out to me when I made the comment that God favors kings over popular/individual vote:
14 "When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me’; 15 you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold. 18 "And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in the charge of the Levitical priests; 19 and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them; 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.
God wasnt going to abandon the Jews after they took on a king.
The bottom line here is that people need Leadership, not every man for himself working out his own personal beliefs, but a heirarchy, that ultimately comes down to the authority of one man, who in turn answers only to God. This king can make decisions on almost anything he wants, he is the king, yet he is not in that position to glorify himself, but to lead his people and keep them safe. All through the Bible there are leaders whom the people look to, they dont put themself in that position, but are chosen by God either directly or indirectly by someone whom God sent.
The King that they were to have doesnt get a free pass to go around an do evil, but instead he knows the rules/law (God makes sure everyone He picks has the ability and knowledge to do His Will), and has the authority to make decisions that are God backed as true and binding, especially for things not explicitly stated in the law, or need clarification. Even after King Saul, King David (and others) wrote things that were inspired by God and included in sacred scripture that we use today. They wrote these things with authority. It is a similar situation with the New Testament, Jesus picked out a few men and put them in charge, they knew the rules and what Christ expected, even if it took them a while to fully realize it themself. Jesus didnt abandon the world by appointing Apostles, He did so that we may have authorized people teach us, man to man, with God’s presece there the whole time. They were even authorized to write scripture which He inspired, which we use today. When things come up that need clarifying or guiding then we look to those leaders whom Jesus promised us would never lead us astray. Now that doesnt mean that they dont sin, but that His Church will always stand and be the pillar and foundation of truth, it will not lead people away from Him, but toward Him.
 
Your quote from Matthew says desciples.
Your arguement says apostle.
I am a desciple, are you?
Acts 6:1 Now in those days when the number of disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists , because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.Mark 8:34 When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
The quote says “eleven diciples” clearly identifying them as the twelve Apostles. Also if you take note, especially in passages in the Gospels and Acts, you will see that not all deciples had the same authority as others. Some arent even named, others we see the name over and over.
The term deciple has a wide range of meaning, it talks about all whom are Christians, but can also be specifically applied to a select group of people, for example the Apostles only.
Great quote Catholic Dude.
So If two of you agree, or where two or three are gathered in my name. The two are the inner man and the flesh. You or me or whoever is in Christ. Where these are in agreement on Earth, then the Father will do it in heaven. This does not automatically manifest here on earth. Earth is a shadow of heaven If there is a third party it is the Holy Spirit and then Christ will be in the midst of that gathering of flesh, inner man and Holy Spirit.
No, what you say is not wrong, but thats clearly not what that passage says. It means that the Church is made up of more than one person, and when something is asked in the Name of Jesus it is for the good of the whole, not the individual.
Therefore, this binding and loosening is done by you for you. You can bind yourself to some truth or loose yourself from some truth. This does not give you dominion over men. This reference is on a man to himself basis. This is particularly so in laws.
You are right on a certain level, but you missed the big point of the passage. It is saying that the authority of those men is just as binding as if God had said it.
About the dominion over men, go to verse 17, it says the Church has the power to say when someone can have their Christianhood revoked due to failure to listen to the Church, especially on grave matter.
Paul speaks about weak consciences, and the eating of meat. For years you may think it is a sin to eat meat on Friday. THerefore you have bound yourself. Then as your faith grows with sincerity you believe it is all right to eat anything you like on any day, then if this is a belief in your heart, you can loose yourself from this previous binding.
Jesus told us to fast, St Paul also told us to not judge someone on those matters. It isnt a sin the way your thinking of it, fasting is a good thing, and is to be strictly incouraged. The problem now days is that people feel they are the boss of themself and can go around doing what ever they want (some even ignoring pastors), and in the end of the day leaving no standard time set aside for Christ. God made seasons for doing specific things, winter, spring, summer, fall, each time people are supposed to act in a certain way. Just like there is a Christmas and Easter season, both are special times set aside as periods of specific reflection and action.
Just remember when you loose your self from some bindings, this does not mean you can flaunt you new faith in front of those with a tender conscience, because you must also be mindful. In Christ you are free of all of those rules, you only have to obey the leading of the Holy Spirit, if your conscience will allow it. Otherwise you have bound yourself. But Christ in His compassion has given you the authority to bind or loose your own conscience. How great is His love and mercy. How great is our freedom in Him
All praise and worship to our Holy Jesus.
walk in love
edwinG
I agree with what your saying, the point I am trying to get across is that that binding happens on two levels, on personal level which is what you describe, and one universal level for all to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top