What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4aReasn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
The pope’s specific authority to speak for Christ can be found in Matt 16:19 in the giving of the keys. Understood in its historical context the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the holder of the keys speaks with the authority of the king (Is. 22:22). In order for any other interpretation to be reached Matt 16:19 must be divorced from its meaning as understood at the time the words were spoken.

I like you too! http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/clip_art/gstres/celebrte/hug

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
But Matt says that the keys were given to Peter, it says nothing about anyone else. You would think that if there were to be infallibly successors, this would have been said or at least implied. Read the passage again and see if you would really be able to read, “To you (and your successors) I give the keys to the kingdom of heaven).”

Peter seems to have used these “keys” in the first ten chapters of Acts where he opens the doors to heaven for:
  1. the Jews (Acts 2)
  2. The Sameritians (Acts 8)
  3. Gentiles (Acts 10)
He “opened the doors” for all people since this covers all the people groups (Jews, half-Jews, and Gentiles).

Notice, after this is complete, Peter is only mentioned once more in Acts 15. The transition of is to Paul. Peter had done his job, now Paul was the focus.

But again, can you show me where in this passage in Matt 16 that it is stated or implied that Peter was to give these keys to a successor?

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
But Matt says that the keys were given to Peter, it says nothing about anyone else. You would think that if there were to be infallibly successors, this would have been said or at least implied. Read the passage again and see if you would really be able to read, “To you (and your successors) I give the keys to the kingdom of heaven).”

Peter seems to have used these “keys” in the first ten chapters of Acts where he opens the doors to heaven for:
  1. the Jews (Acts 2)
  2. The Sameritians (Acts 8)
  3. Gentiles (Acts 10)
He “opened the doors” for all people since this covers all the people groups (Jews, half-Jews, and Gentiles).

Notice, after this is complete, Peter is only mentioned once more in Acts 15. The transition of is to Paul. Peter had done his job, now Paul was the focus.

But again, can you show me where in this passage in Matt 16 that it is stated or implied that Peter was to give these keys to a successor?

Michael
Click to expand...
Hi Michael,you are right and thats why the power to loose and bind was given to all christians and not the select few. 😉 God Bless.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Notice, after this is complete, Peter is only mentioned once more in Acts 15. The transition of is to Paul. Peter had done his job, now Paul was the focus.
Click to expand...
Hi Michael! 👋

Of course, the fact that Acts first speaks of Peter then Paul ino no way indicates that the authority of the keys ended with Peter.
But again, can you show me where in this passage in Matt 16 that it is stated or implied that Peter was to give these keys to a successor?
Click to expand...
No. Matt 16:19 is about establishing Peter as the leader of the new chuch. Successors were not an issue at that particular time. We can’t fault a passage for not making clear something it wasn’t intended to teach.

I can show you from history though:

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Michael,you are right and thats why the power to loose and bind was given to all christians and not the select few. 😉 God Bless.
Click to expand...
Hi SPOKENWORD! 👋

The power of binding and loosing wasn’t given to all Christians, but it’s that belief that it was that results in the disunity that exists today and continues to grow. Not only does every Christian have the power to bind and loose but every Christian has the authority to decide what “binding and loosing” means, even it conflicts with what another Christian thinks it means.

What is it that you believe that all Christians have the power to bind and loose? On what do you base your answer?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Hi Michael! 👋

Of course, the fact that Acts first speaks of Peter then Paul ino no way indicates that the authority of the keys ended with Peter.
Click to expand...
I did not say that it did. I was just illustrating the use of the keys. I don’t think the keys necessarily handed to anyone.
No. Matt 16:19 is about establishing Peter as the leader of the new chuch. Successors were not an issue at that particular time. We can’t fault a passage for not making clear something it wasn’t intended to teach.
Click to expand...
But you quoted this as saying that the Pope was infallible. The Pope is a successor right? Well, this passage speaks to no one but Peter–you are right. There is no where that some kind of infallible successsion was passed on. Succession in teaching, yes, succession in apostolic infallibility and authority, no.

I can show you from history though:

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

A list does not prove the veracity of the list, which is what we are talking about.

Hope you are having a good day, we had Christmas this morning with the girls, TOYS EVERYWHERE.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
I can show you from history though:

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
Click to expand...
A list does not prove the veracity of the list, which is what we are talking about.
Click to expand...
Aww Michal, you didn’t even look at the link before you poo-poo’d it! It’s not a list. http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/clip_art/gstres/badday/cryingbaby
Hope you are having a good day, we had Christmas this morning with the girls, TOYS EVERYWHERE.
Click to expand...
How old are your girls??

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
You “guys” are still hashing this out??? 😃

Merry Christmas to all!!!

Peace…
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Hi SPOKENWORD! 👋

The power of binding and loosing wasn’t given to all Christians, but it’s that belief that it was that results in the disunity that exists today and continues to grow. Not only does every Christian have the power to bind and loose but every Christian has the authority to decide what “binding and loosing” means, even it conflicts with what another Christian thinks it means.

What is it that you believe that all Christians have the power to bind and loose? On what do you base your answer?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Nancy, God gave man authority from the very beginning at the garden,that man had all authority over everything on this earth. So when satan comes against us as christians we have the power through Jesus Christ to bind and loose satan. :eek: God Bless.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Nancy, God gave man authority from the very beginning at the garden,that man had all authority over everything on this earth. So when satan comes against us as christians we have the power through Jesus Christ to bind and loose satan. :eek: God Bless.
Click to expand...
Hi SPOKENWORD! 👋

I’m not seeing the connection between Adam getting authority over everything on this earth and “binding and loosing” having something to do with Satan. In fact, I don’t think scripture equates binding and loosing with Satan at all. Where do you find that it does?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Hi SPOKENWORD! 👋

I’m not seeing the connection between Adam getting authority over everything on this earth and “binding and loosing” having something to do with Satan. In fact, I don’t think scripture equates binding and loosing with Satan at all. Where do you find that it does?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
Hello Nancy,

I was reading the discussion and thought I might be able to add to it.
Adam had dominion over the earth in that nature and it’s powers found their meaning in serving him. While existing in a state of Original Innocence there was a kind of symbiotic relationship with nature. The intimacy of the union was such that there was no reason for the exercise of authority. Unless division is a threat or is a reality there is no reason for the manifestation of authority. Adam didn’t need authority over Satan because Adam was not accessable to him.

Once there was a break with God all authority went with Him and there was no official recognition of that authority in man untill Moses. Before Moses it is hidden in the line of Adam and exercised by providence. Moses wasn’t given the power to exercise the binding and loosing quality of God’s authority but it was manifest providencially as well. All authority wasn’t handed down to man untill God could give it to Himself as the Man Jesus.
 
Michael,

You have stated that you see no evidence for the papacy until the middle ages. Please consider the fact that the early church always recognized the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church. Around the year 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth dismissed its lawful leaders. Pope Clement I was called to settle the matter even though the Apostle John was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. In response Clement wrote to the Church at Corinth, “you, therefore, who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility.”

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and he stressed that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition, and he lists all the bishops of Rome up to his own time. Other early church fathers such as Irenaeus (180-200 AD) speak of the primacy of the church at Rome and the successions of the bishops of Rome, and he even says, “for with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” Ireneaus also gives a list of all of the Popes that succeeded Peter. This evidence is readily available in reading the Early Church Fathers. Their writings can be accessed online if you choose to check it out.

You also remarked that Peter is discussed in scripture first but then the focus shifts to Paul. I do not find this to be the case. Paul’s letters occupy a substantial portion of NT writings but this does not put the focus on Paul. Paul like all of the other apostles placed the focus on Jesus and the grace given us through the Holy Spirit. The fact that Paul authored more letters doesn’t mean that the focus shifted from Peter to Paul. You might want to take note that in 1 Peter 5:1-2 the apostle says, " SO I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge,…" Peter is fulfilling the command of Jesus to tend the sheep when he makes his three fold confession in the gospel of John. He is telling the other bishops as a group in his charge to tend the flocks in their charge. Elsewhere, Peter cautions all of the faithful concerning Paul’s letters because certain things in them are difficult to understand, and some twist them as they do the other scriptures to their own destruction.[2 Peter 3:15-17]. This is exactly the kind of thing that the Pope does.

You have again reiterated your belief that there must be signs/miracles associated with the work of the Church leadership in order to demonstrate what we contend concerning their authority and infallibilty. I do not believe that you have demonstrated from scripture that this is a requirement for the successors to the apostles. Moreover, not all of the OT religious leaders demonstrated these powers either. This is clearly seen in the book of Judges. This requirement for miracles is an unrealistic standard that is not mandated by scripture and it creates an unnecessary obstacle for you. Infallibility is not revelation. Infallibility is not inspiration as received by Peter, Paul, James, John, and the other inspired authors. Infallibility is a lesser gift. Infallibility is merely a charism that protects the Church from teaching errant doctrines on faith and morals.

If we reject this charism within the church, we must replace the church charism with that of our own charism. Even if we give some credence to the Church and to Tradition, we are still inserting ourselves above the Church and Tradition if we reject the charism held by the Church. Scripture is inerrant, but it relies upon Apostolic Tradition and the Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth, to be understood properly. If there is no infallibility then the Church, contrary to Paul, is not the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
 
Michael,

The apostles were endowed with the gift of miracles. The purpose of this gift was to validate their apostolic ministry as coming from God and demonstrated their divine authority. By extension their gift of miracles validated those that they chose as successors. The successors are not apostles. The office of bishop is “as a successor,” but is not identicle to an apostle. As a result bishops do not generally have the gift of miracles, nor do they need this gift. The proof of this is in the results. Christianity grew continuously without the gift of miracles as part of the office of bishop or pope.

Infallibility is not a miracle in the same sense of raising someone from the dead. It is a charism of limited scope and purpose. It serves God’s will that the flock be led unto all truth.
 
40.png
Benadam:
Hello Nancy,

I was reading the discussion and thought I might be able to add to it.
Adam had dominion over the earth in that nature and it’s powers found their meaning in serving him. While existing in a state of Original Innocence there was a kind of symbiotic relationship with nature. The intimacy of the union was such that there was no reason for the exercise of authority. Unless division is a threat or is a reality there is no reason for the manifestation of authority. Adam didn’t need authority over Satan because Adam was not accessable to him.

Once there was a break with God all authority went with Him and there was no official recognition of that authority in man untill Moses. Before Moses it is hidden in the line of Adam and exercised by providence. Moses wasn’t given the power to exercise the binding and loosing quality of God’s authority but it was manifest providencially as well. All authority wasn’t handed down to man untill God could give it to Himself as the Man Jesus.
Click to expand...
Hi Benadam,I am going to disagree with you that you said Adam did not have the authority over satan.[Read genesis 1 vs 28.]That snake was there in the garden and God gave Adam dominion over it . Adam failed to use his authority and because of it Jesus Christ came to correct that mistake. :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Benadam,I am going to disagree with you that you said Adam did not have the authority over satan.[Read genesis 1 vs 28.]That snake was there in the garden and God gave Adam dominion over it . Adam failed to use his authority and because of it Jesus Christ came to correct that mistake. :confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
Hello SPOKENWORD,
that was such a respectfull rebuttle, thank you. You are correct in thinking that God didn’t withdraw the Gift of His Authority. If you read my post carefully you’ll find that God determines how that authority is exercised, and that as the author, seperation from Him is a seperation from the authority. In fact when that happened, Adam no longer experience nature serving him, he experienced in his own flesh a fundamental shift from being ruler to being a subject of nature. The very reason for the shift was because Adam’s reality was preserved by the author of the laws that held it together. In rejecting the author he rejected authority over the laws.
Adam couldn’t wield authority he wasn’t aware of , even if he was aware that it existed it couldn’t be wielded, but God in His Love didn’t reject Adam , so in that sense even though Adam rejected God’s authority, authority didn’t reject him, rather it still served at the distance Adam set. God provided Adam authority but Adam’s ability to experience it was lost and from the perspective of fallen man it was no longer experienced as a reality made visible by creation.
 
40.png
Benadam:
Hello SPOKENWORD,
that was such a respectfull rebuttle, thank you. You are correct in thinking that God didn’t withdraw the Gift of His Authority. If you read my post carefully you’ll find that God determines how that authority is exercised, and that as the author, seperation from Him is a seperation from the authority. In fact when that happened, Adam no longer experience nature serving him, he experienced in his own flesh a fundamental shift from being ruler to being a subject of nature. The very reason for the shift was because Adam’s reality was preserved by the author of the laws that held it together. In rejecting the author he rejected authority over the laws.
Adam couldn’t wield authority he wasn’t aware of , even if he was aware that it existed it couldn’t be wielded, but God in His Love didn’t reject Adam , so in that sense even though Adam rejected God’s authority, authority didn’t reject him, rather it still served at the distance Adam set. God provided Adam authority but Adam’s ability to experience it was lost and from the perspective of fallen man it was no longer experienced as a reality made visible by creation.
Click to expand...
Hi Benadam,thanks for clearing the failure of Adams authority up. 👍 God bless.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Michael,you are right and thats why the power to loose and bind was given to all christians and not the select few. 😉 God Bless.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. The power to bind and loose was given to all Christians? Talk about reducing the statement to meaninglessness. I’ll grant you that there may be a LIMITED element of this during this life for all Christians - forgiving each other - but that has no necessary bearing on God’s forgiveness.
But in the context of this discussion - what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven. And there isn’t much room for contradiction in Heaven. You can’t have “all Christians” binding others, for example, to “abortion is a sin” and “abortion is not a sin” simultaneously and expect it to fly in Heaven. Aint gonna happen. Your concept of any Christian partaking of the “binding and loosing” in Heaven doesn’t really make sense. As a matter of necessity, those who are given the “binding and loosing” privelege, CAN NOT ERR so that they are consistent with God’s will. With respect to teaching this is where infallibility is a necessary implication.

Merry Christmas!

PHil
 
The forgiveness in the Lord’s prayer would have no purpose for Christians if the power to bind and loose was a universal power among them.

I would ask anyone who thinks that to offer a distinction between the forgiveness Christ gave in the upper room and the forgiveness in the Lord’s prayer.
 
40.png
michaelp:
OK, this is going to be short to both of you. The difference between teh Acts 15 occurance and today or immidately after the Apostles died was that they had verified apostles according to the model God set up. In other words, they had people who could legitimately speak for God, we do not. Therefore, they did not need Scripture as a witness. BIG DIFFERENCE. If the pope and others were doing what James, Paul, Peter and the other apostles were doing (raising the dead, healing the lame, etc) I would follow them also. But since we don’t, we have to rely upon their word as expressed in Scripture.

Michael
Click to expand...
Great stuff Pax, Nancy and MichaelP. Michael, your short answer is a good one, but it doesn’t accomplish the “we have nothing but Scripture to rely upon” since no one is performing miracles concept. This is because Scripture doesn’t record a static institution, but a continuous and dynamic one.For example, what do you do with the fact that Scripture definitively recorded that the office of Apostles must be filled? Did that requirement end? Who, then, is holding those positions? From whom did they acquire them? It seems to me that those positions continued to be filled ( and eventually multiplied) as the church grew. The key is finding the people who have had the original apostolic authority passed on to them. Otherwise, no one is believable. I have to agree with Pax that it makes no sense for Christ, in anticipation of his own death, would appoint Peter as leader only to have him martyred shorly afterward and have no new leader. I know you’ll say that it doesn’t matter what “makes sense” to me, so I’ll add …In addition to it not making sense, we actually do have it recorded in Scripture that when an Apostle died another person filled his office.
And, as an aside, I still say that without this authority being passed on the book you cling to is paper and ink alone. With this authority, however, that book is exactly what you believe it to be - the Word of God.

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
Great stuff Pax, Nancy and MichaelP. Michael, your short answer is a good one, but it doesn’t accomplish the “we have nothing but Scripture to rely upon” since no one is performing miracles concept. This is because Scripture doesn’t record a static institution, but a continuous and dynamic one.For example, what do you do with the fact that Scripture definitively recorded that the office of Apostles must be filled? Did that requirement end? Who, then, is holding those positions? From whom did they acquire them? It seems to me that those positions continued to be filled ( and eventually multiplied) as the church grew. The key is finding the people who have had the original apostolic authority passed on to them. Otherwise, no one is believable. I have to agree with Pax that it makes no sense for Christ, in anticipation of his own death, would appoint Peter as leader only to have him martyred shorly afterward and have no new leader. I know you’ll say that it doesn’t matter what “makes sense” to me, so I’ll add …In addition to it not making sense, we actually do have it recorded in Scripture that when an Apostle died another person filled his office.
And, as an aside, I still say that without this authority being passed on the book you cling to is paper and ink alone. With this authority, however, that book is exactly what you believe it to be - the Word of God.

Phil
Click to expand...
Hey Phil, hope that you had a Merry Christmas. It was nice here at my parents. I am taking a week vaction!!.

I have highlighted the part that interests me in bold. My question is: Where is this recorded that when an Apostle died another person filled his office? Matthias cannot be used since that was in fullfillment of a prophecy that speak accurately and restrictively about the replacement of the office of Judas, the one who betrayed Christ. Also, and more importantly for me, Peter said with certianty that the one who filled his place must have seen the resurrected Christ. This is reasonable since the Apostles (in the strick since of the word) were those who were sent out with a message of the risen Savior and it is reasonable that this requirement would be made clear.

You may be referring to other Scriptures though.

Hope you are having a good day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top