Why should we listen to you?

[ncgolf]

I submit then we are broken in our reasoning and in our judgement. This is nothing new for it is nothing other than sin … the ability to do and see what is all good all the time. I am not saying anything new here … so the OP question is still here … where should we listen for the truth.

The problem it seems is that modern ethical issues are not clearly spoken to in Scripture by name. The right or wrong way in these tough, modern day issues are present in Scripture but not easily revealed.

I know I cannot on my own. If I hear 2 voices that tell me the HS guided them but the answer is not the same then they speak falsely … where can one be totally assured.

What I see is that people recognize that fact so trust only themselves … as Brkn1 writes, "I choose to follow the gift of common sense and a “sound mind” that God gives to all of His children. "

We must find the voice that will not lead us astray … not once, not ever.

 

[brkn1]

I will ask again … use Scripture or your own reasoning … what does Jesus want us to know (as Christians) on what or how to approach an issue like cloning.

Is cloning is acceptable or something abominable.

By your reasoning then men should not have a say about abortion since it is a woman’s body … and I doubt very much we know much about that.

Our sound mind was broken by the sin of Adam … it is good but not perfect. That is sin … we know something is wrong and we do it anyway … so the common sense and sound mind is sometimes shaky at best.

What do you do when two arguments use Scripture to arrive at two differenct conclusions?

I admire your sincerity but in practice you have not explained how it works with a tough, real and current ethical dilemma. Scripture must be able to speak in these instances … tell me then.

You are diverting this thread of onto other subjects by your examples of questions.
I will give quick answers to some of your questions:
Cloning of humans must be wrong, since it is delving into the realm of acting as Creator, which is only God’s right. See Genesis. I do not think it will ever happen. God seems to have kept it from happening so far.
Cloning of animals might be OK, since man was given rights by God to control animals. I do not support unnecessary cruelty in the matter though.
Abortion is murder. Conception is the beginning of life, regardless what any worldly scientist claims. David spoke of his being in the womb. John jumped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the approach of Jesus in Mary’s womb.

Our ability to turn towards God spiritually was destroyed when Adam sinned. All that an unspiritual person (unsaved) can do is sin, even if what he does appears good to the world. He is doing it from himself, which is the essence of pride and idolatry. It must be done from God, after the Spiritual seed is placed into the soul from above, as Jesus pointed out to Nicodemas. Nicodemas was doing what appeared as righteous and sincere, but that did not save him. Only the new birth made salvation possible. The Holy Spirit is the One Who takes God’s Word and persuades a person chosen by God of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus. It does not violate the person’s will, when that person, thus persuaded of the reality of Faith in Jesus, chooses to have that Faith unto eternal salvation.

If any of the two arguments about Scripture has a ring of Truth which only the Holy Spirit can reveal, then whatever rings true will take or be used to lead a sincere seeker into further truth. Patience is part of that process, if the Truth is not completely clear. “My sheep will hear My voice.”

 

[brkn1]

I submit then we are broken in our reasoning and in our judgement. This is nothing new for it is nothing other than sin … the ability to do and see what is all good all the time. I am not saying anything new here … so the OP question is still here … where should we listen for the truth.

The problem it seems is that modern ethical issues are not clearly spoken to in Scripture by name. The right or wrong way in these tough, modern day issues are present in Scripture but not easily revealed.

I know I cannot on my own. If I hear 2 voices that tell me the HS guided them but the answer is not the same then they speak falsely … where can one be totally assured.

What I see is that people recognize that fact so trust only themselves … as Brkn1 writes, "I choose to follow the gift of common sense and a “sound mind” that God gives to all of His children. "

We must find the voice that will not lead us astray … not once, not ever.

Your last sentence would disqualify any human voice. Only God has that ability.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Let me share with you what I believe about that Scripture. It’s not giving carte blanche final authority to the church (whatever you or I deem that to be). Break it down. What’s a pillar and ground? Something that supports something and something that is a foundation for something. So the church is the pillar and ground of what? The truth. Let’s find out what the truth is:

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

According to Jesus, the truth is the word of God: the Scriptures. So the church is to be the pillar and ground of the Scriptures. If a church is NOT upholding the word of God and is not grounded in it, can it then rightly be called the pillar and ground of truth? The authority of the church is the Scriptures. If any church departs from the Scriptures, it stands to reason the authority also departs. Unless you’re giving a church more authority than God.

As others have explained, Scripture does not interpret itself, it must be interpreted by those who read it. Those who read it are influenced, whether they admit it or not, by all those who taught them their faith. There is no such thing as reading the Scriptures with no preconceptions. We are also heavily influenced by our own culture in how we interpret what is written, but the culture that existed in the times and places where the NT books were written was entirely different. There were so many things that the writers did not include because it was common knowledge. Alas, many of these things are no longer common knowledge because they are no longer a part of our culture.

**
Is the Bible the infallible word of God or not?**

Well, here we have a pivotal question. Who says the Bible is the infallible Word of God? By what Authority do we accept that what it says actually is the Word of God? Why aren’t the Koran, the Book of Mormon,or the Baghavad Gita the Word of God?

It was the Catholic Church which declared which books were inspired and contained only authentic teachings of Christ and which were not from the hundreds that were circulating at the time. How did they know that? They checked what was written against what had been taught and preserved by the Early Church Fathers. The Church, the Body of Christ, is Who infallibly declared both the Septuagint and the books of the New Testament to be the Inspired Word of God.

I find it hard to understand how people can accept the Authority of the Catholic Church that the Bible is the Word of God, but then turn around and say they don’t accept that same Authority when we tell them what it means. It is our book, after all.

Is God the source of truth or not? Is God the final authority or is He not? Then it stands to reason that His word is the final authority, not any church.

I don’t agree. It does not stand to reason. God is the Final Authority, but who says that what you think the verse means is what God means?

So I don’t believe that verse is saying what Catholics say it is because that would then kind of make a god out of the church, giving it superior authority above what God has said in His word. The Bereans didn’t check with a church to find out if what Paul told them was true, they checked the Scriptures.

The Scriptures consulted by the Jews in Berea in Acts 17:11 was only the Old Testament Septuagint since the New Testament had not been written yet.

 

[brkn1]

As others have explained, Scripture does not interpret itself, it must be interpreted by those who read it. Those who read it are influenced, whether they admit it or not, by all those who taught them their faith. There is no such thing as reading the Scriptures with no preconceptions. We are also heavily influenced by our own culture in how we interpret what is written, but the culture that existed in the times and places where the NT books were written was entirely different. There were so many things that the writers did not include because it was common knowledge. Alas, many of these things are no longer common knowledge because they are no longer a part of our culture.

Well, here we have a pivotal question. Who says the Bible is the infallible Word of God? By what Authority do we accept that what it says actually is the Word of God? Why aren’t the Koran, the Book of Mormon,or the Baghavad Gita the Word of God?

It was the Catholic Church which declared which books were inspired and contained only authentic teachings of Christ and which were not from the hundreds that were circulating at the time. How did they know that? They checked what was written against what had been taught and preserved by the Early Church Fathers. The Church, the Body of Christ, is Who infallibly declared both the Septuagint and the books of the New Testament to be the Inspired Word of God.

I find it hard to understand how people can accept the Authority of the Catholic Church that the Bible is the Word of God, but then turn around and say they don’t accept that same Authority when we tell them what it means. It is our book, after all.

I don’t agree. It does not stand to reason. God is the Final Authority, but who says that what you think the verse means is what God means?

The Scriptures consulted by the Jews in Berea in Acts 17:11 was only the Old Testament Septuagint since the New Testament had not been written yet.

Alas, your answer to the pivotal question is the pivotal question answer of “Who says that what you think the verse means is what God means?”.
The only answer I could give for such a question answer is, “Because God said so right there in HIS Bible!”
It isn’t any more your book than it is mine.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Alas, your answer to the pivotal question is the pivotal question answer of “Who says that what you think the verse means is what God means?”.
The only answer I could give for such a question answer is, “Because God said so right there in HIS Bible!”
It isn’t any more your book than it is mine.

Unfortunately, when you and I read the same passage and come to different conclusions about what is being said, I have to ask who has the meaning God intended. It is not as clear as, “God said so.”, when we disagree on an interpretation.

God said to Simon, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.”. He says nothing about 'on this Bible, I will build My Church.".

Had Jesus intended that a book be the final authority, surely He would have called a scribe and had him record everything and proof-read it to make sure he got it right. Or rather, why didn’t He send His Teachings down from Heaven, already written by God’s personal Hand, infallibly translated into all the world’s languages and miraculously incorruptible so we would have the Original with us always, with a Voice from Heaven saying, “This is My Book, the Final Authority of My Church.”?

If not for the Authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe one word of the Bible, any more than I believe anything in the Book of Mormon. Once I have accepted that Authority, why should I reject it when the Church clarifies what it means when there is confusion and disagreement on interpretation?

 

[Pier]

If not for the Authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe one word of the Bible, any more than I believe anything in the Book of Mormon. Once I have accepted that Authority, why should I reject it when the Church clarifies what it means when there is confusion and disagreement on interpretation?

Well said & worth repeating.

 

[brkn1]

Unfortunately, when you and I read the same passage and come to different conclusions about what is being said, I have to ask who has the meaning God intended. It is not as clear as, “God said so.”, when we disagree on an interpretation.

God said to Simon, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.”. He says nothing about 'on this Bible, I will build My Church.".

Had Jesus intended that a book be the final authority, surely He would have called a scribe and had him record everything and proof-read it to make sure he got it right. Or rather, why didn’t He send His Teachings down from Heaven, already written by God’s personal Hand, infallibly translated into all the world’s languages and miraculously incorruptible so we would have the Original with us always, with a Voice from Heaven saying, “This is My Book, the Final Authority of My Church.”?

If not for the Authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe one word of the Bible, any more than I believe anything in the Book of Mormon. Once I have accepted that Authority, why should I reject it when the Church clarifies what it means when there is confusion and disagreement on interpretation?

You depend on the Authority of the Catholic Church to believe God’s Word, because that is where your faith lies.
The physical external baptism of your church must not have baptized you internally by the Holy Spirit and that is why you must depend on the your church to “know the truth”. This is the same as saying that you have not been born again with the Holy Spirit now indwelling you and guiding you.
My Faith is built on the foundation and cornerstone of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter is a part of the Church foundation later built on top of the only true foundation Rock of Jesus. Jesus is my Rock foundation, not Peter. The Stone made without hands will be what smashes the feet of the Roman Empire at the end of ages. (See Daniel). I want to be resting in Faith on that Stone and not part of the man-made iron and clay of the feet in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image, which gets destroyed forever.
“God said so.” does not depend on any other entity for validation. The suggestion that it does, insults God.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Unfortunately, when you and I read the same passage and come to different conclusions about what is being said, I have to ask who has the meaning God intended. It is not as clear as, “God said so.”, when we disagree on an interpretation.

God said to Simon, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.”. He says nothing about 'on this Bible, I will build My Church.".

Had Jesus intended that a book be the final authority, surely He would have called a scribe and had him record everything and proof-read it to make sure he got it right. Or rather, why didn’t He send His Teachings down from Heaven, already written by God’s personal Hand, infallibly translated into all the world’s languages and miraculously incorruptible so we would have the Original with us always, with a Voice from Heaven saying, “This is My Book, the Final Authority of My Church.”?

If not for the Authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe one word of the Bible, any more than I believe anything in the Book of Mormon. Once I have accepted that Authority, why should I reject it when the Church clarifies what it means when there is confusion and disagreement on interpretation?

Great post!!!

A voice came from heaven, saying, “This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased,”

God sent HIMSELF, not a book. God is contained in people, not in words.

This does not invalidate the Bible as the Word of God, it simply points out the error of Sola Scriptura.

 

[fbl9]

You depend on the Authority of the Catholic Church to believe God’s Word, because that is where your faith lies.
The physical external baptism of your church must not have baptized you internally by the Holy Spirit and that is why you must depend on the your church to “know the truth”. This is the same as saying that you have not been born again with the Holy Spirit now indwelling you and guiding you.
My Faith is built on the foundation and cornerstone of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter is a part of the Church foundation later built on top of the only true foundation Rock of Jesus. Jesus is my Rock foundation, not Peter. The Stone made without hands will be what smashes the feet of the Roman Empire at the end of ages. (See Daniel). I want to be resting in Faith on that Stone and not part of the man-made iron and clay of the feet in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image, which gets destroyed forever.
“God said so.” does not depend on any other entity for validation. The suggestion that it does, insults God.

i take it then you truly don’t beleive in baptismal regeneration…that explains some of what you have been saying thus far…
reread the rest of your post it makes little sense…first you say Christ is the corner stone,then you say He is the whole of the foundation…which is it?
a cornerstone is not he whole of the foundation but without the whole of the foundation falls apart.
who built this “later” church with St.Peter part of it??
St.Peter was made without “human hands”

 

[Linda_Marie]

You depend on the Authority of the Catholic Church to believe God’s Word, because that is where your faith lies.
The physical external baptism of your church must not have baptized you internally by the Holy Spirit and that is why you must depend on the your church to “know the truth”. This is the same as saying that you have not been born again with the Holy Spirit now indwelling you and guiding you.
My Faith is built on the foundation and cornerstone of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter is a part of the Church foundation later built on top of the only true foundation Rock of Jesus. Jesus is my Rock foundation, not Peter. The Stone made without hands will be what smashes the feet of the Roman Empire at the end of ages. (See Daniel). I want to be resting in Faith on that Stone and not part of the man-made iron and clay of the feet in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image, which gets destroyed forever.
“God said so.” does not depend on any other entity for validation. The suggestion that it does, insults God.

That’s quite an assumption about my spiritual state.

I was an unbeliever before God whacked me upside the head with a spiritual 2x4 after tapping me on the shoulder for about 10 years or so. I grew up in Saudi Arabia, being taught no faith at all. However, the faith example ‘in my face’, day in, day out was Wahabbi Islam. How was I to know that Mohammad did not have the Authority to say, ‘God said so.’? How was I to know that the Christianity had the Truth and not Islam? Once God convinced me He was real and wanted me to follow Him, I had more choices than just which Christian church to choose, I had the entire array of world religions.

The Holy Spirit brought me into His Church. The Holy Spirit convicted me that there was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and all the others, although they may contain some of the Truth, do not possess the Authority and Promise of Christ and the Fullness of Truth that resides in the Body of Christ - the Catholic Church. All the other Christian churches split off from the Church because someone decided that they knew better than the God Appointed Authority what the Scriptures mean.

This is one important example of the difference in interpretation. God said, “I am building My Church on you, Simon, who I rename ‘Rock’. I am giving you the keys to My Kingdom (which means God is giving Rock His own Authority). Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” You reject this and say, ‘No, God didn’t mean that He was establishing the Authority of His Church.’ when to me, it is quite clear that He did. (Another of those customs we no longer have to help us understand about the keys of the Kingdom.)

Here is the crux of the matter. You are really saying, ‘In My Opinion, God said so.’ because we come up with different interpretations of this important passage. So yes,the statement ‘God said so.’ relies on external verification. I don’t know if God is speaking to you and guiding you, or if perhaps, you are being misled. I can’t just take your word for it that ‘God said so.’. I need some evidence that you have the Authority to state that ‘God said so.’ My eternal soul depends on it.

 

[Pier]

You depend on the Authority of the Catholic Church to believe God’s Word, because that is where your faith lies.
The physical external baptism of your church must not have baptized you internally by the Holy Spirit and that is why you must depend on the your church to “know the truth”. This is the same as saying that you have not been born again with the Holy Spirit now indwelling you and guiding you.
My Faith is built on the foundation and cornerstone of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter is a part of the Church foundation later built on top of the only true foundation Rock of Jesus. Jesus is my Rock foundation, not Peter. The Stone made without hands will be what smashes the feet of the Roman Empire at the end of ages. (See Daniel). I want to be resting in Faith on that Stone and not part of the man-made iron and clay of the feet in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image, which gets destroyed forever.
“God said so.” does not depend on any other entity for validation. The suggestion that it does, insults God.

God can delegate authority. When Gabriel appeared to Mary, God could very well have talked to her Himself, but chose to have a messenger do it.

Christ is God. Therefore, He was justified in delegating authority to His Apostles.

And, who was the only apostle that walked with Jesus on the water? The same man that He gave the keys of His Kingdom of Heaven to. Matthew 16:19

Yep, God can delegate authority if He wants too. :yup:

 

[seekdatruth]

That’s quite an assumption about my spiritual state.

I was an unbeliever before God whacked me upside the head with a spiritual 2x4 after tapping me on the shoulder for about 10 years or so. I grew up in Saudi Arabia, being taught no faith at all. However, the faith example ‘in my face’, day in, day out was Wahabbi Islam. How was I to know that Mohammad did not have the Authority to say, ‘God said so.’? How was I to know that the Christianity had the Truth and not Islam? Once God convinced me He was real and wanted me to follow Him, I had more choices than just which Christian church to choose, I had the entire array of world religions.

The Holy Spirit brought me into His Church. The Holy Spirit convicted me that there was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and all the others, although they may contain some of the Truth, do not possess the Authority and Promise of Christ and the Fullness of Truth that resides in the Body of Christ - the Catholic Church. All the other Christian churches split off from the Church because someone decided that they knew better than the God Appointed Authority what the Scriptures mean.

This is one important example of the difference in interpretation. God said, “I am building My Church on you, Simon, who I rename ‘Rock’. I am giving you the keys to My Kingdom (which means God is giving Rock His own Authority). Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” You reject this and say, ‘No, God didn’t mean that He was establishing the Authority of His Church.’ when to me, it is quite clear that He did. (Another of those customs we no longer have to help us understand about the keys of the Kingdom.)

Here is the crux of the matter. You are really saying, ‘In My Opinion, God said so.’ because we come up with different interpretations of this important passage. So yes,the statement ‘God said so.’ relies on external verification. I don’t know if God is speaking to you and guiding you, or if perhaps, you are being misled. I can’t just take your word for it that ‘God said so.’. I need some evidence that you have the Authority to state that ‘God said so.’ My eternal soul depends on it.

:clapping: Lovely testimony! Bravo!

 

[WindGirl]

Here is the crux of the matter. You are really saying, ‘In My Opinion, God said so.’ because we come up with different interpretations of this important passage. So yes,the statement ‘God said so.’ relies on external verification. I don’t know if God is speaking to you and guiding you, or if perhaps, you are being misled. I can’t just take your word for it that ‘God said so.’. I need some evidence that you have the Authority to state that ‘God said so.’ My eternal soul depends on it.

But, aren’t you taking the leaders in the RCC’s word for it? Simply passing the buck? Your eternal soul depends upon what you do with Jesus Christ. Here’s two things for you to think about:

Act 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Psa 118:8 [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

You know, I can’t take your or the RCC’s word for anything either. People’s eternal souls depend on believing what God has said in His written word, especially the gospel of Christ for Galatians 1:6-9 says if anyone, even and angel from heaven, preaches any other gospel than the one first delivered to the saints, let them be accursed.

Deep down, what or whom are you really trusting?

 

[brkn1]

God can delegate authority. When Gabriel appeared to Mary, God could very well have talked to her Himself, but chose to have a messenger do it.

Christ is God. Therefore, He was justified in delegating authority to His Apostles.

And, who was the only apostle that walked with Jesus on the water? The same man that He gave the keys of His Kingdom of Heaven to. Matthew 16:19

Yep, God can delegate authority if He wants too. :yup:

God most certainly does delegate authority, but the question becomes,“What sort of authority?”.
Jesus said that we must render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. The RCC has often become or tried to become that very Ceasar that is of this world.
Jesus also said that His kingdom is not of this world, so where does the papacy get the claim to be the ruler of this world and even the universe?
True following of Christ allows that we are pilgrims in this world as Peter and Paul said. “…I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims…” (1 Peter 2:11) This is not the talk of a worldly authority, which the RCC is.
Those keys are the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which the preaching of that true Gospel opens the door of the Kingdom of Heaven. Not obeying Jesus command to preach the Gospel will close that door to those whose sins are not remitted by hearing the Gospel and receiving it through the Holy Spirit unto eternal salvation.

 

[brkn1]

That’s quite an assumption about my spiritual state.

Here is the crux of the matter. You are really saying, ‘In My Opinion, God said so.’ because we come up with different interpretations of this important passage. So yes,the statement ‘God said so.’ relies on external verification. I don’t know if God is speaking to you and guiding you, or if perhaps, you are being misled. I can’t just take your word for it that ‘God said so.’. I need some evidence that you have the Authority to state that ‘God said so.’ My eternal soul depends on it.

It is not really an assumption on my part. By what you say, you indicate whether you are truly born again. A frenchman can tell whether someone speaking french is a true native frenchman by the accent etc.
The only Person that can give you the evidence of true Faith and understanding of God’s Word is the Holy Spirit. If you place your faith in any other on that matter, you will not find true Faith. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel of Jesus is the key to salvation. There is no other Name but Jesus whereby we may be saved. Your eternal soul does depend on it.
Remember that Jesus said that many will say, “Lord, Lord…”, but Jesus will say, “I never knew you…” Many religious people will be in that group. They never knew Jesus, because they never were born from above.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

God most certainly does delegate authority, but the question becomes,“What sort of authority?”.
Jesus said that we must render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. The RCC has often become or tried to become that very Ceasar that is of this world.
Jesus also said that His kingdom is not of this world, so where does the papacy get the claim to be the ruler of this world and even the universe?

Very faulty reasoning. The meaning of that Bible verse is the saints of God value the things of Heaven and not the things of Earth. The meaning is that spiritual righteousness and beauty are preferred to things of this world- for example, following the law, which is of the flesh, amassing power, which is of the flesh, valuing intellectual power and beauty over charity, etc., which is of the flesh.

It does NOT mean the Church is therefore invisible. If it did mean that, then why does Jesus say, “Lo, I am with you, even until the end of the age”? Why does Jesus give the “keys of the kingdom” and all authority to Peter and the apostles?

You have not made a case with that reasoning.

NOW, if you were to say, “in times past the Vatican has appeared to value the flesh and things of this world over spiritual things”, then show that in specific examples. If you cannot demonstrate that through concrete examples, then you are slandering the Church.

HOWEVER, I will grant that there have been corrupt bishops, corrupt Church hierarchies, etc., throughout the centuries. Why do you think that means the Church should have no visible presence on Earth? If we use your reasoning, all Fundamentalist churches should be overthrown because of the smarmy, political hypocrites like Ted Haggard that have infested those Churches with their prosperity/conservative Republican gospels.

 

[brkn1]

i take it then you truly don’t beleive in baptismal regeneration…that explains some of what you have been saying thus far…
reread the rest of your post it makes little sense…first you say Christ is the corner stone,then you say He is the whole of the foundation…which is it?
a cornerstone is not he whole of the foundation but without the whole of the foundation falls apart.
who built this “later” church with St.Peter part of it??
St.Peter was made without “human hands”

Physical baptism is not the same as the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Peter is described as one of the foundation stones along with the other apostles and prophets. All born again believers are living stones on top of the earlier stones as the building of the living Church of Jesus.
If Christ is not both the cornerstone and foundation, then Peter, as the “foundation” would be supporting the Cornerstone (Jesus). Now THAT does not make any sense!

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Physical baptism is not the same as the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Peter is described as one of the foundation stones along with the other apostles and prophets. All born again believers are living stones on top of the earlier stones as the building of the living Church of Jesus.
If Christ is not both the cornerstone and foundation, then Peter, as the “foundation” would be supporting the Cornerstone (Jesus). Now THAT does not make any sense!

Peter’s role is unique and primary among the apostles.

Only Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom.

Only Peter’s name was changed by Jesus.

 

[brkn1]

Very faulty reasoning. The meaning of that Bible verse is the saints of God value the things of Heaven and not the things of Earth. The meaning is that spiritual righteousness and beauty are preferred to things of this world- for example, following the law, which is of the flesh, amassing power, which is of the flesh, valuing intellectual power and beauty over charity, etc., which is of the flesh.

It does NOT mean the Church is therefore invisible. If it did mean that, then why does Jesus say, “Lo, I am with you, even until the end of the age”? Why does Jesus give the “keys of the kingdom” and all authority to Peter and the apostles?

You have not made a case with that reasoning.

NOW, if you were to say, “in times past the Vatican has appeared to value the flesh and things of this world over spiritual things”, then show that in specific examples. If you cannot demonstrate that through concrete examples, then you are slandering the Church.

HOWEVER, I will grant that there have been corrupt bishops, corrupt Church hierarchies, etc., throughout the centuries. Why do you think that means the Church should have no visible presence on Earth? If we use your reasoning, all Fundamentalist churches should be overthrown because of the smarmy, political hypocrites like Ted Haggard that have infested those Churches with their prosperity/conservative Republican gospels.

I never said that the Church is not to have a visible presence on Earth. Our main concern should be to spread the Gospel though, not to rule over fellow believers and others. The RCC is set up to be the final ruling source of salvation, which is the role of the Holy Spirit.