The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 152

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151

[SoothingDave]

And the keys are given to all the Apostles - and then offered to all mankind. Every true Christian has the keys. They are two, salvation and obedience.

I can show you Scripture of Christ giving the keys to Peter. Where is your evidence, from Scripture (we would accept nothing else), of the keys being given to all of the apostles, or all Christians?

Be specific.

And remember: "Pretty words don't lend any more credance to the absence of evidence."

Did you ever see the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer was helping himself to Jerry's apartment too often and Jerry had to revoke his status as "keeper of the backup keys"?

There is a lesson to be learned in understanding the simple, natural, implication of what it means to entrust one with "the keys." When one has to stretch the normal meaning of Scripture to meet a preconceived notion, what do we call it?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

"In any contextual reading, it should be obvious that Peter,nee Simon barjona, is the rock and the Keys are the symbol of authority or leadership,as the vicar(helper, assistant, mimion,etc.) of Christ .Any other interpretation requires major distortional twisting of the written word .
-----------------------------------------------------------

Lets see:

Matt:16:

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ------------------------------------------------------------

Now see:

Matt. 18:18

(Jesus speaking to all the apostles)

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus gave exactly the same power to all the apostles which he had given to Peter. The keys to the kingdom.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Let's see what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:

I. THE FATHERS

(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. . . .

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded.

. . .

Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349) ============================================================

Christ conferred the "Keys to the Kingdom" not only to Peter but all the Apostles and the Church as a whole.

As to the Rock:

1 Corinthians 10:

1 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,

2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

3 and all ate the same supernatural food

4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

THE ROCK WAS CHRIST

[JHavard]

Recently they did indeed uncover the tomb and sure enough there were bones in it. And there were ancient inscriptions in Latin identifying it as Peter's remains.

Here we go again, OK, show me the proof, where is the information on this new digging, and exactly what was written in Latin that it identified Peter as the one in the tomb, and what method was it written, carved, copper lettering, crayon or magic marker?

I am sure they have pictures and documentation, I can't wait to see it, thanks in advance.

[SoothingDave]

Matt:16:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Here Peter is given the keys to the kingdom AND given the power to loose and bind. What's next?

Matt. 18:18

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus gave exactly the same power to all the apostles which he had given to Peter. The keys to the kingdom.

You are here reading things that simply aren't there. The power to bind and loose is NOT synonymous with the meaning of the keys to the kingdom. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom AND (note the use of the word "and" in the Scripture)the power to bind and loose.

All of the apostles were given the power to bind and loose. This does not mean they were all given the keys. If it did, it would have said that. You are reading things athat are not there.

To recap:

Peter: given keys and power to bind and loose

Other apostles: given power to bind and loose

SD

[SoothingDave]

There is no way I could prove that it was Peter. We have no DNA samples or dentist records to match to the bones. All we know is that a long time ago people apparently thought they were burying Peter.

Or thought they would spring a hoax on people thousands of years hence.

I know which version you'll believe. If I do find the info about the find, I will link it. Just for fun.

SD

[JHavard]

There is no way I could prove that it was Peter. We have no DNA samples or dentist records to match to the bones.

Forgive me as I sit here shaking my head. CATS you know, Cranial Agitateus Toomuchus Syndrome

[OLD REGGIE]

" No, he just said he was the rock upon which the Church would be built. "Pope" means "Father" and "Catholic" means "Universal." These words are just descriptions. The fact that Jesus doesn't use those exact words is immaterial. He also never used the word Trinity.

catholic means "universal". Catholic means a particular Church. Big difference.

"Pope" means "Father"!!!!!!

MatT. 23:

9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

10 Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.

O.k. Have it your way.

[SoothingDave]

Check this out, seems well-balanced.

http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/96/Curran96.html

SD

[SoothingDave]

"Pope" means "Father"!!!!!!

Viva il Papa!

I suppose you call no one "teacher" either?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Forgive me as I sit here shaking my head.

Frustrating, ain't I?

Do read the article I linked. The fact that the entire Vatican was bulit upon a graveyard certainly doesn't help! But in the author's estimation, if we found a tomb near graffiti talking of Peter, that is near masonry marked with the approximate right date, of a 60-70 year old man, with some remnants of fine purple and gold cloth, we can surmise that it is Peter.

But I could never convince you scientifically of that.

SD

[saradippity]

Thanks for your respectful responses,I disagree with much and believe my most cogent points remain unaddressed but as I have said before I don't think in these turbulent times God wants us bickering. I do believe He wants His children to be One Body in Christ,in order to better defend against the Adversary.To that end I will leave most of my statements just hanging there for your future consideration. There are a couple of items I want to clarify right now and I also want to let you know that I will probably return to some of my interpretations at a later date and even argue them. But for now:

Old Reggie,am I mistaken in believing that the Gospels were the teachings of the four evangelists and that everything pertaining of things that happened after the Crucifixion are contained in the Epistles. If I am mistaken let me know. If I am correct then my statement about "wives"not being mentioned in the Gospels still stands. You quoted Corinthians.

J.Havard,I am happy that your wife is okay now because certainly as a child she suffered from a}narcolepsy b}attention deficit disorder,or,c}delusions.The Gospels,in my lifetime as well as my moms{88 when she died last year)have always been in English,as were the sermons. Until the 60's the universal eucharistic prayer was in Latin.And as others have said there were missals that displayed the Latin prayer on the left side and the prayer in the vernacular on the right. Or maybe vice-versa.

Havoc et al,when Jesus changed the name of Simon bar-Jonah to Cephus or Petros why didn't he change it to something like Omniadam or Multiadams? I mean if He meant it for all men,or something similar, I really would have hoped he would have named him something more reflective of His intent.

[malakhi]

Or thought they would spring a hoax on people thousands of years hence.

I just knew the Jesuits faked it. ;o)

[OLD REGGIE]

"Havoc has glommed onto the idea that if he could somehow disprove Peter's presence in Rome, he would thereby disprove the doctrine of the Papacy. This is why he keeps pressing the point and denying all the historical evidence.

Rather a naive assumption. If the doctrine of the Papacy were valid it would make no difference whether Peter ever left Union, New Jersey or not. The Papacy would follow Peter, not a particular city.

[JHavard]

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom AND (note the use of the word "and" in the Scripture)the power to bind and loose.

Isn't it peculiar how Christ spent so much time showing that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were one, and if you knew him you knew the father.

one fold and one shepard

Husband and wife would become one

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

So after all these words about them being one, Christ puts Peter in charge and gives him all this authority that none of the others have?

I don't think so since I see no examples of any power strugle between any of them.

[OLD REGGIE]

"You ignore everything I said in my last post. Which last post?

I am not a literalist when it comes to Paul's letters. You are a literalist when it comes to relegating women to second class status but a generalist in other matters. Any reason why???

[SoothingDave]

Which last post?

when I was talking about you making distinctions between Paul talking for God, and Paul just giving his own opinion. I said something like:

We understand the message of the books to be inspired, taken along with the circumstances of the intended audience. We recognize the Holy Spirit inspiring the author to write only truth. We don't get to personally decide, based on the placement of the first person pronoun and wishful thinking, which statements to take as "God" and which as merely "Paul."

I find it dangerous to decide for yourself which statements are to be taken as inspired and which are to be considered personal opinion. And discerning between the two.

I am not a literalist when it comes to Paul's letters. You are a literalist when it comes to relegating women to second class status but a generalist in other matters. Any reason why???

I think we all like to take certain things literally. You like the thing about calling no man "father" I like some of the stuff about "unless you eat my flesh..." The trick is getting us to agree on the same interpretation of the same things.

One thing I've learned from more fundamental Bible Christian types is that when ofered a choice, Scripture should help us understand Scripture and that the simpler meaning should prevail when at all possible and not injurious to the faith.

That being said, I don't think women should preach not just because of the statement of Paul in question. If Paul never said it, it would not change my thought. It has more to do with the fact that Jesus would have selected women apostles if he had desired there to be women apostles. Plain and simple. I am not an absolutist about absolute silence from women. I have no problem with women singing in Church, or reading the lesser Scripture readings. But the reading of the gospel and the performance of the priestly functions is reserved to men.

SD

[JHavard]

But I could never convince you scientifically of that.

Comon Dave, if it were turned around, would you accept that as evidance from me? I think not, and I know how frustrating it must be to believe something and every time you think you are close to proving it, it disapears like a puff of smoke.

If God had meant for you to be able to put a lock on Peter, it would have been a small matter for him to do it, and since he chose not to, you are stuck with simply having faith in man that it happened.

I wonder what would happen if we sometimes said, "I can't prove it happened from the Bible, but I choose to believe such and such from my own inner convictioms."

[SoothingDave]

Isn't it peculiar how Christ spent so much time showing that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were one, and if you knew him you knew the father.

one fold and one shepard

Husband and wife would become one

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

So after all these words about them being one, Christ puts Peter in charge and gives him all this authority that none of the others have?

Yep. You seem to confuse unity and egalitarianism. Just because we are united doesn't mean we are all equal in station. We are united under our One Head, Christ the Lord. And in His stead and to exercise His Authority until He returns (symbolized in the transfer of the keys), we are united under Peter.

We can all be united to try to stop terrorists, to protect God's people on earth, but that doesn't mean we don't need earthly leaders.

I don't think so since I see no examples of any power strugle between any of them.

Why would an apostle struggle against the leader Christ himself appointed? Would you expect to see a power struggle? Especially since Christ gave a nice talking to to the disciples arguing about who was his favorite.

[JHavard]

J.Havard,I am happy that your wife is okay now because certainly as a child she suffered from a}narcolepsy b}attention deficit disorder,or,c}delusions.

Sara, if all you got out of my post was that my wife had narcolepsy or ADD, then I am no better at communicating then your Church is.

Some day it might be interesting for you to pick out a few strangers at Church Sunday and go up to them and try to have a spiritual conversation with them about the bible or Christ, as we do on these threads, and see what happens, you may be surprised to find there aren't many like you out there.

[OLD REGGIE]

Jesus gave exactly the same power to all the apostles which he had given to Peter. The keys to the kingdom.

"You are here reading things that simply aren't there. The power to bind and loose is NOT synonymous with the meaning of the keys to the kingdom. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom AND (note the use of the word "and" in the Scripture)the power to bind and loose."
-------------------------------------------

Let's look again at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:

THE FATHERS

(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. . . . It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. . . . Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349) ============================================================

What is used to open the gates?????

Maybe your argument is with the Catholic Encyclopedia.