Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
I figgered you finally get here.
The QUOTED remarks of Jesus were EXACTLY what he said at the time.
Thank you.
I had a nickname growing up; too.
I think it is referring to distinctive historical Reformation teachings. Instead, you have justification by one's own personal holiness effected via sprinkling a morally incognizant soul, thus typically ending up with becoming good enough to enter Heaven, out of which they can be bailed early by those on earth, and NT pastors being titled 'priests" (usually under mandate celibacy) since their primary function is dispensing bread and wine the turned into human flesh and blood, as part of a church looking to an infallible supreme head in Rome, and praying to departed saints in Heaven which have Divine powers, none of which is seen in Scripture, but RCs compel support from.
Jesus said, “You shall be called Kephas”.
Not sure what point you think I finally got to, but you are right that Jesus that Simon would be called Kephas/Petros/Peter and henceforth, that is what he was called.
I had a nickname as well, but it wasn’t given to me by God, nor did God promise to build His church upon me and give to me the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
As you suggest, there is much that could be said, but our meditations often begin with a foundation thought - and more can be built onto it.
True, true, true. Scriptures show that Jesus gave Simon the name Kephas/Petros/Peter which means rock.
Correction: Jesus SAID that Simon would be called.....
Yeshua invoked the assembly of his remnant, not a pagan human nicolaitan abomination like the RCC.
Satan gave us that mess, and it will not prevail against his remnant that keeps his feasts, and obeys his Torah.
.
Study some Greek.
He called the dude a pebble.
Live with it.
So you have proclaimed yourself as the authority on all matters involving interpretation of scripture? Along with the countless others who also make the same claim, but are not in agreement with you on scriptural interpretations? Sorry, but this makes you the supreme authority...........over you, and only you with your own rules and beliefs and your own definition of morality. Truth is one, not many in contradiction. You don’t have a monopoly on the one, assured truth. Jesus entrusted that to his Church.
If you want to do exactly what he asked His apostles to do, then do what the apostles did - submit yourself to the authority of His Church where if you seek, you will find.
18 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.
Notice the bolded "bind" and "loose" are second person plural, thus:
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
By which we see this power of binding and loosing was addressed to all of the disciples, not just Peter. To try and maintain a distinction by suggesting there are two different categories of loosing and binding would pass the limits of credibility. When Christ confers this on Peter, He does not say, "and only you," so there is no rule of exclusion to overcome, and here in 18:18 we see the extension of this power to all His disciples.
To me the interesting question here is not the extent of the power, but what exactly is it. Merely the sacrament of penance? Or possibly something of much grander scope. We know God had used the "key" metaphor before:
Isa 22:20-22 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Jesus is God, so in effect we have the same speaker in both places. Just as God in Isaiah is deposing Shebna for cause, and raising Eliakim in his place, and signifying that transfer of blessing and divine authority with the metaphor of the key, so too in Matthew we see the failed magisterium of Israel, though it had the full authority of Moses, being deposed by God through God's Son Jesus, and the consequent power and blessing of the Gospel being transferred to the disciples of Jesus, however humble their earthly estate. Thus whoever rejects their message, as the old magisterium of Israel would surely do, would find themselves still bound by their sins, and those who receive the apostolic message would be loosed from their sins.
This is power to bind and loose was never framed as the power to forgive an individual's sins by declaration. Even Jesus' enemies understood only God as having that power:
Mar 2:5-11 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
So do we ever see this power of binding and loosing expressed in the form of an apostle doing as Jesus did and just offering forgiveness outright for anything, ever? No. But we do have this interesting exchange between Simon the sorcerer and Peter:
Act 8:18-24 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.
So here, when Peter has a perfect chance to grant forgiveness on his own initiative, instead he does two things, neither of them a grant of forgiveness. First, he publically exposes Simon for the spiritual fraud and lost soul he truly was, though he had tried to come into the church. Perhaps this is one form of shutting.
The other act of Peter here is to invite Simon to seek forgiveness from God directly, not through Peter as an intermediary. This is consistent with the approach of any Gospel minister. Sin must be exposed, so that the sinner knows his need of forgiveness. But then forgiveness does not come through the magisterium, or the sacerdotal rituals of a defunct and obsolete priesthood.
By Peter's own example, if forgiveness comes at all, it comes from responding to the call to repent, and seek forgiveness directly from God, which Simon was free to do, though he was still too much afraid to seek it directly, and asked Peter to offer intercession for Him. But Peter had told him what to do, and there is no record of Peter interceding for him. So the model is set. Repent, and ask God directly for His forgiveness. All who do so will find a God Who is eager to reconcile and welcome the repentant sinner home.
Peace,
SR
You don't even believe your OWN replies??
Yes, Elsie, Simon was Simon bar(son) of Jonah and Jesus here uses his full, given, legal name.
Just like Peter!
I HAVE??
No, He didn't. He gave some men gifts of teaching. Nowhere does it say that He invested the Roman church only with that authority.
If this church is not in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, where is it?
It's ALL believers who have been born again, regardless of denominational affiliation. The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization. There are saved and unsaved in every denomination. Catholicism is not the body of Christ. Neither are the Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Methodists, whatever.
One thing is clear is that is not any any of the Protestant churches which date from only the 16th century.
SO what? Denominations are not the body of Christ.
If the person is other than the only Begotten of the Father, then he or she is fallible, by definition of being human.
Go back and read your posts on this blog. I don’t see your comments as a reflection in living out the words of John 14-26.... unless you are interpreting scripture on the fly to make it fit your own rules. John 14-16 applies to someone today that responds to a calling from God to give his/her life to His Church, open one’s mind and preach the truth of the Gospel to his fellow man.
Sorry, just not seeing an “opened” mind and the Paraclete in your comments. Conclusion: you’ve made yourself your own master including scripture reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.