Posted on 06/18/2015 1:22:58 PM PDT by detective
I hope some of my dear rascally raccoons have just become HOMELESS!
For your sake, I hope so too!!! But then, what do we do about those pestilential "tree rats," the squirrels, which routinely deprive my cherished woodpeckers (many species) of their suet???
Not to mention, recently we realized that we have bobcats in our backyard from time to time....
City people probably cannot appreciates such things....
Is that you Hillary??? :-)
"Any proclamation of the Church on earth would already have been ratified in heaven. How would that diminish the Church's Teaching Authority?”
First, please note that the Lord’s Words in Matthew 16 were addressed to Peter, but He repeated the same thing to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18. As the representatives of their Lord, they would exercise authority according to His Word.
Now, to respond to your point above, the difference is that the passage teaches the opposite of what you claim - probably do to a poor translation of the Greek into English.
The Greek doesn’t mean God would obey what the Apostles did on earth, but that they would and should do on earth whatever God had already willed in heaven - representing that revealed will on earth.
This is vastly different than some supposed power that they would wield. That superpower isn’t in the text.
These were decisions Peter and the other Apostles were to implement *as they received instruction from heaven.*
Peter and the others carried out God’s directions as revealed (example, the lowering of the sheet of every kind of animal to eat in order to tell Peter that gentiles were not unclean). This privilege of manifesting binding and loosing on earth was demonstrated on the day of Pentecost when the Gospel was opened to Jews as well as with Cornelius when it was opened to Gentiles and other instances as well - at God’s instruction.
The Apostles could only do on earth what God already decreed in heaven. God controls the church. The church does not control God!
“And this makes sense, since this Church is Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth." The Church is the foundation of Truth, which is Christ Himself.”
Actually, it makes no sense STA. The church is meant to a the foundation, supporting the Word of God. The pillar that brings attention to God’s Truth. The church isn’t the truth. The Bible is truth, inspired directly by God the Holy Spirit.
“The Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as Its Head.”
The local gathering of believers is the localized expression of the Body of Christ. The entirety of all believers (not church members) of all time is the full Body of Christ.
Every believer, wherever found, in any age, is the Body of Christ. Not every member of a church is part of the Body of Christ, since membership comes by faith in Him and His Gospel of Grace, and not denominational membership - whether Rome or across the river. That distinction is meaningless for salvation. Without salvation, there is not membership in the Body of Christ.
“This conforms with Jesus' admonition, "if he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.””
Now you are back to misrepresentation. This passage you quote is about the local church arbitrating between believers who have a disagreement and has no meaning beyond this. Nor does any other passage say anything more.
“Constable vastly understates the authority of the office of the vice-regent in the ancient Davidic kingdom.”
That is rich! You gave me a chuckle. I thank you for that!
Thomas Constable, a good and godly man I respect and one of my former professors in seminary doesn’t “understate the office.”
You can read his commentary on Isaiah, verse by verse. Having studied, written a commentary on the entire Bible - every single verse , taught for more than 35 years at the graduate school level in a major seminary, and then made his life work available for free on the internet, is very familiar with the entirety of Scripture, including Isaiah.
He was one of my Old Testament Bible teachers - including the Prophets. I not only had to outline Isaiah for Dr. Constable, I sat and listened to his exposition of all of Isaiah. I can assure you as an eyewitness that he is well aware of all taught in Isaiah. Perhaps it is just that what he wrote isn't what you heard from Rome?
“To begin with, the Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the eternal and redeemed Davidic Kingdom. (Luke 1:32)”
Yes. He is the ruler of the Davidic Kingdom and will reign over it on earth after his return. He is also the Bridegroom of His Bride - the body of Christ as noted above.
"Here is how this authority is described in Isaiah 22: I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. More of this succession in office can be seen in Isaiah 22:15-25"
Yes, except that the "succession" isn't what you portray (below).
"As the King of the eternal House of David, Jesus holds the Key of David. (Rev. 3:7)"
So clearly, He hasn't given it to Peter.
"Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom," representing the office of the vice-regent of the eternal, redeemed House of David, to Peter. (Matthew 16:19)”"
Well, first, no he did not.
Second, if you really want to go down that road, please note that in Isaiah 22, God took the keys away from one man (Shebna) and gave them to another (Eliakim). There's your "succession." Failure!
He did this because of the pride of Shebna. So, please note, there is nothing permanent about delegated authority. Nor does Shebna nor Eliakim get to pass on the keys to whoever they wish. Only GOD did so. No one voted. No one cast lots.
Please note too that even Eliakim FAILED in his responsibility.
People who trusted in either Shebna or Eliakim were disappointed. Our trust isn’t in people - even when chosen for a brief period. Our trust is in an unfailing God. Isaiah 22:25 is a prophecy of the failure of Eliakim.
Yet when you read posts from Catholics, who undoubtedly copy and paste from Catholic sites that are echo chambers of Rome and not of God’s Word, you get a selected reading that picks and chooses. In this instance, they try to stitch together something that exalts Peter to be more than Christ said. This it the same pattern that makes Mary a co-redemptrix and all kinds of other demigoddess things.
It is worth noting for other readers this quote from Word Pictures in the New Testament, dealing with not elevating Peter, since neither he nor the other Apostles took Christ’s Words to mean Peter would be exalted.
“Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matt. 18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21) and even on the night before Christ’s death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority.”
“In The King's earthly absence, the vice-regent of the eternal, redeemed Davidic kingdom holds plenary authority over Christ's earthly Church.”
Peter is in heaven. He is absent. There is no provision in the Hebrew Scriptures to pass on keys, as noted above. There is no instruction to the church anywhere in the NT to pass on keys.” Peter served with the other Apostles to open doors for the Gospel to advance to every group of nations. It is complete.
Peter and the others will have roles in Christ’s reign on earth when he returns. Each will sit on a throne over a tribe of Israel. Peter will likely have some earthly authority (I believe there is a case to be made there). What I’m telling you is that if you take time to delve into the Scriptures themselves and not just read the online echo from Rome, you will find it doesn’t mean what you’ve been told.
Best
Miss M,
You hit the nail on the head with Sheen! His talks are as pertinent today as they were when first broadcast during the Cold War.
We've had this place in the country for about 10 years now; and have encountered lots of critters!
The chipmunks were devouring the wifes flowers; until we had a scrawny little kitty show up about the 3rd year. he was the Abraham of our gaggle of barn cats now!
Chip & Dale's descendants have VANISHED, but the big squirrels are still with us.
I've trapped groundhogs, skunks (Only got partially sprayed once), innumeral raccoons, and yes, barn cats!
Coyotes are in the area and I've seen (and chased) them off the property.
AMEN! (From this Protestant!!)
Francis is, of course acting in reaction to much of what was done by John Paul Ii and Benedict XVI. Those of us who preferred the teachings of those men will take much of what he says with a grain of salt.
Here's an example: our new 10 dollar bill is supposed to be changed: why, I don't know. The push is for a woman. How much do you want to bet that it's going to be Margaret Sanger? A woman both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of so many innocents- and is honored by feminists as some sort of heroine...
Sheen was quite an amazing man.
Why are Protestants angered by my quoting Jesus' words regarding the Teaching Authority of His Church?
You have my permission to post any passage from the Bible that you like. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Agreed. But Peter receives from Jesus the additional gift of the Keys of the office of the Vizier or Vice-Regent of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus is King.
The Greek doesn’t mean God would obey what the Apostles did on earth,
Did someone claim that?
...but that they would and should do on earth whatever God had already willed in heaven - representing that revealed will on earth.
"Binding and loosing" was a well established phrase in Jesus' time. It mean ultimate ecclesial authority. Parse it as you wish, but this is from the Jewish encyclopedia:
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).The authority of the Pharisees was a type for the Teaching and disciplinary authority of Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
Peter and the others carried out God’s directions as revealed (example, the lowering of the sheet of every kind of animal to eat in order to tell Peter that gentiles were not unclean). This privilege of manifesting binding and loosing on earth was demonstrated on the day of Pentecost when the Gospel was opened to Jews as well as with Cornelius when it was opened to Gentiles and other instances as well - at God’s instruction.
See the Jewish encyclopedia or Wikipedia regarding the term, "binding and loosing."
The Apostles could only do on earth what God already decreed in heaven. God controls the church. The church does not control God!
Of course, the Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as Its Head, which is why Christ warns us against refusing to "listen to the church."
The church is meant to a the foundation, supporting the Word of God. The pillar that brings attention to God’s Truth. The church isn’t the truth. The Bible is truth, inspired directly by God the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is the Word of God, but in a secondary sense to Christ Himself, who is The Word (and the Way, the Truth and the Life).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
“The Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as Its Head.”
The local gathering of believers is the localized expression of the Body of Christ.
In a sense. But there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism. If this local congregation teaches something outside the one, true, faith, it is not perfectly united to the Body of Christ.
The entirety of all believers (not church members) of all time is the full Body of Christ.
A believer is one who believes the one, true, faith, which is everything that Christ's Church teaches. "If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
Every believer, wherever found, in any age, is the Body of Christ.
See above.
“This conforms with Jesus' admonition, "if he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.””
Now you are back to misrepresentation. This passage you quote is about the local church arbitrating between believers who have a disagreement and has no meaning beyond this. Nor does any other passage say anything more.
This simplistic exegesis is self-contradictory and utterly incoherent.
Let's put your interpretation into practice.
"If your brother sins against you..."
Is contraception a sin? Until the Lambeth Conference, all Protestant denominations regarded it to be. Now none do.
My Christian brother told my children that there is nothing wrong with a bishop being a practicing homosexual. I believe that my brother has sinned against me. Which local congregation should arbitrate this dispute? The ones who support practicing homosexuals being bishops or the ones that don't?
You can probably imagine a thousand such examples. Under your rubric, no resolution to such disputes can ever be attained, making your interpretation of this passage impossible in practice.
This would make Christ's Words nonsensical, meaningless and void, which is an impossibility.
Therefore, your exegesis must be wrong.
There must exist a visible Church possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrine for Jesus' command to be practically possible.
“Constable vastly understates the authority of the office of the vice-regent in the ancient Davidic kingdom.”
That is rich! You gave me a chuckle. I thank you for that!
Thomas Constable, a good and godly man I respect and one of my former professors in seminary doesn’t “understate the office.”
OK. But be careful about placing your trust in men.
Maybe he just forgot about the following verses regarding the nature of the office of the Vizier of the Davidic Kingdom.
Isaiah 22:20-24The office of the Vizier in ancient Egypt and in the Davidic Kingdom is well attested to in Scripture.“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him.
He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father.
Genesis 41:39-44In the Davidic KingdomSo Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, "I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph's finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted "Abrek!" before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. "I, Pharaoh, proclaim," he told Joseph, "that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."
1 Kings 18:1-6You can read his commentary on Isaiah, verse by verse. Having studied, written a commentary on the entire Bible - every single verse , taught for more than 35 years at the graduate school level in a major seminary, and then made his life work available for free on the internet, is very familiar with the entirety of Scripture, including Isaiah.So Elijah went to present himself to Ahab. Now the famine in Samaria was bitter, and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, his vizier, who was a zealous follower of the LORD. When Jezebel was murdering the prophets of the LORD, Obadiah took a hundred prophets, hid them away fifty each in two caves, and supplied them with food and drink. Ahab said to Obadiah, "Come, let us go through the land to all sources of water and to all the streams. We may find grass and save the horses and mules, so that we shall not have to slaughter any of the beasts." Dividing the land to explore between them, Ahab went one way by himself, Obadiah another way by himself.
2 Kings 15:1-7
Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah, became king in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam, king of Israel. He was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother, whose name was Jecholiah, was from Jerusalem. He pleased the LORD just as his father Amaziah had done. Yet the high places did not disappear; the people continued to sacrifice and to burn incense on them. The LORD afflicted the king, and he was a leper to the day of his death. He lived in a house apart, while Jotham, the king's son, was vizier and regent for the people of the land.
2 Kings 18:18
They called for the king, who sent out to them Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, the master of the palace; Shebnah the scribe; and the herald Joah, son of Asaph.
I'm sure he's a great guy, but I read his commentary on Isaiah 22.
Evidently, he didn't think it was worth mentioning that the Vizier was described as "a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah."
He was one of my Old Testament Bible teachers - including the Prophets. I not only had to outline Isaiah for Dr. Constable, I sat and listened to his exposition of all of Isaiah. I can assure you as an eyewitness that he is well aware of all taught in Isaiah.
Then why didn't he mention that he would be a father to Judah?
He only described the "master of the palace" as someone who controlled access to the king of the Davidic kingdom.
He didn't mention any of the passages in Kings which show the office to be extremely powerful --that of a vice-regent.
Perhaps it is just that what he wrote isn't what you heard from Rome?
The Catholic exegesis is more comprehensive and exhaustive.
“To begin with, the Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the eternal and redeemed Davidic Kingdom. (Luke 1:32)”
Yes. He is the ruler of the Davidic Kingdom and will reign over it on earth after his return. He is also the Bridegroom of His Bride - the body of Christ as noted above.
Agreement.
"Here is how this authority is described in Isaiah 22: I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. More of this succession in office can be seen in Isaiah 22:15-25"
Yes, except that the "succession" isn't what you portray (below).
The point is that there is succession in office. So we have agreement there. And that the office is very powerful: "what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." See passages from Kings above.
"As the King of the eternal House of David, Jesus holds the Key of David. (Rev. 3:7)"
So clearly, He hasn't given it to Peter.
The King is always the power behind the keys. And Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys in Matthew 16:19. There is no record of the keys being taken away.
Jesus makes Peter the Vizier of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom.
"Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom," representing the office of the vice-regent of the eternal, redeemed House of David, to Peter. (Matthew 16:19)”"
Well, first, no he did not.,/i>
?
Second, if you really want to go down that road, please note that in Isaiah 22, God took the keys away from one man (Shebna) and gave them to another (Eliakim). There's your "succession." Failure!
I'm not sure what your point is. Isaiah indicates the existence of the office, and that there was succession in office.
He did this because of the pride of Shebna. So, please note, there is nothing permanent about delegated authority.
Yes. One Vizier is replaced by another, just as one King is replaced by another and one pope is replaced by another. Such is the nature of an office.
Nor does Shebna nor Eliakim get to pass on the keys to whoever they wish. Only GOD did so. No one voted. No one cast lots.
Typically the Davidic king bestowed the keys on the Vizier of his choosing. Even in this case, God didn't literally reach down from heaven and transfer the keys from Shebna to Eliakim.
Please note too that even Eliakim FAILED in his responsibility.
Actually is was Shebna. Shebna sinned and was punished. Sometimes popes sin, and it's not impossible to believe that God may punish them.
say to this steward,People who trusted in either Shebna or Eliakim were disappointed. Our trust isn’t in people - even when chosen for a brief period. Our trust is in an unfailing God. Isaiah 22:25 is a prophecy of the failure of Eliakim.
to Shebna the palace administrator:
What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
17“Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
The Church doesn't teach that the pope is sinless.
And I trust Jesus, the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, when He established the office of His Vizier on earth, for His Church on earth, which has the power to "bind and loose."
Yet when you read posts from Catholics, who undoubtedly copy and paste from Catholic sites that are echo chambers of Rome and not of God’s Word, you get a selected reading that picks and chooses.
Or in this case, better exegesis.
In this instance, they try to stitch together something that exalts Peter to be more than Christ said...
See above.
“Agreed. But Peter receives from Jesus the additional gift of the Keys of the office of the Vizier or Vice-Regent of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus is King.”
Which is why I pointed out there is a strong case Peter will have a particular authority over the Jewish Nation under Christ in the Kingdom that will be above the other Apostles who will each rule over a Jewish tribe.
“Did someone claim that?”
Pretty much you. You asked what difference there was between what you claimed and what I pointed out to you.
“Binding and loosing” was a well established phrase in Jesus’ time. It mean ultimate ecclesial authority. Parse it as you wish, but this is from the Jewish encyclopedia:”
Yes, you are (theoretically) back to Peter’s future role in the Davidic Kingdom on earth. Not the church.
“The authority of the Pharisees was a type for the Teaching and disciplinary authority of Christ’s Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth.””
That goes to the severe problem of calling something a type that the Bible does not identify as a type. At least you realize the Pharisees totally screwed up what mattered - the recognition of Messiah. Not to mention every other thing Christ castigated them for.
“Of course, the Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as Its Head, which is why Christ warns us against refusing to “listen to the church.””
Yes, when arbitration is involved and a decision was reached. Beyond that, no.
“The Bible is the Word of God, but in a secondary sense to Christ Himself, who is The Word (and the Way, the Truth and the Life).”
The Scriptures are what God directly inspired. It is what we have, plus the Holy Spirit to lead us into that truth.
“In a sense. But there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism.”
Sure. One Church that includes all true believers (not taress) of all time. One Lord Jesus. One baptism.
“If this local congregation teaches something outside the one, true, faith, it is not perfectly united to the Body of Christ.”
It may not be a part a church any longer. See Revelation. Note how CHRIST disciplines the churches.
“A believer is one who believes the one, true, faith, which is everything that Christ’s Church teaches.”
Well, no. Historically no.
“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
Deceiver, as pointed out.
“This simplistic exegesis is self-contradictory and utterly incoherent.”
No, it is commanded.
“Let’s put your interpretation into practice.”
“Is contraception a sin?”
No. Some may be. The act of preventing pregnancy is not by definition sin in the Scriptures.
“Until the Lambeth Conference, all Protestant denominations regarded it to be. Now none do.”
Great.
“My Christian brother told my children that there is nothing wrong with a bishop being a practicing homosexual.”
Perhaps your brother is an idiot. Or perhaps he is ignorant. Or perhaps he isn’t your brother in Christ. Or perhaps...
“I believe that my brother has sinned against me.”
Doesn’t sound like he did. I suggest you take him aside and say, “in our family, we follow the Scriptures that identify homosexuality as a sin and a disqualification for the ministry. Yes, I understand that many of our current clergy are homos - and maybe you’ve heard of the Vatican Gay Mafia - but those are aberrations. In any case, as a friend, please don’t ever tell my kids homos are fit for ministry. If you do, I will cut off our relationship to protect my kids.”
“Which local congregation should arbitrate this dispute? “
None. You should go directly to your “brother.”
“You can probably imagine a thousand such examples.”
STA, I feel your example is poor and not worth the church interceding. Yes there are thousands of similar bad examples that a church should not get involved in.
“Under your rubric, no resolution to such disputes can ever be attained, making your interpretation of this passage impossible in practice.”
Well, no, bad examples, like yours are going to result in straw men.
Take a better example. Two (actual believers) businessmen agree to some business deal. One feels the other cheated him. He believes he has been defrauded. He goes to his brother and the brother says he sees it the other way. They agree to go their mutual church or agree on which church can arbitrate. The church elders hear both sides and make a decision. IF one of the brothers is a member of that church and he won’t listen to the church decision, the church can use its collective wisdom among the elders to discipline him. If it is the other guy, they can contact his church and fully explain the situation.
It happens in the Christian world I worship in. Typcially, real believers find a way to come to an agreement before it comes to that point.
“Therefore, your exegesis must be wrong.”
In this case, your straw man argument was wrong.
“There must exist a visible Church possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrine for Jesus’ command to be practically possible.”
Not so.
“OK. But be careful about placing your trust in men.”
I’m not. I’m showing you the silliness of claiming he would miss something he taught verse by verse for more than 35 years.
“Maybe he just forgot about the following verses regarding the nature of the office of the Vizier of the Davidic Kingdom.”
No STA. If you look at his commentary on Isaiah, which is free online - you will find that passage. I already pointed out the transference to Eliakim in verses 22-25.
Evidently, he didn’t think it was worth mentioning that the Vizier was described as “a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah.”
“Then why didn’t he mention that he would be a father to Judah?”
He did.
22:20–21 The Lord also predicted that He would appoint Eliakim to a special position of authority, complete with the symbols of that authority, to replace proud Shebna. He would become a father to the people of Jerusalem in that he would care for them sacrificially at God’s appointed time.
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Is 22:20).
“He only described the “master of the palace” as someone who controlled access to the king of the Davidic kingdom.”
I suggest you look again.
“He didn’t mention any of the passages in Kings which show the office to be extremely powerful —that of a vice-regent.”
Oh, did you read his commentary on Kings? Both books?
“The Catholic exegesis is more comprehensive and exhaustive.”
Sure! They are trying to make Peter into more in the Church than Christ did. That takes quite an “exhaustive” effort. It takes a running start, dipping here and there, attempting to stitch things together and make a case.
The point is that there is succession in office. So we have agreement there. And that the office is very powerful: “what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” See passages from Kings above.”
There was no passed on succession. Shebna failed. God stepped in.
“The King is always the power behind the keys. And Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys in Matthew 16:19. There is no record of the keys being taken away.”
Says he holds the key. You said He already gave it away. Are you making the argument that He passed Peter a duplicate set of keys?
“Jesus makes Peter the Vizier of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom.”
Disagree, if you are attempting to imply that the CHURCH is the “eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom.”
“I’m not sure what your point is. Isaiah indicates the existence of the office, and that there was succession in office.”
Failure by sin was the method of succession.
“Yes. One Vizier is replaced by another, just as one King is replaced by another and one pope is replaced by another. Such is the nature of an office.”
So, you are arguing that Pope, an office not found in the list of Church offices, is transferred using the really bad sin method. As soon as one pope sins sufficiently enough, they throw it like a hot potato to another guy? I ask this because Shebna was removed directly by God because of sin. That isn’t succession friend. That is failure.
“Typically the Davidic king bestowed the keys on the Vizier of his choosing. Even in this case, God didn’t literally reach down from heaven and transfer the keys from Shebna to Eliakim.”
He spoke through his Prophet, Isaiah, that this is what He was doing.
“Actually is was Shebna. Shebna sinned and was punished. Sometimes popes sin, and it’s not impossible to believe that God may punish them.”
A multitude of popes not only failed, but were evil. Not only did Shebna fail via sin, Eliakim failed.
“The Church doesn’t teach that the pope is sinless.”
The Scriptures don’t teach there is a pope. History teaches us vividly that popes of your denomination have frequently been downright pagan and evil.
“And I trust Jesus, the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, when He established the office of His Vizier on earth, for His Church on earth, which has the power to “bind and loose.”
By any chance, do you live in Colorado?
“Or in this case, better exegesis.”
Eisogesis is never better exegesis.
Best
What a magnanimous gesture!
YOU; however do NOT have MY 'permission' to chop up GOD's word to make it say what you want!
Have you considered my woman; Mary?
How much of a biblical passage is permissible to quote under the doctrine of Elsie?
One word? One phrase? One verse? One chapter? One book? One Testament?
+ + +
Regardless, the context of "if he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector" only makes the point more clear.
Here is the entire section:
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.Let's start at the beginning.“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
"If your brother sins against you..."
Imagine that my Christian brother sins against me by calling me a heretic. My brother won't desist, despite my protests and the protests of the other witnesses.
So we take our dispute to "the local church," as you might say.
(Notice that Christ did not say "a church" or "any church" but "the church.")
Suppose that my Christian brother is criticizing me because I believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, because I don't believe that Jesus is just one mode of God manifesting Himself, and because I don't believe that it's OK to have "married" homosexuals as bishops.
Which Bible-only church should I go to in order to settle this dispute? The Oneness Pentecostal Church? The Episcopalian Church? The Baptist Church? I would get different answers at every Bible-only church.
So the Bible-only church (churches?) that Christ founded, the church (churches?) that Paul called "the pillar and foundation of truth," can't settle disputes regarding heresy and sin?
What then does the Church have jurisdiction over? Bake sale squabbles? Is Christ's Church a joke?
Certainly not, because the punishment for "refusing to listen to the church," as Christ demands, is to be treated as a non-Christian --"a pagan or tax collector."
For "the church" to be able to settle disputes over sin in the church --in principle-- "the church" must be visible and identifiable as Christ's Church, the Church must have the Authority to define sin, the Church must possess a non-contradictory body of Teaching so that verdicts will be the same in every local church, and the Church must possess a "chain of command," to enforce doctrinal and disciplinary verdicts.
This is roughly the Church's threefold ministry, to teach, govern and sanctify.
Let's look at the next passage:
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.""Binding and loosing" had a well-established meaning in Judaism, meaning "to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority."
In Protestantism no church with such authority can possibly exist, since in Protestantism the Bible is the sole or ultimate rule of faith, not any local church or particular denomination.
This is how the Jewish Encyclopedia describes "binding and loosing."
Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The expression "asar" (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for "magic spell"). The corresponding Aramean "shera" and Hebrew "hittir" (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible.Christ gave the power of "binding and loosing" to Peter and the Apostles, the first bishops of His Church. The Apostles were succeeded in office by other bishops with the same authority. ("Let his bishopric another take," and also see the Second epistle of Clement to James II in the above paragraph from the Jewish Encyclopedia).The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In the New Testament.
In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis," "the key-power of the Church."
Christ threatened Christians with expulsion from His Church for refusing to abide by the judgement of His Church, because Christ Himself gave the power of binding and loosing to His Church. Even when the Church may impose a fallible verdict, Christians are bound to obedience, just as in any hierarchical organization, but also because Christ commands it.
The final passage states:
“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”This means that where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, Christ is with them. But it does not mean that any group of two or three Christians has the church's authority to "bind and loose."
That is the context.
Oh?
Matthew 28:16-20
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
No. I don't believe anything MSN or the MSM says.
But the article contained a direct quote from the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that I find very troubling.
““It is our marching orders for advocacy,” Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Archbishop of Louisville, said. “It really brings about a new urgency for us.”
Representatives of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops said they would hold two briefings for members of Congress on Thursday and visit the White House on Friday to promote and explain the Pope’s environmental message.
Those efforts will get a new injection of urgency, when the Pope delivers a much-anticipated address to Congress during his visit to the US in September, church leaders said.”
57,000,000 plus Never to be Americans wonder:
So does a 'nooner'!
LOL
“Why hasn’t Rome marched into abortion mills”
Rome is a city. A city can’t march.
American Catholics work everyday to protect the innocent unborn. They save thousands of lives each year.
From your posts it appears you have a very ignorant and distorted view of American Catholics. You also seem bigoted and full of hate.
I doubt you have ever known any American Catholics. If you did you would probably have a different opinion.
American Catholics are hard working, generous, family oriented and moral people. We do the difficult jobs and support our parishes and our communities. We are patriotic and love America. We stand up for what is right and help those in need.
This Pope is proof that South Americans treat religion as a superstition.
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.