And from what I understand from your postings, you pay more attention to more of the Bible than most of your Protestant brethren.
Where the Gospels speak; where the Lord speaks, that is the pinnacle of the Bible. Where St. Paul or the others speak, in apparent contradiction of the Gospel, since there is no Biblical contradiction, they must be interpreted in the light of the Gospels.
Sts. Peter and Paul are NOT our Saviours. Jesus is. And what He has to say is absolutely the most important.
And, regardless of personal theology or distaste, Matt 16:19, and Matt 18:18 exist and exist very clearly. We are commanded to do as He instructed us. If we do not, then we are not following His instructions and can hardly claim to be one of the elect hmmm?
Where the Gospels speak; where the Lord speaks, that is the pinnacle of the Bible. Where St. Paul or the others speak, in apparent contradiction of the Gospel, since there is no Biblical contradiction, they must be interpreted in the light of the Gospels.
I would concur with giving very strong weight to the words of Jesus, and/or the Gospels. However, I need to know more about this idea of "interpreting in light of the Gospels" or "interpreting through the prism of the Gospels". How is that actually done? Earlier on this thread, I was given an explanation that I could not in good conscience agree with. :)
Sts. Peter and Paul are NOT our Saviours. Jesus is. And what He has to say is absolutely the most important.
I can agree to this, but (and I am not saying you are making this argument) I could not agree that what Jesus said was more true. Is that perhaps where part of the problem is?
And, regardless of personal theology or distaste, Matt 16:19, and Matt 18:18 exist and exist very clearly. We are commanded to do as He instructed us. If we do not, then we are not following His instructions and can hardly claim to be one of the elect hmmm?
Absolutely. But, this may be one of those times when we agree on the same words, but are thinking very different things. :)