Replies

Of course, that is also reminiscent of the following text, which reaffirms that God is God

And that is the tack that I believe CB is taking, that the initiative is with God, i.e., God is not passively waiting for apostolic permission or prohibition, but has already set those limits, and would act through the apostles to express those limits to His people. Which in fact He has done, and the record of that expression is Scripture, which is why Scripture must be the first firewall in preventing error from entering the ecclesia, in terms of spurious "binding" and "loosing" introduced by unauthorized sources.

BTW, I notice you focus your claim of infallibility on Peter. But why? Because two chapters later, Jesus says this same power of permitting and forbidding is for all the apostles:

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.

This, BTW, highlights one of the reasons to keep liking the KJV after all these years. It captures the plural pronouns, like "ye", which modern English doesn't even have, unless you count, "all y'all." So I don't usually have to peek back at the Greek to know if the group is being addressed or just one individual.

And in case you're wondering, yes, the future perfect is used here as well, so it has the same force for all the apostles, without distinction among them. Thus, based on "binding" and "loosing," one cannot establish a unique Petrine office, let alone a perpetuation of that office, as the gift that supposedly defines it is given to all the apostles.

Peace,

SR

"And that is the tack that I believe CB is taking, that the initiative is with God, i.e., God is not passively waiting for apostolic permission or prohibition, but has already set those limits, and would act through the apostles to express those limits to His people. Which in fact He has done, and the record of that expression is Scripture, which is why Scripture must be the first firewall in preventing error from entering the ecclesia, in terms of spurious "binding" and "loosing" introduced by unauthorized sources.

BTW, I notice you focus your claim of infallibility on Peter. But why? Because two chapters later, Jesus says this same power of permitting and forbidding is for all the apostles:"

=============================================================

That "apostolic sharing" is precisely the teaching of the Church on the gift of infallibility as well. Infallibility includes the teaching authority (on faith and morals) of the pope and the magisterium (including the bishops - the successors to the apostles - in union with the pope), at very limited, specific times. Your observation reinforces that teaching of the Church.

(Read this to get a good description of the very limited gift of infallibility, and how it applied and applies to Peter and his successors, as well as how it applied and applies to the the other apostles and their successors as well, but was certainly not applied to all the other ordinary followers of Jesus Christ at that time or in the future.)

(By the way, do you think the individual thoughts and pronouncements of Judas Iscariot on matters of faith and morals were infallible?)

However, even in contrast to the other apostles, Peter was special, as he was the only apostle Jesus renamed "rock", and informed that Jesus was going to build His Church on that "rock". (Likewise, Mary was very special, as she was the only person God chose to be the mother of Jesus.)

I would also take issue with your characterization of what you think CynicalBear was saying. He said this about that "future perfect passive verb":

------------------------------------------------------------
"Note there is no beginning or end." - CynicalBear - post #945

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

That "future perfect passive" voice of a verb does not indicate that something has no beginning or end.

When we say some "binding" or "loosing" "will have been done" (which is what that NASB translation you provided gives us), it does not mean that the binding action had no beginning, or that it was completely unrelated to the human "binding" request in the Mind of God.

For someone to read into that phrase that the action had no beginning is to make up their own personal extension to the scriptures.

One last point - you like the KJV for its "ye" here and there, but not for it's "will be" in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18! (In other words, you really, really, really, like the KJV, except when you really, really, really don't like it!) :-)

(God really knew what He was doing when He began to build His Church, and had those Church leaders He chose begin to develop the New Testament, and to begin to authoritatively interpret His written Word.)

Peace! (Click here to hear "Make Me A Channel Of Your Peace" - Friar Alessandro)