Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
If it was worth posting once, and it was, it was worth posting twice!
>>>That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing, yet it remains that the idea that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys given was to bind and loose the Law on the Church is absurd. For it depends upon restricting that power to a doctrinal decision, contrary to Scripture, and presumes that Peter is the one who provided the final judgment as to this and what should be done in Acts 15, which is not the case.<<<
I already explained this - I will not do it again.
>>>As explained, binding and loosing (both in judicial and spiritual application) was not new, and Peter exercised such in preaching the gospel in Acts 2 etc., before Acts 15. In addition he did so in binding Ananias and Saphira to their sins and unto the death in Acts 5.<<<
I also already accounted for other binding and loosing. Do you actually read what I post before responding, or do you just skim over it looking for things you can object to?
>>>Moreover, Peter did not judicially loose anything in Acts 15, as it was James who provided the conclusive judgment, with Scriptural substantiation, in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony and that of Paul and Barbabas, who prior to this were also preaching salvation by faith, without needing to obey the ceremonial law.<<<
James' and the council's decision was based on Peter's testimony.
>>>And which has been said and dismissed, and instead comes verbiage from your book which utterly fails to show or warrant the conclusion that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys was to bind and loose the Law on the Church.<<<
The quote was to illustrate that the disciples kept the law - the elephant in the room.
Peter alone was given the "keys". Christ addressed Him directly and in the singular. The Law binds and removing the Law looses. Peter was instrumental in both.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff. I have already explained your objections, even though you keep bringing them up over and over again. I will no longer respond to your posts to me if you continue with the same repetitions.
LOL, roger that.
I practice the MACRO kind!
Hahaha I’m sorry, but, I saw that the last post was #666 and I just new it had to be a post from you and, whadaya know!
Uh, hahahahaha!
I’m sorry. I’m not sure if you would consider this “micro” or “macro” aggression. I prefer to see it as a little comic relief for myself, and I’m sure a few others.
Oh and the comedic photo of “the devil” was just the icing on the cake.
Thanks and have a nice day!
Dropped a dead tree (about 50 foot tall) a couple of hours ago and am burning the little stuff as I type.
Indeed you did not. I pasted that in the wrong tab/box as it was to a post that was in my inbox from am RC just before yours. Sorry.
I already explained this - I will not do it again.
Your "explanation" does not warrant your conclusion, as will be further explained.
I also already accounted for other binding and loosing. Do you actually read what I post before responding, or do you just skim over it looking for things you can object to?
And I explained that you cannot restrict binding and loosing to simply being loosed from the Law, or make that Peter's only use of the keys, or uniquely so. Do you actually read what I post.... What you think you "accounted for" is one thing, but its remains that as your premise is false so is your conclusion.
Your premise is that since Scripture says that the Law was bondage, and since Peter presumed disciples were bound to obey all the Law ("binding" them), and later exhorted the elders to see that God was not requiring obedience to all the law (loosing them) as part of obedience to Christ (but which he never preached justified a soul), then that was his only use of the keys. Which is absurd.
For what Scripture reveals is that the key to the kingdom is the gospel, which gospel all the church preached, and is one form of binding and loosing, with healing, church discipline and certain judgments being others.
For Scripture teaches that one can be bound by sickness and thus Christ, who came to loose captives, (Lk. 4:18) set such free, (Lk. 13:11-16) as did Peter and John in Acts 3.
And as the OT mag. could judicially bind or loose one to his transgression, disobedience to which was a capital crime, likewise Peter judged Ananias and Sapphira to their guilt of disobedience in Acts 5, resulting in death.
Similarly, Peter judged Simon as having not part nor lot in ministry due to being in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity, which Simon was left in, thus Simon asked Peter to pray for deliverance from judgment. (Acts 8:21-23)
To the contrary, Peter preached liberty from sin in Acts 2 and 3, being set free from sins by faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, with unbelief leaving souls bound. At no time did Peter preach justification by the Law, though it was yet presumed that obedience to the ceremonial law was yet enjoined. And which, in part, Paul was engaging in by taking a vow which required a Jewish sacrifice in Acts 21, and becoming as one under the law in other times. But which was not that of justification by the Law which the Judaizers of Galatians were doing.
And thus Peter engaged in binding and loosing before Acts 15, nor did he then bind the church to his judgment, nor was he alone preaching salvation apart from obeying all the law.
Paul received his gospel "not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12) And before Acts 15 he preached
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)
In other church discipline, Paul together with the church bound an incestuous man in 1Co. 5 to chastisement by the devil.
The elders (primarily) of the church as well as other holy intercessors can also obtain the loosing of deliverance of sins for which one may be chastened for. (Ja, 5:14-18)
In addition, Elijah bound and loosed the heavens, which James invokes as an example of what holy believers may do.
James' and the council's decision was based on Peter's testimony. And not his alone, but that of Paul and Barnabas, who certainly did not seem bound by Peter to preach the Law. Nor did Peter bind anyone to his judgment, but merely exhorted the church not to yoke the Gentiles into having to keep all the Law (though the moral law was reinforced as manifesting obedient saving faith).
Instead, the final conclusive sentence awaited the judgment of James, which provided it as being Scripturally substantiated, which the elder collectively bound the churches to accept.
Thus your premise that Peter's only use of the keys (or key) was that of binding the Law upon the church and loosing it is false, as binding/loosing pertains to more than salvation, and while Peter did not bind the church any more than they presumed they were bound, (to keep the burdensome Law as part of the obedience to Christ who saved them by grace - not by the merit of Law-keeping, contrary to the Judaizers of Galatians);
yet Peter did not loose the church from keeping the Law (nor forbid them from doing as Paul did in Acts 21), but only exhorted them to not place this yoke upon the Gentiles, affirming salvation was by grace for both Jews and Gentiles. Which Paul and Barnabas were already preaching, and with the conclusive judgment being provided by James, which all the elders bound the church do.
Peter alone was given the "keys". Christ addressed Him directly and in the singular. The Law binds and removing the Law looses. Peter was instrumental in both.
Wrong continually, as while Peter was addressed singularly as regards the keys, this is manifest as being the gospel which all the church preached, and in no place is Peter shown doing anything uniquely. Peter was also addressed singularly as regards binding and loosing, but which is also shown to apply to all believers.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff as it simply get refuted again.
I will no longer respond to your posts to me if you continue with the same repetitions.
That would be wisdom, as the more you do then the more the fallacious nature of your fringe beliefs are exposed. Even though i have been so busy i takes my days to respond. Have to go now.
Again you have just regurgitated the same-old, same-old (and just expanded it), none of which is pertinent. I have said from the beginning that there are other bindings and loosings - why you think you have to provide example after example is beyond me. Who are you arguing with?
But there is only one binding and loosing with “keys”, given to Peter by Christ, directed at him with singular grammar. In Mt.18.18-19 Christ addressed binding and loosing in the plural, indicating that there were other bindings and loosings, but without mention of the “keys”, because, of course, they were for Peter alone, for a specific purpose - to bind and loose the Law.
By the way, Christ’s and Paul’s beliefs were considered “fringe” as well. I’ll take your accusation as a compliment.
I’m done.
>>>That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing<<<
I'd be curious what it reveals, if this wasn't such a pathetic example of how you don't actually read what I post, but only skip through my posts looking for something to get upset about. I never said that I included the "keys" doctrine in my book. The only reason I brought up my book is because you veered off the road into the ditch with the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism, despite that I never in any way talked about the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism. In fact, the "keys" are only significant to Roman Catholic doctrine and add nothing to a discussion of Mid Acts Dispensationalism.
But by all means, just go ahead and write reams of objections to what I have not addressed, and continue to ignore what I have. It is all you have done so far anyway...
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Which is required reading preparatory to your tangential absurdity, as it is similar to it, both ascribing a fundamental difference to Peter as to what he preached before Acts 15 as relates to the Law. You both have him preaching a different gospel early on, whether you admit it or not, while you make him as alone as having the "keys," erroneously teaching this refers to binding/loosing obedience to the Law, and only that.
But by all means, just go ahead and write reams of objections to what I have not addressed, and continue to ignore what I have. It is all you have done so far anyway...
Charging others with what you example and thus warrant reiteration is only damage control due to the specious nature of your polemic being exposed.
Same-old, same-old...
God is just a little smarter than you are. His official teaching in the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church is inspired and you are not. Scripture says, All we, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way (Is 55:8). Or again, Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”? (Is 29:16) Or yet again, Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, “What are you making?” (Is 45:9) But still many go on with their own opinions and will not abide even the clear correction of God.
From Msgr Pope.
Read the whole article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3304070/posts
Why Is the Road to Destruction Wide and the Road to Salvation Narrow? A Meditation on a Teaching by Jesus
That's more like it.
And God did not leave us to our own devices. He freely gives the Holy Spirit to all believers to guide them into all truth.
Say, who's going to interpret the magisterium and the *sacred tradition* for y'all?
And who's going to interpret the interpretation?
Can't have any risk of mistakes, you know. If someone can't interpret God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture correctly, then supposing that *sacred tradition* is also inspired, they will also be incapable of correctly interpreting the so-called sacred tradition that allegedly comes from God through men.
So where are all the infallible interpretations of all the supposedly Spirit given pronouncements of the Catholic church throughout the last about 2,000 years?
Hmmm, starting with a pompous condescending (it seems to be the Catholic way) comment. Does it make you feel good? The superior attitude of Catholic posters always perplexes me because I think of them as Christians and then they don't act like it. Oh well.
His [God's] official teaching in the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church is inspired and you are not.
Gee, no kidding. Another personal attack/dig, feel better now?
Notice the striking out of the erroneous part of your statement.
If you can quote me any words of God outside of scripture that he spoke to the Catholic church by all means to so.
Also a retraction is in order unless you can show a quote with a link to the post where I said I was inspired.
Your assumptions stated as facts are ludicrous.
All we, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way (Is 55:8).Well, when you prayerfully through the Holy Spirit apply those scriptures to your attitude you will be ready for this:Or again, Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”? (Is 29:16)
Or yet again, Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, “What are you making?” (Is 45:9)
But still many go on with their own opinions and will not abide even the clear correction of God.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.--Romans 10:9Read the whole articleJust pray to Jesus calling on the Holy Spirit and confess like in the Romans verse above and you will be saved. It's that simple.
Thanks but no thanks. Why subscribe to Catholicism when simple Biblical Christianity is the best path?
Metmom put it best on that thread:
You seem to be ignoring the simple road to salvation and instead would prefer to be a Catholic.To: SalvationBecause Jesus is the only way and everything else isn’t.
If people refuse to come to Jesus, they’re done for.
Like I said before, I am just about through casting pearls of Biblical Holy Spirit inspired Biblical wisdom your way.
I certainly hope and pray your eyes and ears are opened to the Truth that Jesus taught in His Word.
Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?--Mark 8:16
The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them.---Proverbs 10:12
My best to you on your journey to Eternal Life in the Kingdom of God!
And God did not leave us to our own devices. He freely gives the Holy Spirit to all believers to guide them into all truth.Amen, the Biblical Truth!
Not by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would NEVER inspire the incorporation of paganism such as the Catholic Church has.
It’s crystal clear that they put their faith in man rather than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
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.