I cite Isaiah 22 merely to demonstrate the reality of this historical office to those who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and who might be skeptical regarding the historical existence of this office.
I am not treating the passage as a type. I am citing the passage as an example of a historical fact, the fact that Kings of the House of David gave to their vice-regents a key representing their plenary authority in the King's abscence.
Secondly, I take the this historical office to be a type for a superior office to a superior Davidic King. Old Testament Davidic Kings who held the keys to the House of David are types for the superior New Testament King of the House of David who holds the keys to the House of David:
Revelation 3:7"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Jesus, the superior Davidic King, gives the "keys of the kingdom" to the superior vice-regent (the Vicar of Christ or the pope). The New Testament office of Vice-Regent is superior to the office of vice-regent in the Old Testament since the new Vice-Regent holds the office of the Vicar of Christ:
Matthew 16:19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
There are other interpretations within the passage possible, namely the peg that was being broken off was Peter, (although it is not one i personally accept). Furthermore, this authority presumes that the King is absent. This would be contrary to the words of Christ in many passages of Scripture, especially since Christ himself speaks to the Church at Philadelphia that He holds the key (Revelation 3:7).
The passage in Revelation indicates that Jesus is the power behind the keys or the ultimate "keeper of the keys" just as the Davidic kings in the Old Testament were the "power behind the keys" and the office.
Again forgive me, but this is not really germane to the point made, namely that scripture was consulted to verify the word of the Apostle. Earlier in the passage, Paul's method is described as reasoning from the scriptures. In particular, see Acts 17:2-3. Since the audience included devout Greeks, there is no reason that Paul would have acted differently among the Bereans.
The point is that the Bereans accepted the gospel message which they received from Paul and Silas. The gospel message is not contained in the Old Testament, but only foreshadowed. Therefore, the Bereans accepted the Good News as not contradictory to the Old Testament.
Paul made converts of many other peoples who were not familiar with the Old Testament. The method of prospective converts checking Apostolic Teaching against the Old Testament simply could not have been normative for most peoples being evangelized. Thus your further point regarding a common hermeneutic is moot.
There is some dispute over whether or not the writings of Paul were in the process of being considered inspired.
Well where should we go to settle the dispute? What does the Bible say?
Matthew 18:17The ITimothy 3 passage is quoted out of context. Perhaps you should have included verse 14If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
These things write I unto theee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. I Timothy 3:14-15 KJV. The context here is clearly writing, and written instruction.
And what do these written instructions tell us is the "pillar and foundation of truth"?
Finally, original sin can be derived from scripture, Refer to Hebrews 7:9-10, if Levi paid a tith in Abraham, i sinned in Adam.
It's implicit in Scripture as is the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine is quite complex, however, and even within Catholicism has not been defined de fide:
VI. NATURE OF ORIGINAL SINThis is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception" (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls "justice" what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice. We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:
1. Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.2. Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
3. The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.
And I've typed enough for one day ;-)
While there are common conclusions that can be reached by either framework, (Original sin, which you did not have to type since Protestants belive it and can derive the doctrine from a Sola Scriptura framework, and numerous Creeds that even in Protestant circles are called the "catholic" creeds...= universal creeds). i will now respond to your post within that sola scriptura framework.
Secondly, I take this historical office to be a type for a superior office to a superior Davidic King. Old Testament Davidic Kings who held the keys to the House of David are types for the superior New Testament King of the House of David who holds the keys to the House of David.
i am not certain what you meant here but i will examine it as written by you (please let me know if you misstated, it does not seem consistent with your usually consistent argumentation). We are told several things in the Isaiah 22 citation.
1)Eliakim will replace Shebna in office. (vs.15-20)
2)He (Eliakim) will be clothed with the robe, girdle, and government will be committed unto his hand.(vs.21)
3)He (Eliakim) shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. (vs.21)
4)The key to the House of David is laid upon his (Eliakim) sholder.
5)He shall open, none shall shut; he shall shut, none shall open. (vs.22)
6)God will fasten him (Eliakim)as a nail in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne in his father's house (vs.23)
7)God will hang all the glory of of his (Eliakim) father's house on him, the offspring, the issue, all vessels (large and small).(vs.24)
8)In that day, the nail that is fastened in the sure place will be removed (Eliakim), and the burdon that was upon him (see #7 above) will be cut off. (vs. 25)
Now i must ask, do you see this as a type of Peter, or a type of Christ, or both, or neither? (i will not insult your intelligence by offering you a false alternative falacy). If Christ, it is consistent with the Glory and burdons being placed upon him. If Peter, the same would be difficult to explain, as no one believed that Peter bore the burdons and Glory of the House of David, at least i have never heard of such a teaching in Catholicism. A further problem is just what is being cut off, the office, or the man? (neither or both are implied in my question, i don't like to type either :~)) Might this suggest that the office of vice-regent has ceased? The context of the passage certainly suggests this. i await an explanation, take your time, i certainly did. In light of this, i will postpone discussion of Revelation 3:7 since it hinges on your response.
i will now move on to your discussion of Matthew 16:19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
i don't know what kind of knowlege of the Greek language you have but the structure for the phrases "will be bound/loosed" is called the periphrastic perfect. (as opposed to my spelling which is periphrastic imperfect :~)) The short of it is that the structure is better rendered will have been bound/loosed. This speaks of Peter ratifying what heaven has determined to be the judgement of the matter. So far, i don't believe in this instance that i have countered Catholic teaching on this matter.
Now, my question is: Is this proclamation exclusive to Peter? i turn now to the Matthew 18 passage that you quoted.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear tnem, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. 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. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:15-20 KJV, emphasis by me.
As per the underlined sections in this scripture, the subject of bind and loosed is plural. While undoutably Peter is among the disciples, it refers to all of them. This makes it doubtful that the binding and loosing provision or ratification (this structure is also a periphrastic perfect)is exclusive to Peter. In point of fact, it does not appear from the context of verses 19 and 20 that this binding and loosing is limited to the apostles, rather it is given to all believers.
I will move now to your question concerning I Timothy 3:15.
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and ground of the truth. ITimothy 3:14-15 KJV.
i have no problem with your assertion, backed by this scripture that the church is the Pillar and ground of the truth. What i am wondering is why you would think this a reference to the church at Rome? This is a letter to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus. There is no mention of the Church at Rome in this passage, or in the chapter, or even in the letter, and this i think is yet another source of misunderstanding caused by different interpretive frameworks.
It seems to me as if when the word "church" is spoken, that Catholics think something like "Roman Catholic Church". If so, it does not follow from the New Testament. It seems that the Roman Catholic needs to demonstrate from the Scriptures that:
1)The church of Rome exists. (easy enough to do, since Paul wrote an epistle to them!)
2)That the office of "keeper of the keys" continues to this day.
3)That the suceeding bishops of Rome were given the office of keeper of the keys as were Peter and the rest of the Disciples.(discussed above)
4)That these succeeding Roman bishops were given any authority over any other see in the New Testament.
5)That there is any warrent in the New Testament for the Preeminence of the Roman Church.
6)That the Roman Church was to excercise authority over any other New Testament Church founded by the apostles or their successors.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but these will do for now.
It seems to me as if we have questions to resolve before we can begin to settle the question of proper interpretation of the scriptures. Personally i am happy that although some on both sides of this thread have been a bit testy, you have not been so to me, and neither has any other supporter of the Roman position to the best of my recollection. i thank you for sticking to the issues and attempting to answer honestly and clearly. May God grant me the grace to do likewise.