Free Republic 3rd Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $35,190
43%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 43%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by letterman

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 5:32:05 PM PDT · 80 of 96
    letterman to Mr Rogers

    “I think the point is that since there isn’t biblical evidence, there was a need to create extensive FALSE evidence”

    Far be it from me to claim final or certain understanding of daniel1212’s mind, but as I read it the “extensive polemic” seemed to refer to the “Petrine Fact” series.

    “Of course, Papal Supremacy is based on interpreting a partial sentence”

    Do you really think that’s accurate, or are you only saying it because you think it sounds good? The question is sincere, not rhetorical: I really want to know.

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 5: Peter’s New Name

    09/26/2009 1:41:49 PM PDT · 14 of 14
    letterman to Bobsvainbabblings

    Bob,

    “You need to put things in proper time frame. Jesus is high priest. He is also Son of David and King of Israel and will be those things for all time.”

    I gladly accept this apt correction.

    “If Peter and only Peter was given those keys. What do you have to do to have Peter open the door to heaven for you?”

    Wrong question. The keys of the kingdom are not primarily keys of access, but keys of administrative authority, as per Isa 22:22. Many Evangelical and other Protestant commentators now recognize this.

    “The true Keys to heaven are defined in the next sentence. The power to bind and loose which is given to all believers, not just Peter. Time after time Jesus tells us we have to forgive our brothers their trespasses against us before His Father can forgive our trespasses against Him. ... The power to bind and loose given to Peter was no different. He could only forgive his human brothers sins they committed against him.”

    First, nothing in Matt 16:19 indicates that the power of the keys is exhausted by the power of binding and loosing, any more than 16:17 indicates that Peter’s blessedness is exhausted by the Father’s revelation of Jesus’ identity, or than 16:18 indicates that Peter’s status as Petros is exhausted by Jesus building the church on the petra.

    Second, Matt 18:18 does not support your claim that the power to bind and loose is given to all believers. The disciples present appear to be the group of the Twelve, no more.

    Third, the power of binding and loosing does not refer primarily to forgiving or retaining sins. The terms binding and loosing are rabbinic terms denoting authority to forbid or permit.

    Fourth, John 20:23, which does have to do with authority to forgive sins, does not indicate any limitation of that authority to sins committed against members of the Twelve (who, once again, are the recipients of this authority).

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 1:10:36 PM PDT · 64 of 96
    letterman to daniel1212

    “2. Rome is so destitute of the necessary substance to establish her perpetuated Petrine papacy that she must resort to such extensive attempts”

    That’s hilarious. The very fact that the subject is considered at such length is PROOF of the dearth of evidence!!!

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 10:31:07 AM PDT · 61 of 96
    letterman to Kolokotronis

    “The sole purpose of articles such as these is to advance Roman claims to the right to rule over the entire Church.”

    That is a very interesting judgment. How remarkable to have such knowledge of the sole purpose of articles written by other people.

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 9:05:17 AM PDT · 56 of 96
    letterman to Mr Rogers

    Mr. Rogers,

    Jesus empowers all of the apostles to “bind” and “loose,” but the keys of the kingdom are given only to Peter. As F.F. Bruce says:

    “The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim: ‘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’ (Is 22:22). So in the new community that Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 385).

    In John 21, Jesus gives to Peter alone the triple commission to feed his sheep. In Luke 22, Jesus prays for Peter alone when all the disciples are to be sifted by Satan. It is Jesus who elevates Peter among (I don’t say above) the other apostles.

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 7:18:46 AM PDT · 46 of 96
    letterman to Mr Rogers

    “That is it. One sentence, and he doesn’t even say, ‘You are number one among the Apostles.’”

    You are missing the NEXT sentence. :)

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 7:18:04 AM PDT · 45 of 96
    letterman to ConservativeMind

    “What’s funny is that almost immediately after Jesus says these words, he calls Peter “SATAN!”

    What else is funny is that the article makes this very point. You are not reading the article, you are responding to what you think Catholics believe.

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 7:18:03 AM PDT · 44 of 96
    letterman to Claud

    “I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here.”

    If you look sharp, you’ll notice Jimmy is not the author of this series. SDG is.

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

    09/26/2009 7:18:03 AM PDT · 43 of 96
    letterman to Kolokotronis

    “Its a shame that this article presents such a half truth as this to make people think Orthodox theologians somehow or other accept the Vatican I heresy about the Pope”

    How does the article do that? The question in the article is not “Vatican I heresy about the Pope,” the question is whether Peter is the rock. Fr. Stylianopoulos is quoted regarding whether Peter is the rock, not regarding the supremacy of the Pope or the relative prominence of Peter vs. others in the New Testament.

    If people would only read what is written and not what they think is being said, the world would be a better place.

  • The Petrine Fact, Part 5: Peter’s New Name

    09/21/2009 6:54:36 PM PDT · 10 of 14
    letterman to Bobsvainbabblings

    “Why wasn’t Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?”

    Peter was not “high priest.” Jesus was high priest. He was also Son of David and King of Israel, and Peter was his chief steward. Jesus made that clear when he gave Peter, and only Peter, the keys of the kingdom, cf. Isaiah 22:22.

  • The Petrine Fact, Parts 1 and 2; Peter and the Resurrection

    09/08/2009 11:49:34 AM PDT · 30 of 50
    letterman to Kolokotronis

    Thank you very much for your assessment of various Orthodox voices. It is very helpful to a sympathetic and admiring outsider trying to understand.

    It does not make me want to be an insider. You say: “Become Orthodox and live your life as an Orthodox Christian. Then you will understand.” Well, perhaps, unless I don’t. You know, like the Paris School adherents and sympathizers, and other Orthodox who get it wrong, so you say.

    From the outside, it looks as if being Orthodox and living as an Orthodox Christian are not enough. Something else seems to be needed, something that eludes not only me but also those Orthodox whom you say are wrong. Apparently, I could become Orthodox and live as an Orthodox Christian for years, even becoming quite learned in theology and patrology (a luxury for which few have the resources and leisure), and still get wrong whatever it is you’ve managed to get right.

  • The Petrine Fact, Parts 1 and 2; Peter and the Resurrection

    09/08/2009 9:11:22 AM PDT · 23 of 50
    letterman to Kolokotronis

    “Who arbitrates which Orthodox theologians legitimately speak for Orthodoxy, and which suffice to implicate anyone who relies on them in nonsense by association? The consensus patrum.”

    How does that work in practice? You say the Paris School fails to conform to the consensus patrum; Paris School adherents and sympathizers say otherwise. Who arbitrates? Who says you are right and they are wrong? Does it merely devolve to individual judgment?

    I note the use of the passive voice in your comment that “The Paris School has been roundly rejected.” I suppose nearly everything has been roundly rejected by somebody. I expect you believe things that have been roundly rejected by others. Do you mean only mean that the Paris School has been rejected by many more Orthodox (or the right Orthodox?) than, say, anything that you believe? Does it come down to counting noses, however fuzzily?

    If so, this would seem perilously close to saying that truth in Orthodoxy is determined by majority vote. I expect you don’t mean to say that really, so please help me understand.

    Thanks for your recommended reading. How about some of the other contributors to Meyendorff’s book: Alexander Schmemann, Nicholas Afanassieff, Nicholas Koulomzine, Veselin Kesich? Or the Orthodox presenters at the 2003 symposium on unity: Theodore Stylianopoulos, Vlassios Phidas, Nicolae Nura, Jean-Claude Larchet, Johannis Zizioulas?

  • The Petrine Fact, Parts 1 and 2; Peter and the Resurrection

    09/07/2009 8:16:41 PM PDT · 9 of 50
    letterman to Kolokotronis

    You write:

    “If, as I suspect, he relies on Meyendorf and especially Clement as speaking for Orthodoxy, it will be sufficient to pronounce what he writes nonsense.”

    Because...?

    Who arbitrates which Orthodox theologians legitimately speak for Orthodoxy, and which suffice to implicate anyone who relies on them in nonsense by association?

    Which contemporary Orthodox scholars would you consider as legitimately speaking for Orthodoxy, and, again, what is your criterion for saying so?