The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[LittleLambofJesus]

sorry, been in a cranky mood lately. coulda been more charitable

Tis ok....I am all fired up for Super Saturday, so there is no telling how I will post till then

Hook 'em Horns!

 

[sunlover1]

Well in a large congregation it would be easier for people to do wrong things and get away with it. In a small congregation where everyone knows everyone else, it is really impossible!

You'd think so, but I bet it's not that way. (Thinking of some cults that have
received much notoriety in the past)

I agree, I would not apply verses like that in this way at all. I also expect that any RC Parishes were everyone knows everyone else, no Priest has gotten away with sexual abuse. (Although it is incomprehensible to me how people would even attempt such a thing, let alone perpetrate it and get away with it)

Unfortunately, people blindly trust their priest/pastors and when something
seems amiss, they seem to be blind to it (denial) So yeah, it does happen.
Just as it happens in families, neighborhoods etc where folks all know
each other pretty intimately.
I truly cannot believe what some families put up with. Groping dirty old
grand fathers etc. humans without the Spirit of God are disgusting.

As in my previous post, this is certainly not the case.

It can be comforting to think so, but a distortion of any kind will wend its way throughout the community. Small communities are quite capable of containing great problems; isolation and an insular nature can actually enable and protect wrongdoing, in fact codifying it. IE, there is no outside "check". This can be especially true in low population areas.

Actually, it's that "inside" check that's missing!
People need to LISTEN to God. But they've been lulled to sleep
by organizations teaching them to obey their "leaders". So they
blindly "obey".
IMO

If you want to slice and dice and separate, the first organization was Peter preaching to the Jews in Jerusalem. But surely, you don't believe that your organization is, therefore, invalid since it came later. Right?

LOL
What?
Are you suggesting we should hold the same standard for everyone?

 

[razeontherock]

it's simply intellectually dishonest to say that scripture is patently clear on the divinity of Jesus.

LOLWUT? You had me with this post, up to that point. John in particular goes to great pains to make this point -- "perfectly clear." [/Richard Nixon]

 

[fhansen]

LOLWUT? You had me with this post, up to that point. John in particular goes to great pains to make this point -- "perfectly clear." [/Richard Nixon]

IMO it can be argued plausibly either way-I couldn't predict what someone without any bias would think who picked up the bible and started reading it without ever knowing of it before then. In any case there are difficulties, apparent contradictions, and disagreement on many biblical verses.

 

[razeontherock]

IMO it can be argued plausibly either way-I couldn't predict what someone without any bias would think who picked up the bible and started reading it without ever knowing of it before then. In any case there are difficulties, apparent contradictions, and disagreement on many biblical verses.

I think it is ALL of our duty, to strip ourselves of such bias and come before the Lord in humility, desirous of hearing Him speak as a dying man in the desert craves water. This is to be our heart condition before Holy Scripture.

It can be done!

I also find that those apparent contradictions are there intentionally; our Good Shepherd leading us on to new pastures ...

 

[Standing Up]

You'd think so, but I bet it's not that way. (Thinking of some cults that have
received much notoriety in the past)


Unfortunately, people blindly trust their priest/pastors and when something
seems amiss, they seem to be blind to it (denial) So yeah, it does happen.
Just as it happens in families, neighborhoods etc where folks all know
each other pretty intimately.
I truly cannot believe what some families put up with. Groping dirty old
grand fathers etc. humans without the Spirit of God are disgusting.


Actually, it's that "inside" check that's missing!
People need to LISTEN to God. But they've been lulled to sleep
by organizations teaching them to obey their "leaders". So they
blindly "obey".
IMO

Listen to God. Sinai versus Zion. Over and over versus sacrificed once for sin and sat down.

LOL
What?
Are you suggesting we should hold the same standard for everyone?

Who, me?

 

[Standing Up]

I also find that those apparent contradictions are there intentionally; our Good Shepherd leading us on to new pastures ...

There's a thought ...

 

[ivebeenshown]

Listen to God. Sinai versus Zion. Over and over versus sacrificed once for sin and sat down.

Catholics do listen to God, because we hear his official bishops, which he appointed. God, in the Scriptures, says "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness." Peter quoted God, saying "Let his episcopate another take." (edit: I confused quotes. I apologize. It is now corrected.) Peter alone was given the keys. Amen.

We seek to obey the law of the Spirit, the law which Paul wrote of in the letter to the Galatians. This is the Way to Zion.

To God, who is eternally unchanging, time is not seen in sequence, but rather, God sees every point in time in one present moment. The one awesome sacrifice is from eternity, and it benefits Christians at every moment in time, sometimes in different ways. God is sacrificed for us eternally. As Moses walked the earth, Christ was sacrificed. This mystery was manifested in the flesh in the first century AD.

 

[ARBITER01]

Catholics do listen to God, because we hear his official bishops, which he appointed. God, in the Scriptures, says "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness." That is the Word of God, for the People of God, and it was spoken by Peter as recorded in the first chapter of Acts. Peter alone was given the keys. Amen.

Oh really?

So you are saying that Paul was not an apostle as equal to Peter? Nor was John?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Oh really?

So you are saying that Paul was not an apostle as equal to Peter? Nor was John?

Peter is simply a first among equals. They all held an Apostolic episcopate, but Jesus chose to give Peter alone the keys.

 

[ARBITER01]

Peter is simply a first among equals. They all held an Apostolic episcopate, but Jesus chose to give Peter alone the keys.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this. Certainly GOD is no respecter of persons, as scripture affirms, yet here you are saying that He is.

I don't see scripture contradicting itself like you are attempting to say it does. Why would a single born again individual receive the keys to the kingdom and not anyone who else who came to Christ also?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this. Certainly GOD is no respecter of persons, as scripture affirms, yet here you are saying that He is.

You are clearly interpreting 'no respecter of persons' in correctly, because the Word of God says this:

"God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body... Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

I don't see scripture contradicting itself like you are attempting to say it does. Why would a single born again individual receive the keys to the kingdom and not anyone who else who came to Christ also?

If God saw fit to give the keys to Peter alone, who are you to question his will?

Scripture does not say that we all have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Scripture only displays Christ giving the keys to Peter, and no other.

 

[ARBITER01]

You are clearly interpreting 'no respecter of persons' in correctly, because the Word of God says this:

"God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body... Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

No you thought I misinterpretted it incorrectly, but I didn't. I have not asserted that anyone received something another hadn't,.. you did. You have made Peter out to having some sort of "keys" that no one else had from GOD when they were born again, when scripture does not address this.

Peter was no greater an apostle than Paul, or any of the other apostles. Peter was not some sort of "super" apostle that everyone received The Holy Spirit from.

If God saw fit to give the keys to Peter alone, who are you to question his will?

Scripture does not say that we all have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Scripture only displays Christ giving the keys to Peter, and no other.

Well if this is true, as you assert, then please find this in acts for us. I want to see Peter receiving something nobody else did when the 120 received The Holy Spirit.

By all means prove it for us.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No you thought I misinterpretted it incorrectly, but I didn't. I have not asserted that anyone received something another hadn't,.. you did. You have made Peter out to having some sort of "keys" that no one else had from GOD when they were born again, when scripture does not address this.

Peter was no greater an apostle than Paul, or any of the other apostles. Peter was not some sort of "super" apostle that everyone received The Holy Spirit from.

"God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body... Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

For God to give Peter a special privilege does not make him any greater than any other member of the body of Christ, it just means that God gave him a position in the body as he pleased.

Do all hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

Well if this is true, as you assert, then please find this in acts for us. I want to see Peter receiving something nobody else did when the 120 received The Holy Spirit.

By all means prove it for us.

Excuse me, Sir, but the burden is not on myself. Scripture says that Jesus gave the keys to Peter. It is your burden to demonstrate that he gave them to anyone else.

I know with all certainty that Scripture does not record Christ giving anyone else the keys in person, or otherwise. It is up to you to shatter my belief.

 

[ARBITER01]

"God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body... Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

For God to give Peter a special privilege does not make him any greater than any other member of the body of Christ, it just means that God gave him a position in the body as he pleased.

Well, that is why I'm wanting you to show me where this is fact. You are stating as such, so please show us where this happened.

Excuse me, Sir, but the burden is not on myself. Scripture says that Jesus gave the keys to Peter. It is your burden to demonstrate that he gave them to anyone else.

I know with all certainty that Scripture does not record Christ giving anyone else the keys in person, or otherwise. It is up to you to shatter my belief.

I'm simply asking you to prove to us by scripture where Peter actually received these so-called "keys" that no one else received. You made the statement as if it was fact by saying this,..

but Jesus chose to give Peter alone the keys.

...Well then prove it for us.


I assume if you are going to dance around this issue rather than prove it for us, you are unable to do so and you are only beholden to personal opinion in this matter and not truth.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well, that is why I'm wanting you to show me where this is fact. You are stating as such, so please show us where this happened.

I'm simply asking you to prove to us by scripture where Peter actually received these so-called "keys" that no one else received. You made the statement as if it was fact by saying this,..

...Well then prove it for us.

I assume if you are going to dance around this issue rather than prove it for us, you are unable to do so and you are only beholden to personal opinion in this matter and not truth.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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."

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. The burden is on you to show that Jesus gave them to anyone else. I am not the one claiming that he did.

Are you able to demonstrate that Jesus gave the keys to anybody other than Peter? Or are you 'only beholden to personal opinion in this matter'?

 

[ARBITER01]

"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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."

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. The burden is on you to show that Jesus gave them to anyone else. I am not the one claiming that he did.

Are you able to demonstrate that Jesus gave the keys to anybody other than Peter? Or are you 'only beholden to personal opinion in this matter'?

Ok then, you just want to dance around the subject instead of actually find scripture to prove the position you took.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Ok then, you just want to dance around the subject instead of actually find scripture to prove the position you took.

That is not what I want. I do not know why you have assumed such a thing about me.

I do want you to give us Catholics a reason to believe that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to anyone besides Peter. Can you please do this?

 

[ARBITER01]

That is not what I want. I do not know why you have assumed such a thing about me.

I do want you to give us Catholics a reason to believe that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to anyone besides Peter. Can you please do this?

Dance all you wish, if you can't prove your point, why make the statement?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I find these discussions about "keys" to be quite interesting. Various denominations have made a great deal more about them than the Bible seems to have done. Some, such as the LDS, claim that the Catholic Church misplaced the keys somehow for man centuries and then Joseph Smith was given them and they are now in Salt Lake City.

The problem that I see with this theology is that it hinges on one small passage from the gospels and no where else in the Bible do we find anything else about them. If they were so utterly essential one might think that, like the assumption of Mary, there would have been much more discussion about them. Oops! I just realized that the assumption of Mary is discussed actually even less than the keys.

The reality is that some denominations have spun a load of theological beliefs about these keys without the slightest biblical foundation to support these beliefs.