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

[Rick Otto]

quote=ivebeenshown;You may think so, but the grammar of the passage does not logically necessitate such an interpretation, therefore I am not required to believe it.

I think so with logic that I have articulated, that the grammar does necessitate such an interpretation.
You have not offered any grammatical explanation of the ligic you claim to have used.

To enter the kingdom of Heaven one must be free of all blemish, but this does not mean that one who is free of blemish has necessarily entered the kingdom of Heaven.

Well then you agree with me, just not in all cases, the exemption(s) for which you have not iterated, only postulated.

The Saints, by the power of the Spirit, crucified every lust of the flesh yet walked the earth for the rest of their earthly course.

Being on earth does not logicaly necessitate being out of God's Kingdom.

 

[Kepha]

... what exactly were these keys of the kingdom of Heaven for?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Power of the Keys

Except Jesus didn't give any physical, tangible keys to anyone, as you suggest. It is a Spiritual Truth He spoke of. So your pat little analogy here doesn't really hold water; not a single drop.

No, but He gave Spiritual Keys to Peter (singular) alone. My point still stands. Because you start of with the faulty premise of the Bible alone theory that we are all left to interpret using a direct line to the Holy Spirit, you start assuming with a self promoted power, that 'Binding and Loosing' given to the other Apostles, automatically equates 100 percent on the same level, with the Binding and Loosing joined with the Keys given to Peter thereby concluding that the Keys suggest to be for them as well. Then you go on and assume that's it also equates to yourself and every future Chrisian because you 'see' it implicitly in other passages, whatever they may be when the fact is that you're forcing yourself to see it becuse you're going off the "Peter alone can't have them so it must be something else" mentality. Seiously now, do you reeeeally want to make that yet another dogma for the faithful in the church of razeontherock and be judged for spreading heresy if you're wrong?

@ post # 627 Either he defined the keys as binding and loosing, or He did not. If they are one and the same, they are not separate.

And if a protestant seeking the Church can implicitly see in other passages exactly how unique a role Peter had for the Church (which happens time and time again btw), thereby concluding that it was Peter alone, whom He specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom, they should listen to you because of why exactly? You're definitely not fallible nor are you a leader of the Church so the weight of your personalized testimony of truth isn't really much to feed off of now is it.

It's a Scriptural principle, established by Moses, and confirmed by our Lord. If we find something only in one place, we have imposed our own will upon the text. If the intent is actually there, we will find it elsewhere as well. And I have found that if G-d really means what we're thinking, there will also be a third Scriptural witness, even if that one is veiled.

Interesting doctrine. Never heard it before. Can you produce two explicit areas either in the NT or the OT (but not both since OT Jews didn't have that luxury), teaching what you just said above?

You MUST use logic as well.
The Word of God says that God is a branch, a door etc.
We can't have double standards.
CAll no man father... etc.

kwim?

Sunlover, I hear you use the term logic alot but I've always concluded that sola Scripture, where future Christians have to constantly re-teach themselves through God's Written Word, (many times never really being fully confident if they have the correct interpretation) His truths taught 2000 years ago that were commanded to be passed along, only to continue to bicker and squabble with other Christians till Christ returns, to be the most highly illogical set up, God could give to mankind.

So Christ has commanded future Christians to teach and preach "All Truths" what may or may not be error and actually expect unity, and you find this to be a perfectly logical set up to place your faith in? Each to their own I suppose.

 

[Rick Otto]

GREAT question too. Didja get an answer on this?

Nobody wants to step out in front of that oncoming train, I guess.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I think so with logic that I have articulated, that the grammar does necessitate such an interpretation.

Why? How? The word 'and' between two clauses does not logically or grammatically necessitate that the latter clause is an attribute of the former clause.

You have not offered any grammatical explanation of the ligic you claim to have used.

That's fine, I would not expect you to believe that which you cannot discern as a logical conclusion, but I would expect you to understand that I cannot believe your proposition for the same reason, which I have detailed above.

Well then you agree with me, just not in all cases, the exemption(s) for which you have not iterated, only postulated. Being on earth does not logicaly necessitate being out of God's Kingdom.

I will display the Word of God:

"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit."

And in another place:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Therefore, having the Holy Spirit does not necessitate that one has entered the kingdom of heaven.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Who is appointed as your apostle? How many apostles are currently serving the RCC?

The Apostles have all finished their earthly course. The Apostles appointed bishops, leaving them instructions to appoint further bishops. I am afraid that I do not know the number of bishops that currently work within the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Apostles have all finished their earthly course. The Apostles appointed bishops, leaving them instructions to appoint further bishops. I am afraid that I do not know the number of bishops that currently work within the Church.

How many Cardinals?

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Sorry! The word "cardinals" doesn't occur in the KJV.

 

[ivebeenshown]

How many Cardinals?

I don't know that either.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't know that either.

They are the ones that elect yer Pope aren't they?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7430430-9/#post53868229
election of Pope and smoke

Black smoke rises from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel meaning that cardinals failed to elect a new pope in the first ballot of their secret conclave at the Vatican City.[AFP]

 

[ivebeenshown]

They are the ones that elect yer Pope aren't they?

That is my understanding!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Excuse me... but I don't believe that the Pope is 'the one guy in charge.'

I am a bit confused here. Who do you believe is the "one guy in charge" then?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Alright.

Why don't you believe we can measure spiritual truths by consulting the teachers God appointed? Isaiah prophesied a promise from God, that our teachers would not be hidden from us, that we would see them with our eyes, and we would hear a voice telling us 'this is the Way, walk in it.' It is in the thirtieth chapter of the book of Isaiah.

I believe that we Christians are children of God and that God followed through on his promises.

How can you say that our Lord does that when the Word of God says that we are to submit to our leaders because they give account of our soul?

The Apostles were leaders in their day, and they appointed others.

If the Apostles appointed others, did only the ones appointed by Peter get the keys and the ones appointed by other Apostles lack these keys and, thus, were inferior?

 

[ivebeenshown]

If the Apostles appointed others, did only the ones appointed by Peter get the keys and the ones appointed by other Apostles lack these keys and, thus, were inferior?

First, I would like to address your assumption that Peter would be superior to the other Apostles (rather than a first among equals) if Christ promised the keys to Peter and not the other Apostles.

This assumption is illogical, because as Paul writes, "God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

That God appoints the members of his Church to particular ministries does not elevate any member above the other, for "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."

The concept of a first among equals is present in Scripture, as Paul writes: "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?"

Now, as far as anyone besides Peter holding the keys, as a Catholic I believe that the keys are 'tied' to Peter's office, so to speak. Just as the Apostles elected a new member to fill Judas' bishopric in Acts 1, when Peter's office became vacant, a new member was elected to fill it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If the Catholic Church has authority from God, then you are engaging in sedition against established authority. If any other church has authority, then those who do not assent to it are guilty of engaging in sedition.

The earliest Church Fathers wrote of sedition:

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. - Clement

"[The Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men... We do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings... by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul... also [by indicating] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. - Irenaeus

I like that little word "if". If all churches are part and parcel of God's church then any rejection of their authority is sedition.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I like that little word "if". If all churches are part and parcel of God's church then any rejection of their authority is sedition.

That is true, bbbbbbb. But if all 'church organizations' are established by God and thus possessing equal authority, then God has made it impossible for us to not engage in sedition, not truly having given us the power to become free of such works of the flesh, for how can we truly submit to the many churches when each tells us not to submit to the other?

 

[bbbbbbb]

First, I would like to address your assumption that Peter would be superior to the other Apostles (rather than a first among equals) if Christ promised the keys to Peter and not the other Apostles.

This assumption is illogical, because as Paul writes, "God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

That God appoints the members of his Church to particular ministries does not elevate any member above the other, for "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."

The concept of a first among equals is present in Scripture, as Paul writes: "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?"

Now, as far as anyone besides Peter holding the keys, as a Catholic I believe that the keys are 'tied' to Peter's office, so to speak. Just as the Apostles elected a new member to fill Judas' bishopric in Acts 1, when Peter's office became vacant, a new member was elected to fill it.

What was tied to Andrew's office and where are his successors now? If you do not believe that Peter and his office were in any way superior to the other apostles and their offices, why does your church insist that it, and it alone, is the Church and even other Churches which have a valid historical claim to apostolic origin are no church at all?

 

[Rick Otto]

Cath Encyclo:

The expression "power of the keys" is derived from Christ's words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda.

The derivation is far more self serving & far less obvious than the scripture itself, unless of course you choose to deny that the binding & loosing powers iterated belong to the keys. That would give one license to make the keys mean whatever they want.
Far more plausible is this explanation from Gill:
Matthew 16:19

Ver. 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven[SIZE=+1],.... By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Gospel, which comes from heaven, declares the king Messiah to be come, speaks of things concerning his kingdom, is the means of setting it up, and enlarging it, displays the riches of his grace, and gives an account of the kingdom of heaven, and of persons' right unto it, and meetness for it. "The keys" of it are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, Ac 2:1 and then to the Gentiles, Ac 10:1[SIZE=+1] and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from Mt 18:18[SIZE=+1] wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David, with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none. Peter is not the door-keeper of heaven to let in, nor keep out, whom he pleases; nor has his pretended successor the keys of hell and death; these also are only in Christ's hands: though it has been said of the pope of Rome, that if he sends millions of men to hell, none should say to him, what dost thou? but the keys here mentioned are the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or of the Gospel, which was shut up in the Jewish nation, through the ignorance, malice, and calumnies of the Scribes and Pharisees, who would neither embrace it, or enter into the kingdom of God themselves, nor suffer others that were going to enter into it; and through their taking away the key of knowledge, or the right interpretation of the word of God; and through a judicial blindness, which that nation in general was given up to: and this was shut up to the Gentiles through the natural darkness that was spread over them, and through want of a divine revelation, and persons sent of God to instruct them: but now Christ was about, and in a little time he would (for these words, with what follow, are in the future tense) give his apostles both a commission and gifts, qualifying them to open the sealed book of the Gospel, and unlock the mysteries of it, both to Jews and Gentiles, especially the latter. Keys are the ensigns of treasurers, and of stewards, and such the ministers of the Gospel are; they have the rich treasure of the word under their care, put into their earthen vessels to open and lay before others; and they are stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God, and of these things they have the keys. So that these words have nothing to do with church power and government in Peter, nor in the pope, nor in any other man, or set of men whatever; nor to be understood of church censures, excommunications, admissions, or exclusions of members: nor indeed are keys of any such similar use; they serve for locking and unlocking doors, and so for keeping out those that are without, and retaining those that are within, but not for the expulsion of any: but here they are used in a figurative sense, for the opening and explaining the truths of the Gospel, for which Peter had excellent gifts and abilities.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[Rick Otto]

...you start assuming with a self promoted power, that 'Binding and Loosing' given to the other Apostles, automatically equates 100 percent on the same level, with the Binding and Loosing joined with the Keys given to Peter thereby concluding that the Keys suggest to be for them as well. Then you go on and assume that's it also equates to yourself and every future Chrisian because...

Dude, you own cited reference says the whole Church has the binding & loosing powers:
Cath Encyclo:

Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins.

...but in typical Doublespeak, they immediatly assert the opposite:

From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world.

I can only assume they consider St. Augustine a "Protestant controversialist".

 

[ivebeenshown]

What was tied to Andrew's office and where are his successors now?

I don't know of his successors, and I do not know whether any particular thing was tied to his office, other than his appointed ministerial duties, whatever they may have been.

If you do not believe that Peter and his office were in any way superior to the other apostles and their offices, why does your church insist that it, and it alone, is the Church and even other Churches which have a valid historical claim to apostolic origin are no church at all?

The other churches who are not in communion with the See of Peter engage in sedition by saying "we have no need of you", separating themselves from what Christ had established. As Paul writes, "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." The See of Peter is not superior per se, but those who strive against it fail to maintain union within the body, thereby turning away from the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.

Dissenters will not deny that a born again person such as Peter or his successors does hold the keys, but dissenters cannot prove that they themselves are holding them.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Dude, you own cited reference says the whole Church has the binding & loosing powers:
Cath Encyclo:
...but in typical Doublespeak, they immediatly assert the opposite:
I can only assume they consider St. Augustine a "Protestant controversialist".

I acknowledge that Jesus gave the binding and loosing powers to all of the Apostles, but I do not acknowledge that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to anyone but Peter.

 

[Rick Otto]

Dissenters will not deny that a born again person such as Peter or his successors does hold the keys, but dissenters cannot prove that they themselves are holding them.

They must not be disciples.
you still haven't proven the keys mean any more than what scripture itself plainly iterates.