Featured My Journey Into The Catholic Church

You haven't answered my question but lets look at your question reasonably. Your contention is that Paul doesn't mention Peter by name at the begining of Romans. Well, lets think about that. Paul wrote Romans probably duriing the winter of late AD 57 or early 58. Is it possible Peter hadn't established himself in Rome at that time I mean he didn't die for approximately another 10 years? Also the persception that is often forgoten is holding a place of prominance does not negate being first among equals. Paul's intention was to establish Rome as a base of operations to conduct missionary journeys as far as Spain. I mean there can be several reasons for this. But not so many with the questions I put forward.

 

Good question. You have to give up the modern notion of keys in this passage. We have to take a biblical perspective. Jesus when speaking to Peter regarding the Keys is referrencing Isaiah 22:15-25

Jesus in short is making him the equivalent to what we think of when we say primeminister. Its a title of office. The problem is the modern age is so far removed that people mistake ancient consepts. Like mayors in England are given golden chains around their neck a symbol of office. And Catholics believe it gives him a teaching authority.

 

And the Catholics are wrong in their interpretation, as they are in many of their interpretations of the Bible. The keys do not refer to any passage in the OT. Jesus was not referring to an OT passage at all. You can't read into the Bible that which is not there. The "key" is the same "key" which the Pharisees had. It was a key of knowledge. The Pharisees had shut up the kingdom to the common person by hiding this key. It wasn't a physical key.
The key to the kingdom was the knowledge of the gospel. Jesus said "If you know the truth it will set you free, and you shall be free indeed."
The key is the gospel. That alone will set you free. Later he gave that same "key" to all the apostles. It was the message of the gospel and passed on to every believer, every person that has ever received Christ as Savior.

 

So exactly how does the Catholic Church differentiate between Scripture and the word of God?

Answer to the previous question may help with this.

 

Some of my responses are inside your post.


Really? The free churches didn't agree with or follow the state church persecutors and murderers, and they lived during the same time. Guess they actually read the scriptures and saw Jesus' teachings and practices were not the same as those of the state church murderers.

 

Absolutely.

And was Peter chief of apostles and infallible when he denied Jesus thrice?

 

Sure! After all, he's the "Holy Father", isn't he?

 

Excellent and spot on!

 

Well we are going to have to disagree. Clearly the Keys represented a teaching authority in that holding keys themselve symbolized an authority as we discover in Isaiah 22. Note Jesus doesn't tell Peter he gives him the Key meaning the as in your assertion about the key of knowledge but specifically mentions the Keys as in the Keys of authority. We see the use of Keys in this plural manner showing authority also in Rev 1:18 as in Christ has authority over heaven and hell. Clearly this is how the Jews viewed authority of Keys as that of a teaching authority. Just like binding and Loosing was commonly held among Jews to mean forbid and permit certain practices. So in the context of the time Jesus was speaking with Jewish listeners they would have immediately understood what is implied is the teaching authority which is first singled out in Peter. If Jesus didn't have a special role for Peter with regard to teaching authority and binding and loosing of practices there would never have been a seen in Matthew of this being specific to Peter. The fact the other apostles were generally mentioned later confers this to the teaching authority of the Church lead by Peter.

 

Justin Martyr was born in Samaritan Palestine about 100 A.D. He converted to Christianity about 130 A.D. and was martyred under Marcus Aurelius for defending Christianity.

 

Redirect...

While I know why topics like the one you,Thomas and DHK are discussing ARE related to the issue of to be/or not to be a Catholic in light of Walters current testimony, the value of drawing out this much "detail" about it is questionable in this thread. (Even if it IS interesting) Maybe another thread in the Church History forum would be more appropriate and valuable. My only contribution to this topic would be to suggest that EVERYBODY prayerfully read "Fox's Book of Martyrs" if you haven't already. Any doubts I had about the character and nature of Popery were completely quashed by my tearful trip through those pages. We have suffered NOTHING by comparison in this country.....YET. But this world and satan himself are not done with their "crimes against God" spree just yet. Even so,come Lord Jesus! My personal OPINION is that, in this context, maybe we (and Walter) would be better served by more of a focus on discussing the doctrinal distinctives that make one either a Baptist (since this IS the BB) or a Catholic (which is what our friend Walter is about to become). If we believe him to be in error in his pursuit then, with compassion and truth we should try to show him why He should reconsider from sound instruction from the Word of God. Think about it folks.JMHO

Bro.Gregraying:

 

Is Statement by you: "you're a member of the biggest propaganda machine in Christian history" is not a "fact" as you call it. It is an assertion. And it seems as though you take assertions for "facts" which may indicate why you're having a problem with your historical review. You taken the same approach to debate as the Modern Media which is to say Assertion = Fact. Therefore providing no facts rather an assertion I can certainly say you are misleading. Your only attempt at using a fact which was to say a Duke committed an attrocity and say it was the Catholic Church that did it. No it was that Duke that did it. Not the Catholic Church.

This shows your ignorance of how things worked. The state was its own political arm. What you find in history is often State leaders wanted to dictate things to the Church. The Catholic Church only had ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The best that can be said of the Church at that time is that they had influence on states but not direct control. What you don't understand of history is when a Bishop would die a noble would take control of that bishops property and often time assign bishops of their own choosing. The State has always attempted to hold more control over the Church than the Church the State.

This certainly is not an absolute truth. I've read through many historical documents and no State government has been founded upon infant baptism. This is pure nonsense. And it makes obvious to the reader that you aren't aware of the real issues of the time. The nobles killed people they deemed to be heretics in their lands to preserve their faith. Infant Baptism has been practice long before any government even recognized Christians as an acceptable religion. What you don't understand about the Catholic view of Baptism is that we hold it as a covenant between God and Man similar to circumcision as it says in Col 2

Well, I haven't seen your other threads. And though I don't agree will actions a lot of Catholics did in the past I attempt to put the blame right where it belongs. On the Monarch and Nobles and individual Clergy members where they are to be blamed includng some Popes. This however doesn't affect the Church's teaching on faith and Morals. There have been bad baptist leaders as well which does not reflect on baptist beliefs.. And though I am impressed with your degrees it worries that what you have purported as fact is nothing more than biased approach to history. It conserns me because it seems you with your education have ignored some simple facts of history. Tell me was Catholicism created by Constantine? Did Constantine create the "Church State"? Your answers to these will be very telling. And as far as me being the protagonist here. I tell you that I am not. I am answering your assertions which by definition takes me out of the protagonist roll as one defending.

 

Nowhere does Jesus reference Isaiah 22. Therefore your interpretation is false.

Your interpretation; your opinion; doesn't make it right.

Only the gospel can give one entrance into heaven.
Only the gospel can deliver one from hell.
Isaiah 22 has nothing to do with the gospel and is totally irrelevant. Jesus never referred to it, but he did refer to the gospel.

The binding and loosing that Jesus referred to was strictly in the context of church discipline. Look it up.

The Jews knew exactly what Jesus meant, had they been listening to him.
Compare Scripture with Scripture:

Luk_11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The key of knowledge is now the gospel. In order to enter into heaven and avoid entering into hell one must know the gospel and apply it to their lives. Salvation is through Christ alone.
The Pharisees hid the message of salvation from the people; in fact it seems as if they didn't understand it themselves. They had condemned themselves to hell. Jesus never refers to Isaiah 22, but he does refer to the key of knowledge--the gospel--the way of entering into heaven.

 

You are absolutely correct. I do get caught up in these details. Maybe Helwys will start a new thread regarding history.

 

I can answer all your points by pointing out one simple problem with your interpretaton. Look what you are refering to

Jesus didn't say key of knowledge or even key but Keys and if you go to Luke 11 you see that Jesus is dressing down the entire authority structure because it was viewed that the Pharisses, scribes, and lawyers were authoritative teachers. So Jesus isn't speaking to Peter about the Key of Knowledge of the Keys of Heaven. Which we can see referrenced as authority such as in Is. and Rev. Unless you purport Jesus was confused about plural and singular words.

 

There is little difference.
History shows that any church state, of whatever religion it is, takes away the liberty of others, and even persecutes others. This was sadly true of England's history. Britain's "Bloody Queen Mary of Tudor" was well known for her persecution of Baptists and others that were not Catholic. She was a zealous Catholic. Of course the Pope or the leaders of the RCC would not stand in the way of her murderous ways but rather promoted it.
Baptists were also persecuted by the Church of England when it was in power.
Calvin persecuted others when he set up a "church-state" in Geneva.
Those missionaries that go to nations where Sharia law is imposed by Islam are certain to face persecution because of the same "church state" concept. There is no tolerance for freedom of religion. The religion dictates what the government should do. And so it was under the government of England, and in many other nations. The Pope can be held directly responsible for the nations actions.

 

Matt,

your misinterpreting my question here. I dont really give a fig about the C vs A thing that obsesses so many & I aint trying to draw you into it. If Christ died for you then should have experiences being born from above by this point right? Or is that whats missing? True conversion!!!

 

Contrarily I think the difference is greater than you think.

Certainly history shows where a monarch or a state tries to enforce their will upon the free practice of religion with in their realm abuses occur.

I don't think the Church spoke to the specific issue of Queen Mary's bloody purge. Save to say about her that

Which matches what I said in the begining.

Whether Christian or Muslim People are responsible for their own actions. The Pope cannot be directly responsible for something another person chooses to do. Was Jesus responsible when Peter cut off the guards ear?

 

Wait until Jesus rules from David's Throne on this earth as King of kings. He will rule with a rod of iron. Perfect justice will be carried out throughout all nations.

 

Going back to the concept of keys: Jesus delegated keys and the authority to use them in Mt. 16 and 28. The real bone of contention is: who got the keys and who has them today??

If the apostle Peter got the keys and handed the authority down through the so-called Holy See/ Pontifex Maximus even through today, the RCC is the only authorized version. Anyone else is without authority--they are usurpers. This includes all those who would reform Rome. Henry VIII was not trying to reform anything--he started his own thing--without authority--maybe he dubbed himself. The descendents of Canterbury, while somewhat diminished in numbers still survive on both sides of the pond, probably not with a large amount of due benevolence towards each other.

Who is authorized? If the RCC got it the reformers are usurpers. If the RCC did not get the keys, the reformers are still unauthorized since they came out of Rome who has no keys from the gitgo.

Enter stage left: Joseph Smith, Jr. He claims to have had an apparition and a revelation directly from God. Joseph was informed that all churches had fallen away and a new priesthood and church would be established through Joseph Smith. There are some 13 million people who still believe what Smith testified.

Now everyone should be a mormon.

Leave the question on the floor: Who is authorized to carry out Jesus commands?

Clue: Behold the Bride, the Lamb's Wife.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James