Baptists, Catholics and error

When we say the "Kingdom of God," do we really mean it? In a kingdom, there is one ruler whom everyone follows and normally a set of laws which apply to everyone. If the king travels to another country and leaves a viceroy in his place, that person or office must be followed as if the king himself were there. To do otherwise, would be disobedience to the king.

It seems to me that Protestants reject the viceroy yet wish to live in the "kingdom" although instead of a kingdom what they espouse is a democracy.

The Democracy of God is at hand and we may all decide for ourselves What and Who to follow.

Looking at the numerous denoms, sects, and independent churches of Protestantism, it seem more like anarchy than a kingdom.

Just my spin on the whole thing. You're welcome to agree with me..............or not.

 

What is the real meaning of the “Keys of the kingdom?” Not what the Catholics say. Take a look at what Robertson says about this passage:

The Keys of the kingdom (tav kleidav thv basileiav). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse Mat_16:18. In Rev_1:18; Rev_3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (oikonomov) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Mat_18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (Mat_20:21) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (dhshv) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (lushv) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ.

Note the future perfect indicative (estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (Mat_18:18). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (Joh_20:23), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him. (Robertson’s Word Pictures)
DHK

 

John 20:23
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Oh come now, DHK.

This Baptist soul liberty of yours is getting out of hand.

What is the plain meaning of the words?

Why do you insist on twisting Scripture so violently?

Ron

 

Christ said it to his disciples. He was establishing his CHURCH. Jesus also spoke of
Noah. Yet it seems that you consider that
only alligorical. Anyone can forgive anothers
sin, but only if that sin was towards them.

 

So then before Jesus spoke these words to Peter, we could not forgive the sins of others towards us?

If we could, why would Jesus bother to say those words? Your interpretation makes the words of Jesus pointless.

Did Jesus tell us anything else that was unneccesary?

 

Christ gave His apostles the ability to heal
the sick. See Matthew 9:2-6. Can your pope
cure the sick? He cannot even cure himself.

I believe this is what Jesus was speaking of
and I believe this power died with the Apostles.
It existed only to establish and root the CHURCH.

 

John 20:23
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

So now you are saying that John 20:23 is about curing the sick? This is not what you said in your last post. Why the sudden change in interpretation?

Before you said it was about being able to forgive the sins of those who sin against you.

Do you think that was a power given only to the Apostles?

If not, what's all this about powers that died with the Apostles?

I'm not really following you here.

Ron

 

We can't forgive another person's sin. We can forgive them as a person for the wrong they have done us, ie: not holding a grudge etc, but ONLY God can forgive sin. We can tell someone that their sin is forgiven IN Jesus name, but ultimately, God is the one who decide's if the person who needs forgiving is actually repentant in his/her heart!

Peace

 

DHK --

I will try to get to Robertson's words later when I have the time for a sufficient answer to his nonsense, but let me state right now

WHAT A CROCK!!!!

It amazes me how desparately men like Robertson go to lengths that violate any kind of good exegetical principle because if they admit to the obvious, they will have to admit to the Church and beg for entrance into Her.

Brother Ed

 

Sorry, but that was a very good explanation of the "Keys to the Kingdom" passages.

What the CC teaches in this area, like so many other areas, in nothing but the "traditions of men", taking precedence over Gods clear, pure truth, found in the scriptures.

"making the word of God of no effect, by your tradition, which you have handed down"

Mike

 

Every sin is first and foremost an offense against God, and only God can forgive a sin fully and completely.

 

We can't forgive another person's sin. We can forgive them as a person for the wrong they have done us, ie: not holding a grudge etc, but ONLY God can forgive sin. We can tell someone that their sin is forgiven IN Jesus name, but ultimately, God is the one who decide's if the person who needs forgiving is actually repentant in his/her heart!

Peace </font>[/QUOTE]A much clearer answer than mine!

 

John 20:23
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Oh come now, DHK.

This Baptist soul liberty of yours is getting out of hand.

What is the plain meaning of the words?

Why do you insist on twisting Scripture so violently?

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]As for soul liberty, I think your beginning to understand that the words of A.T. Robertson, quoted above are in agreement with mine. We both have soul liberty to believe what the Holy Spirit leads us to believe in determining the truth of Scripture. In this case we both agree. You have the freedom or right to disagree. I won't behead you for it like your ancestors did to us.

As for John 20:23, it is an outcome of preaching the Gospel. A person's sins is forgiven only when they trust Christ as Saviour. The Bible does not contradict itself. I hope that you will agree with me on that much.

Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
--Only God could forgive sins. The Pharisees knew that. What they could not admit, was that Jesus was God.

Luke 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 keys were simply keys of knowledge. The knowledge was specifically that of the gospel, as Robertson correctly pointed out. Their sins were forgiven when they accepted the truth (knowledge) of the truth of the gospel, and were saved.
Their sins were retained, or not forgiven when they rejected the gospel. Don't make it more complicated than what it is. Aaah the simplicity of the gospel message!
DHK

 

So if key = key of knowledge, then Luke 11:52 would be saying "you have taken away the key of knowledge of knowledge."

Also notice the singular "key" above vs. the plural "keys of the kingdom of heaven." Would that be multiple knowledges?

 

So if key = key of knowledge, then Luke 11:52 would be saying "you have taken away the key of knowledge of knowledge."

Also notice the singular "key" above vs. the plural "keys of the kingdom of heaven." Would that be multiple knowledges? </font>[/QUOTE]You are grasping at straws. Your answer doesn't make sense and is illogical. Jesus clearly identified "Key" )whether used in the plural or singular is irrelevant), as knowledge. If you need a grammar lesson as to why it is used in the singular, consult an English grammar handbook. Scripture harmonizes with Scripture. That is the most important thing here.

 

You know, I really wish you guys would make up your minds what you are. Are you "sola scriptura" or not? If you are, as you claim to be, then you cannot seriously advocate views and ideas which are not found distinctly outlined in Scripture.

There is no verse nowhere that even hints that anyone else EXCEPT St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. For you to advance Mr. Robertson's idea to the contrary here is a piece of cheeky hypocrisy on your parts.

Now you go and find me a verse which distinctly says "All believers have the keys to the kingdom."

Mr. Robertson show that he, like so many others who claim such titles as "Dr" "Reverend" "Preacher" etc. is blazingly ignorant of the covenantal structure of God's familial kingdom on earth.

The Bible speaks of the Covenant of God over 280 times, yet I would wager a full year's wages that Mr. Robertson has never mentioned the covenant more than 10 times in his entire lifetime, and that when he read it by accident in the Scriptures. Yet if the Bible mentions it that much, and if Jesus said He was inaugurating the New Covenant in His own Blood, then I think it must be one of the more central themes of belief for a believer.

Furthermore, the idea of a Church on earth without a head violates the Biblical imagery of the Body of Christ. Bodies have heads, and not thousands of heads, like Baptistry, which makes it a freak show fit for a circus, but ONE head and one head only. There is one divine Head of the Church in Heaven, and since earthly realities are pictures of heavenly truths (Heb 8:5), there must also be but one head here on earth in the Church.

The Church on earth is the family of God, and reflects the true family of God in Heaven, which has but one Father, divine, eternal, and almighty. Covenantal families have headship. That headship is called by the term "father", indicating authority and rulership. But none of this typology fazes Mr. Robertson, who is ignorant of all these things, and only knows that he desparately wishes not to be a Catholic or part of the Church, and therefore puts forth such unbiblical silliness in the name of the Lord.

They also did not understand until after the resurrection all the words which Jesus clearly taught about Himself. There were, in fact, YARDS AND YARDS of things which only became clear AFTER the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. And then, even after that, the Church had to still wade through all the heretics like you who came in the name of the Lord teaching their demon theories, such as Arius, the Montanists, the Monothellites, the Monophysites, the Donatists, and a host of others who's heretical ideas gained foothold with men until the Church -- the CATHOLIC CHURCH -- settled the issue once and for all.


Furthermore, you forget or ignore that which the Lord Himself taught regarding the kingdom -- i.e., that it would be as a tiny seed, a mustard seed, planted in the earth, which would only come to maturity after considerable time and growth. The seed not only does not look like the tree, it does not have the ability to function as a tree. The ignorance of the apostles came before the seed was even planted in the Blood of the Savior and nourished by His resurrection.[/quote]

You are "sola scriptura" remember. There is nothing said in Scripture which indicates that every preacher or teacher holds the keys to the kingdom.

Unlike you, I will not try to comment on what I do not know, such as Greek and Hebrew. I do know that there are men like Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics, former haters of the Catholic Faith, who would BURY YOU in the Greek and Hebrew. I find your use of it, as the use of all Protestants regarding it, suspect at best, dishonest at worst. Are you suggesting that the first, second, and third century beleivers, who spoke Greek fluently were not your equal in the language, were so stupid that they just accepted the teaching of Peter's leadership without raising the same quetions you think are so foundational and important.

I DOUBT IT BUCKO!!

Hogwash!! If this is true, why didn't the first century and onward disciples claim this to be true? If such as you claim is true, then there would certainly have been a council convened to challenge the idea of an episcopal form of governance in the Church with a single man as its head. You know why I KNOW THIS BEYOND DOUBT??

Because men are by nature REBELS and do not like to have others rule over them. If the believers of the first century and onward could have found any way or reason to establish their own rulership over the Church, they would have done so in a heartbeat and claimed the exact same DISTORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE which you toss around like water. You are but one of many rebels who will not have the properly ordained rulership which Christ left upon this earth, and you stretch heaven and earth to bend the Bible to fit your rebellion.

No, it is a violent leap of logic to deny that every believer in the first century onward understood this perfectly and through understanding this, set up the Sacramental system which is the heart of Christ's work on earth through the Church. It is a violent leap of logic to believe that every believer since Pentecost was decieved until the Reformation in understanding EXACTLY what Jesus meant by these words and putting them into practice.

Baloney!!! Your ego is only superceded by your complete ignorance of the facts. You take the words of Christ and torture and maim them to say anything which would deny the Catholic Church the legitimacy which our Lord gave to Her and Her alone on earth. How will you explain your crazed reasoning to Jesus when you stand in front of Him and He judges you? I want to be there to see that, when He asks you why you didn't believe what He said exactly as He said it but instead twisted His words to give them a meaning that they are not meant to have.

Oh. I see. "Ecclessiastical" is nasty, right? Rites, ceremonies, Sacraments, are all rotten little things which cannot possible bring the grace of God to us sinners, right?

Congratulations. You are now my official "GNOSTIC OF THE YEAR" for your denial of the physical aspect of our Lord's work here on earth through the institution He left us -- the Church.

This is typical. Another so called "Dr." or wise man who goes to great pains to try to avoid the obvious, and in the process, turns the words of Scripture upon their head, denying the typology of Scripture, the covenantal structure of the kingdom, and ultimately, our Lord's very words themselves, all because he cannot stand the idea that the Catholic Church is indeed that which Christ set on earth for the salvation of mankind.

 

You know, I really wish you guys would make up your minds what you are. Are you "sola scriptura" or not? If you are, as you claim to be, then you cannot seriously advocate views and ideas which are not found distinctly outlined in Scripture.

There is no verse nowhere that even hints that anyone else EXCEPT St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. For you to advance Mr. Robertson's idea to the contrary here is a piece of cheeky hypocrisy on your parts.

Now you go and find me a verse which distinctly says "All believers have the keys to the kingdom."</font>[/QUOTE]Instead of taking this whole thing in one long post, let's break it down into some short posts and answer one point at a time.

You want a verse:
Luke 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 keys refer to knowledge, as Jesus said in this verse right here. The disciples had the key of knowledge, which is the gospel. Peter's testimony himself, was: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."
Now with this knowledge what were the disciples commanded to do:

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power (i.e., authority)is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It was Jesus that gave them authority and commanded them to go and teach all nations; to preach the gospel to every creature.
This is called the Great Commission. It was not jusst given to the 12, but given to every believer. It is the responsibilty of every believer to take the gospel into all the world. Paul verified this in Romans chapter 10.
DHK

 

Not ignorant Ed, not ignorant at all. Apparently Robertson, like myself, do not agree with your covenantal theology, nor see any reason to. This Catholic theological quagmire is so full of allegorical loopholes that it fails to make theological sense and allows room for all kinds of pagan beliefs.

The Bible mentions sin 447 in the singular, and 173 more times in the plural, yet the Catholics still don’t understand the simple concept of sin. They insist on having different kinds of sins, different punishments for sins (purgatory, etc). There is importance in the doctrine of sin too. Your logic fails me, and your innuendos are ridiculous.

It is apparent that you don’t know what a church is. You ought to study more on the subject of ecclesiology. A church is an assembly, not a denomination. It is not an hierarchy. And it certainly isn’t represented by the corrupt Catholic organization. The term family of God, as you suggest, rightly describes the unity of all believer together. But that is not what a church is. A church is an assembly of baptized believers gathered together in one place to carry out the two ordinances that Christ gave (baptism and the Lord’s Table), and to carry out the Great Commission. There is no such thing as a universal church, or an invisible church. Every Biblical assembly has Christ as its head, just as every believer has Christ as his Saviour, and Christ indwelling him.
DHK

 

So if key = key of knowledge, then Luke 11:52 would be saying "you have taken away the key of knowledge of knowledge."

Also notice the singular "key" above vs. the plural "keys of the kingdom of heaven." Would that be multiple knowledges? </font>[/QUOTE]You are grasping at straws. Your answer doesn't make sense and is illogical. Jesus clearly identified "Key" )whether used in the plural or singular is irrelevant), as knowledge. If you need a grammar lesson as to why it is used in the singular, consult an English grammar handbook. Scripture harmonizes with Scripture. That is the most important thing here. </font>[/QUOTE] How could I have been so stoopid!? All this time I thought singular and plural were, like, different! It's those rotten Catholic schools!

Always anxious to improve myself, I have started a notebook to record all the educational advice I receive from DHK. I made sure to get an extra-thick one.