Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by darinhouston » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:31 pm

tom wrote:smcllr3 wrote and I would like to ask Darin if we could start a thread to address this. Can we name it, "Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?"

I don't believe RCC has any valid claim to the Acts 15 church and I don't think that popeman's idea of the Acts 15 church was ever to exist except in Acts 15. We have enough revealed in the New Testament to ever need any more mandates from councils of Men.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:21 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by tom » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:27 pm

Since I'm the one that asked to have this thread started I should have some good Biblical reason. Evangelicals, (maybe I'm categorizing them), seem to say we have no authority but the Bible. When I read the OT and now the NT I don't see this to be the case.

I felt, when I was a born again Bible believing non-denominational Christian the Bible should teach this. As Darin says it should be 'clear-cut evidence'.

When I read the OT I see a family in Abraham, a tribe in Moses, a nation in Jacob and then a kingdom in David. Each built upon the other and each had a leader and an order. Jesus promised a kingdom and shows us in Acts His Kingdom Church.

I must add that all Christians are the Kingdom of God. When two or more are gathered in My name there am I. But Matthew tells us we are to take unresolved moral issues to the Church. Much the same as with Moses in Ex. 18:13-26.

I hope to post soon what I propose that Church is and my reasons for it. The pillar and foundation of Truth!

Tom

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by RND » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:55 pm

Steer me right if I'm wrong Tom but I don't see where you've addressed the church supplanting the roles of the old patriarchs.
tom wrote:Since I'm the one that asked to have this thread started I should have some good Biblical reason. Evangelicals, (maybe I'm categorizing them), seem to say we have no authority but the Bible. When I read the OT and now the NT I don't see this to be the case.

I felt, when I was a born again Bible believing non-denominational Christian the Bible should teach this. As Darin says it should be 'clear-cut evidence'.

When I read the OT I see a family in Abraham, a tribe in Moses, a nation in Jacob and then a kingdom in David. Each built upon the other and each had a leader and an order. Jesus promised a kingdom and shows us in Acts His Kingdom Church.
Interestingly all these patriarchs shared one thing in common and that would be a "covenant" with the Father based on His words, which are a verbal expression of His nature and character.
I must add that all Christians are the Kingdom of God.


By and through the power of His Son, Jesus Christ.
When two or more are gathered in My name there am I. But Matthew tells us we are to take unresolved moral issues to the Church.
Matthew or Jesus?
Much the same as with Moses in Ex. 18:13-26.
Considering this was "before" the law was given on Sinai I'd imagine this was and "everyman for himself situation."
I hope to post soon what I propose that Church is and my reasons for it. The pillar and foundation of Truth!
This should be exciting Tom!
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by steve » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:12 pm

Tom wrote:
Evangelicals, (maybe I'm categorizing them), seem to say we have no authority but the Bible. When I read the OT and now the NT I don't see this to be the case.
I do not know what most evangelicals might say when asked, but I would never say that "we have no authority but the Bible." This would suggest that our relationship is with a printed text, rather than with the living God. I would say that Christians answer to no authority but Jesus Christ. That's what being a Christian means, and it is what being in God's kingdom requires—submission to the King.

Now if one were to ask, "but how do we know what Jesus wants us to do?" I would say, the Spirit of Jesus is with us exactly as He was in New Testament times, and is quite capable of doing precisely what Jesus and the apostles promised—namely, leading His children (John 16:13/ Rom.8:14 /1 John 2:27).

This leading of the Spirit may come through many avenues, including inspired and authorized men, like the apostles and the prophets. This is where the scriptures come in. They are records of the teachings of apostles and prophets. In addition, we may hear the voice of the Spirit spoken through ordinary men, through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In this way, the living and departed members of the "church"—the Body of Christ—are avenues through whom the Spirit also guides the believer.

Where Protestant Christianity may appear to say "we only follow the Bible," it is in the context of disputes over whether the Spirit speaks more reliably through the inspired apostles and prophets (who wrote the scriptures), or through uninspired political leaders of the ecclesiastical institutions. One does not have to have any commitments to "Protestantism," per se, nor any animus toward Roman Catholicism, to be able to pick between these two options.

As for the question of whether the Roman Catholic Church is the kingdom of God, this can hardly be the case, since Paul tells us that "the kingdom of God is...righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.14:17). Even if some Roman Catholics may personally experience these spiritual phenomena through Christ, while remaining within the Catholic Church, it remains clear that 1) some within the Catholic Church, historically, have known little of either righteousness nor peace, and 2) that many outside the Catholic Church have known these realities in their lives, through their faithfully following Jesus. The kingdom of God cannot be equated with any human institution, since it is "in the Holy Spirit," and no institution can be said to be always and seamlessly operating in the Spirit.

The conditions for being the kingdom of God are defined in Exodus 19:5-6—"if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then... you shall be to Me a kingdom."

I doubt if any institutional church in history can claim to have always obeyed God's voice, and that would mean that any church that was disobedient at any time, was (at least at that moment) not God's kingdom. God's kingdom is comprised of all of those who fit the description given in these verses. They do not all belong to the same institutional church, nor necessarily to any institutional church, so no institutional church can be equated with the kingdom of God.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by RND » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:31 am

Wow Steve! Very well laid out and spoken. Thanks! Praise God.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by tom » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:33 am

If we believe in Matt 18:17 that we are to "take it to the Church", and this is what Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 15. Then we need to ask which church and why?

During Moses' reign we see this same question of authority. Moses set his people/Gods people up with a multi level authority system, Ex 18:13-26. Then we see some didn't like the set-up and wanted to change the whole thing, and why not, they are all praying to the same God, right? Then in Num, 16:31 we see Korah and his followers wanted to change that. They wanted to have their own authority, why not, God is with us also! We see what happened to them in Num 16:31-33.

Can we agree that the Jews were anticipating the Messiah? And the Messiah would be from the "line of David"? And Jesus fulfills God's oath to David in 2 Sam 7:14? And Jesus promised us a Kingdom? You may or may not agree with all of these but let me go on and see what you think.

Jesus fulfills 2 Sam 7:13-14 & 16; "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son...And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever".

Let's break this down in parts as to the oath to David and it's fulfillment in Jesus.

Who is the son of David?, Solomon, (the wisest man ever). Who build a house for God?, the temple which was built upon a huge rock, (on the same place where is 'The Dome of the Rock' )! Solomon was king of Israel which was now a kingdom, that's why he had so many wives because of the alliances with other nations.

Who is the new 'son of David' ? Jesus, Matt 1:1. Jesus is even compared to Solomon, Matt 12:42, "and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here." The Jews are thinking to themselves, "there's no one greater than Solomon!" Jesus compares himself to the temple, Matt 12:6, "But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple." I can just hear the Jews, "What! this is blasphemy! Greater than the temple!!??

Matthew shows the fulfillment of 2Sam 7:14 in Matt 3:16-17 in His baptism, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Note that Jesus is anointed as king, Matt 3:17 + Acts 10:38 just as Solomon, 1Kings 1:39. Check out 1Sam 16:12-13 where Samuel anoints David and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him! Also Dan 9:24-25.

John the Baptist declares; "The kingdom of heaven is at hand", Matt 3:2. Jesus is asked what the kingdom of heaven will be like? Several answers are given, Matt 13:24 -52. This can't be heaven! Jesus must be describing some kind of earthly kingdom. Heaven is perfect and what Jesus is describing is far from perfect. Heaven on earth!?

Jesus will be seated on a throne of the kingdom of David, Luke 1:34 "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David". Acts 2:29+30, "Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;" Jesus fulfills 2Sam 7:14 perfectly.

So now we can see that Jesus is to take the throne of David. So what!? Well let's go on and see what Jesus does with His Davidic kingdom authority.

Jesus tries to work with the pharisees but they don't see the 'God' among them! Finally Jesus tells pharisees that he will give their authority to another, (Mark 12:1-12).

Jesus starts to build His new Davidic kingdom by choosing 12 Apostles Just like the 12 Tribes. We see the foundation is built on Jesus and Apostles, (Eph 2:20). Luke 22:30, "
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel".

Jesus gives unique authority to Simon in Matt 16:13-20, "When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, 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. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."

This is packed so let's break it down.

Caesarea Philippi was a huge rock that Jesus chose to re-name Simon. Coincidence? Significant? Simon, inspired by the Father, answers Jesus' question that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, remember God's oath in 2Sam 7, both son of David and son of God.

Jesus changes Simons name to Peter,(Rock), and tells him that he will build His Church upon Peter. Name changes are huge and very meaningful. We can talk about this, if you wish, regarding small pebble and that Jesus is building on Simon's statement. Remember, Jesus is the greater than Solomon and the greater than the temple. The Church, temple, was built upon a rock. Now Jesus is building His Church upon Peter the Rock.

Jesus builds the Church on Peter. We see this further shown in John 21:15-17, Luke 22:31-32 and Acts 11:51, (Acts 15:7).

Jesus gives Peter the keys of the 'Kingdom of Heaven'. These are are keys of authority, Heavenly authority. Look at Isaiah 22:20-23, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house."

Isaiah is talking about just what Jesus has done in Matt 16:18. Jesus is the Davidic king and he has just given Peter the keys of the house of David. Those keys give Peter all authority to bind and loose, only Jesus has more power. This follows ancient Egyptian rule shown in Joesph and Pharaoh in Gen 41:39-44. Note in Isaiah 22:21 he will be a father to the inhabitants who live in Jerusalem!

Note how many times Peter is in the forefront throughout the New Testament. Even Steve Gregg admits that Peter is chief among the Apostles. F.F. Bruce states; "Peter would be, so to speak, 'chief steward' ". Jesus is the Good Shepherd, John 10:14 and appoints Peter to be the Shepherd, John 21:15-17. Note 2Sam 5:2 and Num 27:17.

Remember Korah? He and his followers rebelled against Moses and Aaron having the final authority. We see Korah mentioned again in the New Testament, Jude 1:11. It states; "How terrible it will be for them! For they follow the evil example of Cain, who killed his brother. Like Balaam, they will do anything for money. And like Korah, they will perish because of their rebellion.
New Living Translation . Why mention Korah if everyone is to read and make their own decision and be their own authority?

Lastly. Compare Deut 17:8-12 and Matt 18:15-18. Take it to the Church!


Tom

P.S. Nice to hear from you Steve Gregg!

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by RND » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:55 am

Tom, this is all well in good in your opinion, but let me ask a question if I may. What do we do when "the church" abuses it's so-called "authority" by teaching things and notions that are completing contrary to logic, common sense and the clear teaching of the Word of God? What then? Do they not make themselves subject to the same decrees and condemnation that God turned on those that refused to hear Him?

Isa 66:4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose [that] in which I delighted not.

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

For example, by what authority did the RCC use when a lit the funeral pyres that paved the way for the Reformation?
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by steve » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:10 am

Tom,

Perhaps you felt the need to lay these arguments out freshly for others at this forum, but I know you could not possibly have directed them toward me, since you and I have discussed every one of them at least twenty or thirty times each on the air over the past 11 years.

A primary problem in our communication is that I always answer your points by exegeting the scriptures, and you never answer my arguments. You just wait a few weeks or months, and then return and raise the same points again, as if we had never discussed them, and as if the ball was not already in your court to come back with a response.

Here are a few of the points I have made before, which I am waiting for you to answer:

You wrote:
If we believe in Matt 18:17 that we are to "take it to the Church", and this is what Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 15. Then we need to ask which church and why?
"Which church?" There is only one Church, under one Head. It is found wherever there are true followers of Jesus. Disputes can be brought before the segment of that church with which one is in regular contact. You might find this logistically impractical, or personally unacceptable, but you have never been able to show the scriptural defect in my reasoning.

You wrote:
During Moses' reign we see this same question of authority. Moses set his people/Gods people up with a multi level authority system, Ex 18:13-26. Then we see some didn't like the set-up and wanted to change the whole thing, and why not, they are all praying to the same God, right? Then in Num, 16:31 we see Korah and his followers wanted to change that. They wanted to have their own authority, why not, God is with us also! We see what happened to them in Num 16:31-33.
You wish to build your case upon a survey of Old Testament history—yet your survey is confusing. I am aware that Moses established a pastoral hierarchy under himself, but does Moses, in your analogy, represent Christ, or Peter? Since the apostles saw Jesus (not Peter) as a second Moses (see Acts 3:22-23; 7:37), I am assuming that you are making this same comparison. In that case, Korah would represent those who wish to overthrow Christ's leadership. Evangelicals have no such intention. They actually want to recover the leadership of Christ from the usurping "Korah" whose rule you advocate.

If you are saying that evangelicals are like Korah because they wish to overthrow Christ's appointed hierarchy (under Peter), then your analogy doesn't work at all—first, since we have no evidence that Korah wished to overthrow the hierarchy—he just wanted to supplant Moses—and second, because you have not shown (only asserted) that Jesus ever set up a hereditary hierarchy where the authority of Peter and the apostles was to be passed down to apostolic successors in each generation (that is not what Moses set up anyway). Therefore, to reject the Roman Catholic hierarchy is not analogous to rejecting the authority of Moses—or of Christ.

You wrote:
Who is the new 'son of David' ? Jesus, Matt 1:1. Jesus is even compared to Solomon, Matt 12:42, "and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here." The Jews are thinking to themselves, "there's no one greater than Solomon!" Jesus compares himself to the temple, Matt 12:6, "But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
"

Yes, Jesus is superior to the temple, to Solomon, and even to David (Matt.22:45). That is why exact comparisons are not appropriate. In what sense is Jesus greater than David and Solomon? One point of His superiority is that they ruled only over an earthly, political kingdom, and Christ rules over a spiritual, universal kingdom. In what sense is He greater than the temple? Is it not that He (and His Body) are the living temple that replaces all earthly religious shrines and institutions? One thing seems obvious, Jesus did not come to set up the same kind of kingdom as that over which David reigned (John 18:36), nor to erect the same kind of temple as Solomon erected (John 2:19-21).

But your analogy is suggesting that the Roman Catholic church really is the same kind of kingdom, with the same kind of hierarchy as that in which David reigned. In a political kingdom (like the Roman Catholic Church) there are political positions of leadership, and automatic self-perpetuation of the institution through an arrangement for succession of leaders. You are not taking into consideration the fact that a kingdom not of this world might have a different authority structure than would the kingdoms of this world. In fact, this is the case. In the kingdom of God, greatness does not reside in the ones wearing religious habits and having others kiss their rings in adoration and calling them "Father" and "Teacher" (Matthew 23:5-10). In fact, if there could be said to be positions of leadership at all in a spiritual kingdom, they are the positions called "slave of all" (Matt.20:26-27; 23:11) and "little ones" (Isa.11:6 /Matt.18:1-5).

You wrote:
John the Baptist declares; "The kingdom of heaven is at hand", Matt 3:2. Jesus is asked what the kingdom of heaven will be like? Several answers are given, Matt 13:24 -52. This can't be heaven! Jesus must be describing some kind of earthly kingdom. Heaven is perfect and what Jesus is describing is far from perfect. Heaven on earth!?
Tom, if you have ever listened to my answers, then you know that I do not equate the kingdom with heaven. And if you consult the history of the Dark Ages, you will realize that the reign of the papacy has been anything but "heaven on earth."

You wrote:
Jesus tries to work with the pharisees but they don't see the 'God' among them! Finally Jesus tells pharisees that he will give their authority to another, (Mark 12:1-12).
I don't actually remember Jesus ever trying to work with the Pharisees, since He saw them, in general, as children of Satan (John 8:44). He did indeed tell them that the kingdom was to be given to others, but, contrary to Catholic assertions, He was not saying that He was giving their leadership positions away to the apostles. He was giving "the kingdom" to "a nation" who would bring forth its fruit (Matt.21:43)—that is, the kingdom itself was being transferred from one nation (Israel), to another nation (the Church—1 Peter 2:9-10)—not from one group of institutional leaders (the Pharisees) to another group of institutional leaders (Peter, et al.).

You wrote:
Jesus starts to build His new Davidic kingdom by choosing 12 Apostles Just like the 12 Tribes. We see the foundation is built on Jesus and Apostles, (Eph 2:20). Luke 22:30, "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel".

Jesus gives unique authority to Simon in Matt 16:13-20
This is where your argument really gets a bit disjointed. On one hand, you admit that all the apostles had special teaching roles in the church, but on the other, you claim that Peter had "unique authority"—that is, above the other apostles. You base this upon the statement of Jesus that He would build His church "upon this rock."

Now we all know that there are a variety of opinions about the identity of "this rock." It would appear that the only rock Peter himself saw as preeminent was Jesus Himself (1 Peter 2:4-7). However, if Jesus was, in fact, saying that He would build the church upon Peter (which is conceivable), then this was nothing more than could be said of all the apostles, who provide a foundation upon which the church is built (Eph.2:20). When the church is depicted as a New Jerusalem, it has twelve "foundation stones"—bearing the names of the twelve apostles (Rev.21:14). Significantly, no special mention is made of Peter.

Even the special privilege of receiving "the keys of the kingdom" which, according to your own admission, provide the authority to bind and loose on earth what has been bound and loosed in heaven, does not place him above the other apostles. Christ gave them all this identical authority, in Matthew 18:18. If this authority is what is meant by the "keys of the kingdom," then those keys were possessed by all the apostles, and there is no evidence of Peter having unique authority.

Of course, the assertion of Peter's "unique authority" is essential to the fundamental Roman Catholic claim of the papacy's supremacy, since it is thought that the pope, being the Bishop of Rome, occupies the chair of Peter, giving him supreme rule over all the other churches and their bishops (who correspond to the other apostles). Yet, if it cannot be shown that Peter held the supreme rule over the other apostles, then no such grandiose claim can be made for the See of Rome.

You wrote:
Jesus builds the Church on Peter. We see this further shown in John 21:15-17, Luke 22:31-32 and Acts 11:51, (Acts 15:7).
The reference to Jesus saying to Peter, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17) is thought, by Catholics, to be placing Peter above all Christians, including the other apostles. However, Peter himself gives the same charge to all the "elders" of the churches (1 Peter 5:1-4), and Paul gives that charge to the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20:28). Are we to assume that, because these local elders were told to "shepherd the flock of God," that they now were to have authority over the whole church worldwide, including the apostles? This would be as reasonable as the claim you make about John 21.

As for the appeal to Acts 15:7, it has always amazed me that you always bring this up, in view of the fact that the Jerusalem Council was clearly not headed up by Peter, but by James. We are told that Paul, Barnabas and Peter all told their stories, and then James made the final decision, based upon what had been shared. Why wasn't Peter chairing the meeting?

You wrote:
Look at Isaiah 22:20-23, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house."
We have discussed this passages together at least twenty times! What I have pointed out to you is that this obscure passage in Isaiah actually is mentioned in the New Testament, but not in the connection you are making. It Jesus, not Peter, who is said to possess the "key of David" (Rev.3:7, alluding to Isa.22:22).

Jesus and Peter are not the same guy in the New Testament. One is the Lord, and the other, by his own admission, was "a sinful man" (Luke 5:8). That man was redeemed, sanctified, and ordained to preach, but he was never equated with the one who had the "key of David"—who was Christ. I realize that you are equating the "key of David" (which only Jesus is said to possess) with the "keys of the kingdom" (which were given to Peter and the apostles). The concepts sound like they could be similar, or even identical, but we must be careful not to jump to unwarranted conclusions. Had He wished to draw a connection to Isaiah 22 in Peter's (or our) mind, Jesus could have told Peter "I give you the key of David," rather than the quite different phrase, "keys of the kingdom of heaven."

The only similarity in the two expressions is that they both speak of "keys" (or only "the key"—singular—in the case of Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3). While we can easily see some connection between "David" and "the kingdom," we cannot pretend that the terms are synonyms, nor that they are speaking of the same aspects of the royal concept. After all, all Christians are in "the kingdom," whereas only Jesus is the new David, ascending to David's throne. It is a sad thing for Catholics that, in the only place where the New Testament cites Isaiah 22, it does so in a way that supports Protestant contentions, not Roman Catholic ones.


You wrote:
Note how many times Peter is in the forefront throughout the New Testament. Even Steve Gregg admits that Peter is chief among the Apostles. F.F. Bruce states; "Peter would be, so to speak, 'chief steward' ". Jesus is the Good Shepherd, John 10:14 and appoints Peter to be the Shepherd, John 21:15-17. Note 2Sam 5:2 and Num 27:17
.

The most I have ever said along these lines is that Peter, in the early days, was the chief spokesman for the apostles. Later, James held this distinction in the Jewish churches, as Paul did, in the Gentile churches.
Remember Korah? He and his followers rebelled against Moses and Aaron having the final authority. We see Korah mentioned again in the New Testament, Jude 1:11. It states; "How terrible it will be for them! For they follow the evil example of Cain, who killed his brother. Like Balaam, they will do anything for money. And like Korah, they will perish because of their rebellion.
New Living Translation . Why mention Korah if everyone is to read and make their own decision and be their own authority?
Please explain whom you are likening Moses to in this analogy, and then in what way Evangelicals are rebelling against him.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:37 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”