I don't get the anti-Roman Catholic attitude from this forum. I thought the forum was for all points of view as long as it could be justified in Scripture? Steve saying the RCC could not be the Kingdom because it is flawed makes no Scriptural sense!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.
David is a type of Jesus yet David is flawed! Jesus even tells us the Kingdom on earth will be flawed, (Matt 13 and Matt 25). I truly believe even when Christ comes a second time, earth and Humanity will be restored. But I still think we will be coming to Jesus for forgiveness because we are flawed people.
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.
Steve, my calls and now, thanks to Jim from Connecticut who invited me to this forum, have never been directed only at you. I hope others will see the RCC is Biblical. You state that by using exegesis you are right and I am wrong. If you are using exegesis it may not be done without some bias. That is 'Steve's' exegsis!
So Karen from Portland should go to the LDS church and you have no right to rebuke her? "Scriptural Defect"!? Why did the Church in Antioch go to Jerusalem and assemble the 'Church' to give a definitive answer? According to you they should never had left Antioch. Paul and Barnabas should have resolved it!?"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.
I am not saying Moses is a pre-figurement of Jesus or Peter. I bring Ex 18:13-26 to show an authoritative hierarchy. If Moses is a pre-figurement of Jesus then Jesus is showing us His authoritative hierarchy. Just as we see in Matt 18:18 and preformed in Acts 15.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.
Tom