Your opinions on baptizing at home.

[Theresej]

Heb 12:24 says he is the Mediator, not one of the mediators.

The mediator of what exactly?

[Theresej]

Uh Oh. Did you just say the Pope was fallible? I am learning something from this post.

Well before I answer, what do you think papal infalliblity means to the Catholic Church?

(and please, I am interested in Ross' answer :) )

[RossLunch]

The mediator of what exactly?

Guess you didn't read Heb 12:24.

[RossLunch]

Well before I answer, what do you think papal infalliblity means to the Catholic Church?

(and please, I am interested in Ross' answer :) )

Nah. You answer first.

[Melodious Musician]

He did ... Most of you have taken the Verse ...To be born again ..to be some magical statement or prayer and puff ... you are saved.

You also have to Eat the Lamb that was Slain to be saved (Jn6[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life),... And that can only come about by Apostolic Succession.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. There is also a verse in the Bible, Ephesians 2:8-9, that talks about salvation through grace, not works--claiming that one must actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to be saved is going against the Scriptures.

Jesus said "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood," was He disobeying the law?

Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

[Fisheater]

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. There is also a verse in the Bible, Ephesians 2:8-9, that talks about salvation through grace, not works--claiming that one must actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to be saved is going against the Scriptures.

Jesus said "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood," was He disobeying the law?

Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

One Verse Theology .... Does not work .... Is Jesus' Glorified Body human flesh and blood ?

[Melodious Musician]

Continuing my response to the claims made about about Peter and his position in the Church.

Let's now look at the keys of the kingdom. It was claimed:

"The 'Keys to the Kingdom' is the TRUTH of the Gospel. It is not a right or a position of leadership but the MESSAGE that Jesus is the Messiah. That is the whole of what that scripture was about."

If the above statement is correct, it would prove the Catholic claim for Peter as the leader of the Church beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Before anyone stops right there as if such a statement is just too rediculous, I respectfully request they read through this entire post to the end, for all is explained.


If the keys really are, as is contended above, the TRUTH of the Gospel, then we have Jesus promising to Peter and to Peter alone that he would be given that Truth. No one else is included in that promise.


All because of one word: "You"

Jesus is speaking to Peter and to Peter alone. He is saying these words to Peter and to Peter alone.

Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and to Peter ALONE.

So, if the keys are indeed the truth of the Gospel, this would have Jesus promising such truth to Peter and to Peter ALONE.



That in and of itself would make Peter the head of the Church as the only one who would receive that truth! - That is, IF that interpretation is correct.




How do we know Jesus was speaking to Peter and to Peter alone?

In English we do not differentiate between singular "you" and the "plural" you, allowing the context to tell us which is intended.

HOWEVER, in the Greek, that is not the case. There is, in Greek, a SINGULAR "you" and a PLURAL "you."

So, the question becomes, which "you" did Jesus use?

The singular or the plural? EVERYTHING here hinges on understanding the answer to that question.


In the underlying Greek, Jesus used the SINGULAR "YOU" when making these promises -Jesus is speaking to Peter and only to Peter - the promises are made to Peter and only to Peter. The rest of the disciples were simply spectators at this point.

What is the evidence Jesus used the singular "you" in the Greek?

The personal pronoun used here when Jesus says

"I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom"

is "soi"

Strong's <B>

G4671

σοί

soi

soy

Dative case of G4771; to thee: - thee, thine own, thou, thy.

This is the SINGULAR pronoun:

Lesson 10: Personal Pronouns and the verb "to be"


Now, to the personal pronouns. They are declined as follows

Second Person (you)

Singular

su- you
sou- of you
soi- to you
se- you

http://www.theology.edu/greek/gk10.htm

So we see by the use of the SINGULAR pronoun soi- to you, that the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven were given to Peter and to Peter alone.

Since the Truth of the Gospel was not given to just one man, but to many, the Keys of the Kingdom CANNOT be refering to the truth of the Gospel as claimed above.

So what are the keys of the kingdom referring to?

That will take another post to explain.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

[Theresej]

Guess you didn't read Heb 12:24.

I have, I am asking you what you think he this is saying Jesus is the mediator of.

[Theresej]

Nah. You answer first.

It's really hard to answer if I don't have a frame of reference.

The reason I am asking for that frame of reference is so I can more intelligently address the question.

I am asking as your question was confusing. There was nothing in what I posted about Pope Aliexander VI that dealt with the question of infalliblity at all.

It dealt with peccability . .not fallibility. The Church has never taught that the Pope is impeccable - ie sinless.


Did you think infalliblity means sinlessness?

[Theresej]

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Yes, absolutely, we agree. Christ IS the head of the Church, just as King David was the head of the kingdom of Israel.

That did not stop King David from haviing a chief steward to rule in his physical absence.

Jesus is also the Davidic King.

However, Jesus is not physically present with us on earth, and as our Davidic King, gave us His choice of cheif steward - Peter, establishing the Office of the Keys of the Kingdom within the Church, to operate with his full power and authority in His physical absence for the good of the Church on earth.

This is the testimony of scripture and the ancient Church.