That which was on BeggarsAll will be in GREEN - with my current comments in BLACK. To be fair, I am not removing ANY words from Ken or PBJ.
Scott Windsor, Sr. said..."The other pen" can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18. A fuller treatment of this entire article can be found in the April 2nd entry on my blog.
-
Scott<<<
Scott Windsor, Sr. said...- The issue is not simply if God's (express) voice is somewhere
else other than the Scriptures, but that Rome alone is effectively the
Supreme Infallible (inflatable) Voice, both as to what God's voice
consists of and its meaning, if she does say so herself, presuming the
place of Scripture, which is a grandiose presumption.
Actually, the challenge is simply to demonstrate the existence of "the other pen" - and this has been done, many times over. It "the other pen" exists, then sola scriptura is a lie and should be rejected for being so. Whether or not Rome is in possession of "the other pen" is another argument.
Scott<<<
-
Ken said...
- From Scott Windsor's article at his blog:
Actually, TWO other sources of infallibility are named! The authority of the pope (infallible authority given to one, and only one, in Matthew 16:18-19), and the authority of the college of bishops (infallible authority given to the group of the Apostles, our first bishops, in Matthew 18:18).
Those are not infallible authorities - there is no "Pope" in Matthew 16:18-19, and no bishop of Rome there either. Peter is an apostle, and they are not even in Rome there in the context. He is a fellow-elder with other elders of local churches (1 Peter 5:1) - not over them in jurisdiction - they never taught that. It is amazingly anachronistic to read the bishop of Rome or a Papal doctrine back into Matthew 16:18-19. The simple historical fact that around 257-258 AD, Cyprian and 86 other bishops objected to the bishop of Rome's claim that he was the ultimate authority (Stephen, bishop of Rome) proves the whole RC claim as unBiblical and it shows it was non-existent in the early church as legitimate, though Stephen wrongly and arrogantly claimed it. The disagreement by so many other bishops at that time; and to this day, by the whole Eastern Orthodox Church proves this.
Peter is given the keys of the kingdom because he confessed the right doctrine about Christ. The foundation or rock of the church is Jesus Christ Himself, and the sound doctrine about who He is - "the Messiah, the Son of the Living God", and all the implications of that in the doctrines of the Incarnation, Deity of Christ, 2 natures of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
The rest of the apostles are given the same authority in Matthew 18 in the context of the local church and church discipline issues.
Matthew 18:15-20
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
Local church authority is given to do discipline on people who are unwilling to repent after the steps have been taken to restore such a person. There is nothing about infallible authority to make pronouncements centuries later and claim that that was the church always believed. (like Purgatory(600s), Perpetual Virginity of Mary (400s-500s), Transubstantiation(1215 AD), Unam Sanctum (1302 AD); Trent adding the merit of good works in order for a person to eventually be justified (contradicting Romans 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Acts 13:38-39; Acts 16:31; John 3:16; 1:12; 5:24; 20:30-31; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9; Romans 10:9-10; I John 5:13) and condemning justification by faith alone (1545-1563); IC( 1854), IP (1870), BAM (1950). All of those things are "traditions of man" (Matthew 15:1-9/Mark 7:1-13) that have been added centuries later.
Local church authority is a secondary authority, based on God's word, the Scriptures, but it is not over or equal to God's Word.
-
PeaceByJesus said...
- Actually, the challenge is simply to demonstrate the
existence of "the other pen" - and this has been done, many times over.
It "the other pen" exists, then sola scriptura is a lie and should be
rejected for being so. Whether or not Rome is in possession of "the
other pen" is another argument.
To add to Ken's rebuke, the issue is the nature and content of the "other pen." Westminster itself affirms the light of nature and the magisterial office, and SS preaching claim to preach the word of God (Scriptural Truths), and believe God can lead souls by His Spirit (at least during the offering), and there are many who believe in the perpetuity of supernatural spiritual gifts, while the apostles teaching included new wholly inspired-of-God revelation, but Swan's argument states that "Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture."
If you want to even argue that infallible papal decrees are wholly inspired of God and include new special revelation, then we must deal with that.
As for passed-down oral tradition being the word of God, simply because some of Scripture was first expressed orally does not sanction whatever Rome decrees is the word of God to be so. And we do not see the Holy Spirit exalting oral tradition as a body like as with Scripture, (Ps. 119) the reason we know that such a truth as Now as Jannes and Jambres withstanding Moses (2 Timothy 3:8) was by its inclusion in the NT.
As your assurance that such a belief as the Assumption is the word of God rests upon the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome, which argues that one cannot even ascertain what Scripture consists of and its meaning apart from here, then the real issue is the basis for that belief in Rome.
Those are not infallible authorities - there is no "Pope" in Matthew 16:18-19, and no bishop of Rome there either. Peter is an apostle, and they are not even in Rome there in the context. He is a fellow-elder with other elders of local churches (1 Peter 5:1) - not over them in jurisdiction - they never taught that. It is amazingly anachronistic to read the bishop of Rome or a Papal doctrine back into Matthew 16:18-19.Ken is not answering to my statement(s), rather, he is jumping to a "there is no Pope in Matthew 16:18-19..." argument. What I DID say was that Matthew 16:18-19 points to one example of "the other pen." Why? Because if a man can bind or loose something in Heaven, then by the very nature of the binding or loosing, it MUST be infallible - unless Ken is positing that error can be bound (or loosed) in Heaven. All distraction arguments aside, Scripture clearly teaches that a man (in Matthew 16:18-19) and a group of men (in Matthew 18:18) have infallible authority.
Ken continues:
The simple historical fact that around 257-258 AD, Cyprian and 86 other bishops objected to the bishop of Rome's claim that he was the ultimate authority (Stephen, bishop of Rome) proves the whole RC claim as unBiblical and it shows it was non-existent in the early church as legitimate, though Stephen wrongly and arrogantly claimed it. The disagreement by so many other bishops at that time; and to this day, by the whole Eastern Orthodox Church proves this.No Ken, all that "proves" is that some objected to the scriptural authority given to a man in Matthew 16:18-19. Apparently you choose to stand with them in their rejection of Scripture.
Ken continues:
Peter is given the keys of the kingdom because he confessed the right doctrine about Christ. The foundation or rock of the church is Jesus Christ Himself, and the sound doctrine about who He is - "the Messiah, the Son of the Living God", and all the implications of that in the doctrines of the Incarnation, Deity of Christ, 2 natures of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.WHY Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom is not the point - the point is Peter is granted infallible authority here. Let's try to stick to the point. While some may argue that the Keys are the same as infallibility, but let's not be distracted by that. Did Jesus grant infallible authority to a man in Matthew 16:18-19? Again, unless you believe something fallible "has been bound" in Heaven, you MUST conclude either this man was granted this authority, or Scripture/Jesus has lied to us.
Ken continues:
The rest of the apostles are given the same authority in Matthew 18 in the context of the local church and church discipline issues.We agree! Yes, the rest of the Apostles are given the same authority in Matthew 18:18, and while the context is church discipline issues - the statement does not limit itself to just disciplines. What does "whatsoever" mean to you?
Ken then goes into discussing specific dogmatic statements/teachings - and that is not the point/focus of my response/article - so we'll deal with those at a later time.
PeaceByJesus (hereafter PBJ) adds:
Swan's argument states that "Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture."Two things here, 1) We don't disagree that Scripture is AN extant record of God's infallible voice and 2) Scripture itself tells us that a) Peter and b) the College of Apostles have the authority to bind or loose and what they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven.
PBJ then, as well, goes into a discussion of specific dogmatic teachings, which is beyond the scope of what I am defending at this point. Certainly we can discuss those matters as well, but not before we conclude and have consensus on THIS matter. So again, let's not be distracted.
Back on BeggarsAll, I responded briefly and Ken adds more responses:
Scott Windsor, Sr. said...Ken wrote: Those are not infallible authorities
So Ken, you accept that error could be bound in Heaven? "The other pen" is clearly there, for one who has eyes to see.
Ken responded...(Scott wrote): So Ken, you accept that error could be bound in Heaven? "The other pen" is clearly there, for one who has eyes to see.
Hi Scott, Of course not, no error is bound in heaven; that is why the RCC is wrong, since they don't conform to or adhere to the gospel nor do proper church discipline.(Added this paragraph on 4/18) But of course, that no error is bound in Heaven is precisely why the RCC is RIGHT! Diverting to interpretations of "adhering to the gospel" or doing "proper church discipline" has nothing to do with whether or not error could possibly be bound in Heaven. Ken CONCEDES that error cannot be bound in Heaven - so, if "whatever" that man or those men bind IS bound in Heaven. That is precisely the definition of "the other pen."
The power of the keys in Matthew 16:18-19and the authority for the local Biblical church to do church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20
The Greek construction is very precise - "will have been" - future along with perfect past periphrastic participial construction. NASB is the best translation of this - "will have been bound"; "will have been loosed". It is not simple future, "will be" (whatever you want to do in the future); rather it is in the Greek - perfect past participle (have been) with future "to be" (will be).
The power of the keys of the kingdom has to be exercised in conformity to the gospel of the kingdom (preaching, teaching, calling for repentance and faith in Christ alone) .
"Whatever he binds or looses will have been bound or loosed, so long as he adheres to that divinely disclosed gospel." (D. A. Carson, Commentary on Matthew, Volume 8, Expositors Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1984, page 373.)
Heaven only agrees when the church proclaims the gospel properly and according to Scripture, and only when church discipline is done properly.
The RCC's post Vatican 2 theology is a direct violation of the Scriptural principle, since it says that atheists and pagans who have never heard of Christ can be saved (CCC 847), and Muslims worship the same God as we do. (CCC 841) Heaven does not agree with your error; and heaven never agreed with all the man-made traditions that your church kept adding and corrupting the message - over exalting Mary, purgatory, Pope, indulgences, Transubstantiation, relics, prayers to Mary, etc.
This (the CCC 841 and 847) are clear violations of Acts 4:11-12, where Peter properly exercises the keys of the kingdom by preaching that Christ is the only way to be saved - no other name - people must hear the gospel preached and the name - sound doctrine of who Jesus actually is - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (name = the specific person, identity; so they have to hear of and get a conscious knowledge of who Jesus is, in all His fullness - Deity, eternal word, virgin born, Eternal Son, lived, healed, taught the truth, was crucified, dead, buried, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the Father's right hand, etc. "name" = that specific one Jesus of Nazareth of history.
Romans 10:13-15 - how can they call upon Him or believe in Him, in whom they have not heard?
the CCC violates the most basic thing about the power of the keys of the kingdom that was given to the apostles and the church. Heaven only agrees when it agrees with the truth of the gospel in Scripture.
Ken said... To clarify one paragraph: The power of the keys in Matthew 16:18-19
And the authority for the local Biblical church to do church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20
The power of the keys is not a blanket promise of "do whatever you want to in the future".
While I understand why Protestant apologists must try to argue away the infallible authority given to the Church, try as they may, they cannot get around the FACT that Scripture indeed tells us that "whatsoever" or "whatever" THEY bind/loose IS bound/loosed in Heaven, period. NO OTHER CONDITIONS are found in the context of these statements. We only find these artificial conditions in Protestant commentaries.
Again, this discussion stems from statements on:
Responding here to Ken's response in the combox at BA:
ReplyDeleteKen wrote: "the other pen" does not exist, because it is not infallible.
sw: If there is an "it" then you're conceding the infallible.
Ken wrote: It has to be infallible like the Scriptures and God Himself.
sw: Scripture, quoting God Himself, states that "whatever" they bind "is bound" in Heaven. That is infallibility - at least to the objective reader.
Ken wrote: You just asserted that I cannot use Greek grammar to prove my point. (Oh yes I can and I say it again: The Greek grammar is on the Protestant side of the argument - "will have been" loosed or bound. That is your problem and your false church's problem - you put your man-made traditions developed centuries later before the careful study of the original languages - Greek in the NT and Hebrew for the OT (and some Aramaic).
sw: I did not say you cannot use it, I said "you don't win this one by appealing to Greek tenses," and you don't! Whether future tense "will be bound" or past tense, "has been bound" - THE POINT that it IS BOUND IN HEAVEN does not change. Thus, what he or they have bound or loosed on Earth is infallibly bound because it IS BOUND in Heaven, period. Again, whether that binding in Heaven is considered to be future or past tense does not change the infallibility of the binding and loosing. THAT is why your appeal to Greek tenses does NOTHING to further your argument.
Ken wrote: My point still stands.
sw: Sure, your point of past tense stands - but again, it doesn't change my point in the least. Your point standing has done nothing to counter my point - which still stands and proves "the other pen."
AMDG,
Scott<<<