Why was there a reformation?

[GodsGrace]

And still, no answer to the question: Who decides what a false teaching is?

Just more ramblings about 18% alchol, magical prayer, Santa Claus an purgatory.

It's a simple question.

Patient Mary

Hi Mary
I'm in agreement that we can't just open up the bible and make up our own doctrine. This is why Protestantism has created so many denominations when Paul begged for unity.

But I have my problems with being soooo dogmatic and demanding that every single teaching be accepted by the members.

I'll give you 2 examples...
1. Purgatory.
2. John 3:5.

What if I can't come to believe purgatory exists.

What is the water in John?

So I pray about it and I can't come to terms with the doctrine. I cannot call myself a Catholic, as per the church,,,of course, my priest that knows me could care less.

 

[Taken]

As has been noted on this forum, we’ve got almost as many different beliefs as there are people it seems, and the question that came up about today being Reformation Day, has been why did the Reformation happen??

its quite simple actually, people teaching the gospel without knowing the gospel. As a result, you end up with an ever changing gospel. We see this in galatians 1:6.

i thought some fellow presbyterians might be able to answer this question much better than me though. Enjoy and learn.

If you recollect...Briefly.
God instructed Moses to Write for a memorial.
Once the 12 Tribes were established, All were given Land, but Levi, who became the “roaming” Priest from Land to Land of the Tribes Preaching Scripture.
Writing was continued, and copies made, and distributed among the Tribes.
(Scribes wrote as Prophets Spoke.
Recorders rewrote on Scrolls, from the Scribes writings)

Prophets were NOT the only ones with Scribes.
Kings also had Scribes.
And moving forward in history, Tribes Scattered, Anyone to this Day, Adhering to Mosaic Law, are all calling themselves JEWS (while Historically Jews were specifically from the Tribe of Judah)

So moving forward, the Organization of the “Jewish Religion”;
Sadducees,(strict Biblical Doctrine) ...(with Scribes)
Pharisees, (more so Philosophical take on Biblical Doctrine)...(with Scribes)
Priests, (performed Rituals)
Rabbis, (Teachers)
(Others, with titles, with lessor authority).

Jesus was continually critical and at odds with “the Pharisees” and “their Scribes”.
The Contention was revealed with Jesus calling them “hypocrites”...
* for their expanding per a philosophical take on Biblical Doctrine...
AND...
* their uppity Town Strutting, long ornate robes, to be seen, exalted...
AND...
* their Dictation to Others, while “excluding” themselves having to follow their own Dictation.

(Observing...NOT much different than today of;
Protestants, favoring strict adherence to Scripture. (More like a Sadducee)
Catholics, favoring philosophical addition to Scripture. (More like a Pharisee)

While Sadducees and Pharisees shared councils together, and same religion... they were continually at odds.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Lol...Hold on kiddo.

Sooooo Kelly Latimore, an "artist" who creates controversial "art" created a picture from HER imagination and then Karna Lozoya, who is the Catholic University of America's vice president for communications, commented on the "art" and THAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES A FALSE DOCTRINE???????????

Your COP OUT is old and worn out. MOOT!

Revealing what some Catholics DO, and SUPPORT, IS NOT BY any means, anyone talking about “CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING”!

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace Well, maybe a more inexperienced person might find it more difficult...

Farouk!
ANYBODY can drink 4 glasses of wine in 4 hours.
That's one glass for every hour.
You could even drive after.
It's also one shot per hour.

I don't drink BTW...
Just wine with my meals and lately it's been getting watered down.
Ugh!

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Heres some Calvin to cool your jets to;

“Calvin’s section on ecclesiology is his longest of the four section in his Institutes. In his ecclesiology section, Calvin has a long discourse on the illegitimacy of the papacy as a church authority. He covers both the theology and the history of the papacy.

Calvin first introduces the claim that Peter was designated the first pope in Matthew 16. His response is two-fold.

In speaking of Peter’s office, Calvin firstly addresses how Matthew 16 should be interpreted: “you are Peter, and on the rock I will build my church”. Calvin’s response here is that the authority given to Peter at that moment is elsewhere later given to the rest of the apostles. In this way, Christ is giving authority to the entire church figuratively in the person of Peter.

So Peter embodies the church in this passage. It is interesting that Calvin cites both Augustine and Cyprian as proponents of this interpretation. Calvin also points out that Jesus gives Peter this authority only after he makes a faith claim: “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Calvin says that “Peter, in his own and his brethren’s name, had confessed Christ was the Son of God [Matt 16:16]. Upon this rock Christ builds his church” (ibid, 1107). In this way, Jesus confers his authority to all who make that same confession. So then we are all given this authority.

Calvin’s second argument against the establishment of Peter as pope, is the fact that in the biblical accounts, Peter had no more authority than the rest of the apostles. Calvin points out that Peter was nowhere treated in a special light.

Calvin then references the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, over which Peter does not preside; rather James does. Also, in 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder”, not as the universal bishop. Calvin refers to several instances in Acts where Peter is subordinate, not superior, to other leaders.

Calvin also references Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, where Paul both recognizes Peter as one of several leaders — not the leader — and rebukes him!

Calvin is right. The entire introduction of Galatians centers on proof of Paul’s equal authority as an apostle among the others.

Moving on from Peter, Calvin then addresses NT ecclesiology. Calvin rightly points out two things: first, that in all of the passages which speak of a “head of the church”, it is Christ which is given, not Peter. Secondly, in all the passages which speak of church authority, the papacy is left out!”

The Reformers were right, Biblical, and sent by God to preach the true gospel of Jesus.

Excellent, I always interepted that Matthew 16 passage as Jesus referring to Himself as the rock. Peter just had identified Him as the Son of God. Jesus is the "cornerstone" that the Jews rejected - same concept. Peter was given the job to feed His sheep. He got things started, stood up at Pentecost and being filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke. He did not fo on extensive travels spreading thw gospel to the gentile wirld as Paul did. No, his ministry centered around Jerusalem and he waa somewhat led to appease the Judiaisers in error.
The Reformation happened because GOD needed to correct errors in the Church - lots of them!
If one believes that God is sovereign, that He alone ordains the path of man through history, then they must also accept that He ordained the Reformation.

The Reformation, in a sense, was likened to the Letters to Seven Churches that Jesus sent, pointing out sins, rebuking them and warning them to repent.
Paul, if anyone, wrote more of the New Testament and would have been appointed Bishop over all. But he did not claim leadership, nor did Peter, for Christ is the Head of the Church.
Peter got things started at Pentecost, but his ministry do not extend far beyond Jerusalem as did Paul's, who spread the gospel to the Gentile world. Peter's ministry had flaws in that he hung with the Jadaizers and appesed them and and was legalistic. Paul rebuked him for that. Peter's nature was to on occasion put his foot in his mouth and constantly needed correction. After living with Hod for three years, he still denied Him three times. Wow.

 

[Marymog]

Your COP OUT is old and worn out. MOOT!

Revealing what some Catholics DO, and SUPPORT, IS NOT BY any means, anyone talking about “CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING”!

You crack me up Taken......You should read the entire thread before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.

In a previous post I stated to @Enoch111 Ok....you believe that The Church teaches false doctrines.

The response I got from enoch to that statement was a picture from a artist who is catholic and a statement from a catholic about that "art". Enoch was equating false teachings of The Church to art work from a catholic. That's insane.....

Soooooo I guess I agree with you Revealing what some Catholics DO, and SUPPORT, IS NOT BY any means, anyone talking about “CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING”!

Since that is what ENOCH was doing shouldn't you have sent your response to him and not me?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary
I'm in agreement that we can't just open up the bible and make up our own doctrine. This is why Protestantism has created so many denominations when Paul begged for unity.

But I have my problems with being soooo dogmatic and demanding that every single teaching be accepted by the members.

I'll give you 2 examples...
1. Purgatory.
2. John 3:5.

What if I can't come to believe purgatory exists.

What is the water in John?

So I pray about it and I can't come to terms with the doctrine. I cannot call myself a Catholic, as per the church,,,of course, my priest that knows me could care less.

Thanks GG,

Purgatory is a tough one for me also. The teaching of it makes sense though. We know thru Scripture that Nothing impure shall enter heaven. I know I won't be pure (sinless) when I die so it makes sense that there could/would be a purification process. The thing is we can't pick and choose what teachings of The Church we accept. How can we, as individuals, say The Church got this teaching right but got that one wrong? Wouldn't that make each individual Christian the pillar and foundation of truth? Since it is impossible for each individual Christian to be THE pillar and foundation of truth spoken of in Scripture then that means only The Church can be right about the truth.....not me. So what happens if you reject The Church's teaching on purgatory? I don't think it's a dogma that if rejected by Catholics you commit heresy. Will you still go to heaven? I think thru the grace of God you will. Maybe it will be purged from you in purgatory.....

In regards to John 3:5 it needs to be taken into context. Starting in John 1 and all the way thru John 4 (which puts John 3 right in the middle of that context) water=baptism and baptism=water. Some believe that Jesus all of a sudden was equating water to Amniotic Fluid. If that were true that would make Jesus a very confusing teacher and I don't think He is. Also, I Peter 3:20-21 equates water with baptism and being saved. There are other vs's but I know you already know them. I think the most important point is the context of John....it's all wet with references to water = baptism and baptism = water.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Wrangler]

water=baptism and baptism=water.

I reject this out of hand. Baptism is a religious ritual. Water is a chemical substance, which is very common on Earth.

One of the things I love about the Christian rituals of baptism and communion is they use what is common - water and bread - and make it holy.

Some believe that Jesus all of a sudden was equating water to Amniotic Fluid. If that were true that would make Jesus a very confusing teacher and I don't think He is.

I guess I'm one of those guys who think Jesus was talking about Amniotic Fluid. There is nothing sudden or confusing about it since the context is birth and rebirth.

We are not born in baptism.

We are born in the water of Amniotic Fluid.

The Lord said we must be reborn. Some claim this rebirth is through baptism. I reject this claim. We are re-born the moment we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. The Baptism is just a public ritual confirming the spiritual rebirth that has already happened. Said differently, people don't choose baptism and then are re-born. They are reborn and then choose baptism. One is the CAUSE. The other is the EFFECT. Hope this helps.

 

[Marymog]

I reject this out of hand. Baptism is a religious ritual. Water is a chemical substance, which is very common on Earth....

Thats pretty brave of you to admit on a public forum that you reject Scripture....

 

[Marymog]

I guess I'm one of those guys who think Jesus was talking about Amniotic Fluid. There is nothing sudden or confusing about it since the context is birth and rebirth.

We are not born in baptism.

We are born in the water of Amniotic Fluid.

The Lord said we must be reborn. Some claim this rebirth is through baptism. I reject this claim. We are re-born the moment we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. The Baptism is just a public ritual confirming the spiritual rebirth that has already happened. Said differently, people don't choose baptism and then are re-born. They are reborn and then choose baptism. One is the CAUSE. The other is the EFFECT. Hope this helps.

Who taught you this theory?

 

[Wrangler]

Not Scripture was cited that states water is baptism or baptism is water.

 

[Wrangler]

Who taught you this theory?

Jesus taught me this fact about the Spirit. My biology teacher and parents taught me about amniotic fluid from a baby being born.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary

But I have my problems with being soooo dogmatic and demanding that every single teaching be accepted by the members.

Hi GG,

Perhaps this will help: we earnestly ask and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that, as you received from us how you should conduct yourselves to please God and as you are conducting your selves you do so even more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus.

Clearly the NT Christians were expected to accept every single teaching. Shouldn't we?

 

[Taken]

You crack me up Taken......You should read the entire thread before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.

In a previous post I stated to @Enoch111 Ok....you believe that The Church teaches false doctrines.

The response I got from enoch to that statement was a picture from a artist who is catholic and a statement from a catholic about that "art". Enoch was equating false teachings of The Church to art work from a catholic. That's insane.....

Soooooo I guess I agree with you Revealing what some Catholics DO, and SUPPORT, IS NOT BY any means, anyone talking about “CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING”!

Since that is what ENOCH was doing shouldn't you have sent your response to him and not me?

Mary

Open EYES, Open EARS Mary...
Everyone is quite aware, “Catholics have “THEIR OFFICIAL WRITTEN CHRUCH HANDBOOK”....ie OFFICIAL “WRITTEN” Catholic Church Teaching.
( AND, over the Years from Ancient Days to Modern Days, not a BIG SECRET, Official “Written Catholic Church Teaching”...HAS BEEN REVISED, with additions and change in particular words.)

Not a BIG SECRET, “People who for centuries COULD NOT READ, LISTENED, and MIMICKED what they Heard and SAW, Catholic Church Clerics SAYING and DOING.”

Not a BIG SECRET, “People MIMICK “without” Understanding”.
Not a BIG SECRET, “People MIMICKING Catholic Church Clerics”, ARE “praised”, some given special “accolades”, “positions” in the Catholic Church.

Not a BIG SECRET, “NOT ALL PEOPLE” AGREE with the Catholic Churches “OFFICIAL WRITTEN TEACHING”, nor do ALL PEOPLE AGREE, with “individual Catholic Persons” “reasoning or understanding “OF their” “Religious Behaviors”.

WHEN a person IS discussing DISAGREEMENT of “individual Behaviors of individual Catholic Persons”.... IT IS NOT a DISCUSSION OF ...
OFFICIAL WRITTEN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING....
“IT is a discussion of observing, conversing with Catholic persons WHO speak and ACT on behalf of the Catholic Religion THEY claim to be a part of and participate in”....
** It doesn’t matter to me....”IF” what an individual Catholic Person, “IS” saying or doing as a MEMBER representative of the “CATHOLIC Church”....”IF IT IS” or “IS NOT”, “OFFICIAL Catholic Church TEACHING”.....
** They “OBVIOUSLY”, learned their “CATHOLIC”, “choosing of words, speech, behavior”...SOMEWHERE...
* NOT MY PROBLEM, IF “Catholic Individuals” MISREPRESENT “OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING”!!!
* NOT MY Responsibility, TO Teach or Correct Catholics, WHAT they are “OFFICIALLY suppose to believe, say, do”.

Maybe you should take your foot out of your own mouth and get to getting, Correcting your own wayward Catholics that off the rails on what THEY ARE “SUPPOSED to Believe, say and do”.

 

[Marymog]

Open EYES, Open EARS Mary...
Everyone is quite aware, “Catholics have “THEIR OFFICIAL WRITTEN CHRUCH HANDBOOK”....ie OFFICIAL “WRITTEN” Catholic Church Teaching.
( AND, over the Years from Ancient Days to Modern Days, not a BIG SECRET, Official “Written Catholic Church Teaching”...HAS BEEN REVISED, with additions and change in particular words.)

Not a BIG SECRET, “People who for centuries COULD NOT READ, LISTENED, and MIMICKED what they Heard and SAW, Catholic Church Clerics SAYING and DOING.”

Not a BIG SECRET, “People MIMICK “without” Understanding”.
Not a BIG SECRET, “People MIMICKING Catholic Church Clerics”, ARE “praised”, some given special “accolades”, “positions” in the Catholic Church.

Not a BIG SECRET, “NOT ALL PEOPLE” AGREE with the Catholic Churches “OFFICIAL WRITTEN TEACHING”, nor do ALL PEOPLE AGREE, with “individual Catholic Persons” “reasoning or understanding “OF their” “Religious Behaviors”.

WHEN a person IS discussing DISAGREEMENT of “individual Behaviors of individual Catholic Persons”.... IT IS NOT a DISCUSSION OF ...
OFFICIAL WRITTEN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING....
“IT is a discussion of observing, conversing with Catholic persons WHO speak and ACT on behalf of the Catholic Religion THEY claim to be a part of and participate in”....
** It doesn’t matter to me....”IF” what an individual Catholic Person, “IS” saying or doing as a MEMBER representative of the “CATHOLIC Church”....”IF IT IS” or “IS NOT”, “OFFICIAL Catholic Church TEACHING”.....
** They “OBVIOUSLY”, learned their “CATHOLIC”, “choosing of words, speech, behavior”...SOMEWHERE...
* NOT MY PROBLEM, IF “Catholic Individuals” MISREPRESENT “OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING”!!!
* NOT MY Responsibility, TO Teach or Correct Catholics, WHAT they are “OFFICIALLY suppose to believe, say, do”.

Maybe you should take your foot out of your own mouth and get to getting, Correcting your own wayward Catholics that off the rails on what THEY ARE “SUPPOSED to Believe, say and do”.

Hi Taken,

Its not a big secret that those "clerics" are worthy of double honor for they are in charge of our souls (1 Timothy 5:17). It is no secret they Keep watch over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers so that they can shepherd the church of God. Sadly some savage wolves have come amongst us, not sparing the flock and distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them (Acts 28-30). That happened on a grand scale with the Reformation. What you call mimiking Christians call adhering to the teachings of The Church that is called the pillar and foundation of truth and of whom we are to go to so that we can settle our differences. The same Church who was given authority to declare a wayward Christian a pagan or tax collector. Us Christians know that we are to Obey your leaders (what you call clerics) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account (Hebrews 13:17). But you don't know this and it is a secret to you because you don't know Scripture.

Notice how I used Scripture to verify what I preach. What did you use? Your opinion???? (it is no secret, the answer is yes, your entire post is your opinion)

 

[amigo de christo]

peter always has primacy the orthodox separated themselves from Christ and his one true church

PETER never had folks kissing his ring . He would have rebuked the catholic church till his last breath .
The popes always had men approach them as though they were god himself and had them bowing
before them . PETER and john himself both told stopped men from trying to even exalt them or worship them .
FROM the time of constantine that church you all claim IS the CHURCH , HAS FAILED GOD and men .
Now COME OUT OF IT . And let us learn the true examples of truth in the scriptures .

 

[amigo de christo]

Peter was the first pope
Pope means father
Isa 22:21-22

Peter was the first leader , but they all seemed to be equals . THEY DIDNT seem to have ONE MAN ABOVE THEM
unto whom they KISSED HIS RING . PETER WOULD REBUKE that entire church . HE would have rebelled against
the very foundation of the constantine led era church that was created . YALL been duped real bad .
I am only trying to help you see things you NEED to see .

 

[amigo de christo]

The most dangerous thing that ever began within chrsitendom was when they blended POLITICS with RELGION .
IT TURNED INTO A MONSTER .

 

[theefaith]

PETER never had folks kissing his ring . He would have rebuked the catholic church till his last breath .
The popes always had men approach them as though they were god himself and had them bowing
before them . PETER and john himself both told stopped men from trying to even exalt them or worship them .
FROM the time of constantine that church you all claim IS the CHURCH , HAS FAILED GOD and men .
Now COME OUT OF IT . And let us learn the true examples of truth in the scriptures .

A sign of obedience like Joseph and his brothers


Genesis 42:6
And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth.

 

[theefaith]

Peter was the first leader , but they all seemed to be equals . THEY DIDNT seem to have ONE MAN ABOVE THEM
unto whom they KISSED HIS RING . PETER WOULD REBUKE that entire church . HE would have rebelled against
the very foundation of the constantine led era church that was created . YALL been duped real bad .
I am only trying to help you see things you NEED to see .

Peter is already administering the kingdom

Already acting in the person of Christ even acting as mediator

It is Jesus Christ who identifies peter with himself!

Matt 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the houser, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

It is Jesus Christ who identifies peter with himself! Matt 17:27

Jesus Christ gives the keys of the kingdom to peter matt 16:18-19 making him prime minister applying Isa 22:21-22 to peter

It’s Christ who does this

Only Peter and his successors have the keys (jurisdictional authority) from Christ to govern the church and administer the kingdom! Matt 16:18-19 Isa 22:21-22

Why does Christ change Peter’s name, God changing a persons name like Abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel always signifies a mission or ministry!

Why does Christ give him the keys of jurisdictional authority that the prime minister holds under the king to administer the kingdom? Isa 22:21-22

How do you govern the church and administer the kingdom with a confession?

How do you give jurisdictional authority to a confession? (Keys of the kingdom)

How do you give a confession the power to bind and loose?


also have to explain
Isa 22:21-22 jurisdictional authority of the keys and called father
Matt 28:19 go teach baptize
Jn 20:21-23 same mission power and authority as christ
Eph 2:20 church built on the apostles
Matt 23 successors of Moses have the jurisdictional authority and the power to bind and loose which Christ says must be obeyed, then taken from them matt 21:43 given to Peter and the apostles and their successors

Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: (plural Peter and his successors)
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.



Applies only to Peter as “prince of the apostles”!

Peter and his successors are the Leader of the apostles and the head of the church until Christ returns!

Matt 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter,

Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: (plural Peter and his successors)
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Lk 22:32 Christ prayed for Peter!

Peter is head of the church!

Isa 22:21-22 21 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.

22 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.

Matt 16:19 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.

Matt 23:1 power and authority of the kingdom known in the keys and binding and loosing, Matt 21:43 kingdom shall be taken from you given to another who will bear fruit. (Peter the apostles in holy church Lk 22:29)

Matt 17:27 Jesus identified peter with himself.

Matt 16:17 Peter alone received revelation from the Father

Lk 22:32 Peter to strengthen his brethren (the apostles)

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep

Peter exercises his authority over the apostles and the church!

Acts 1:15
Acts 3:4
Acts 5:5 5:10
Acts 15:7

ONLY TO PETER CHRIST SAID: THOU ART PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILT MY CHURCH, AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT!Matt 16:18

Peter is the prime minister, father, and head of the church on earth until Christ returns Isa 22:21-22

Seat of peter remains Until Christ returns
Matt 28:19-20


Matthew 5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.


Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

4 important questions:

1) How do you govern the church and administer the kingdom with a confession?

2) How do you give jurisdictional authority to a confession? (Keys of the kingdom)

3) How do you give a confession the power to bind and loose?

4) why did Christ give the keys to Peter (and only to Peter) keys of jurisdictional authority. Isa 22:21-22 why even bother to mention Peter if he is not involved?

Explain Jn 20:21 Peter and the apostles and their successors have the same mission, ministry, power, and authority as Christ! “As the father sent me, so I send you”!

Matt 28:19 christ communicates his authority to peter and the apostles to teach all nations, baptize all disciples!
Jn 20:21-23 apostles even have authority to forgive sins
Eph 2:20 church built on the apostles
Matt 23 the authority and power of the successors of Moses required to be obeyed are taken from them and given to Peter and the apostles

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep: