“But in your example, you admit 2 Peter says one thing and yet you pick Psalms over Peter.”
You’ve lost me - where am I picking Psalms over Peter?
“One does need an understanding of Kingship and authority and the role of the steward of a kingdom. The keys are specific. Very specific.”
Yes, Jesus so specifically made Peter the Steward in His absence that just over a chapter latter, we find:
“Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Guess the others weren’t well versed on what the keys of the kingdom specifically, very specifically meant.
“Let us stroll through Acts.”
Don’t you mean, let’s stroll thru the first few chapters of Acts?
Peter was sometimes called Apostle to the Jews, and as the main thrust of Christianity left the Jews and turned to the Gentiles, much more emphasis fell on Paul.
In the first 12 chapters of Acts. Peter’s name is mentioned 55 times in 53 verses. He is mentioned once in the rest of Acts.
In Chapter 15, in the Council at Jerusalem, Peter speaks, and then “they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me... 19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles...”
Peter was no preeminent in the Council. I have no problem with this, nor do I think it denigrates Peter in any way...I think Peter was an awesome Christian, and a man so far above me in faith that it is ridiculous to use my name in the same sentence.
But he sure wasn’t the Vicar of Christ. That name went to the Holy Spirit. Wiki: “The title Vicar of Christ came into use in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Christian Church prior to Constantine reserved the titles, Vicar of Christ and Vicar of the Lord exclusively for the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus sent to His Apostles to complete their training (John 16:12-15).”
MB “The pillar AND foundation of truth. Not just the support.”
“Hedraiwma, late and rare word (from edraiow, to make stable) occurs here first and only in ecclesiastical writers later. Probably it means stay or support rather than foundation or ground.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=1ti&chapter=003&verse=015
MB “Useful, yes. All encompassing? No.”
Timothy is told to use scripture for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The result of doing that “the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Is scripture every form of knowledge? No. But a man of God taught by it and corrected by it will be “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Not partially, needing more unfolding to reveal doctrines no Apostle taught. And remember, Paul said he taught the Ephesian Elders in Acts 20 “the whole counsel of God”. It is also the faith that Jude describes as “once for all entrusted to the saints.”
If you want to teach something additional, like the Assumption of Mary, that is your business - but don’t claim it is binding doctrine. And Purgatory, Priests, Indulgences, Penance?
Well, they are not needed for every good work.
MB “The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.”
Well, the TRUE church is. If a church requires one to go beyond scripture, then it isn’t true. By definition. For it is then no longer the pillar and support (or foundation) of the truth. The Truth isn’t defined by the church organization, but the organization by the Truth. And what is truth?
If you want to teach something additional, like the Assumption of Mary, that is your business - but don’t claim it is binding doctrine. And Purgatory, Priests, Indulgences, Penance?
Well, they are not needed for every good work.
From where I am Priests are kind of critical for the life of the Church, for the members of the Church. But leave that aside.
Are you proposing that only "what is needed for every good work" be the standard of what is de fide?
One problem is that that's a mighty vague standard, at once demanding (EVERY?) and vague (who gets to say what 'good' is?)
Just FYI, that wiki says that the term vicar of Christ was not used for a pope until such and such a time means nothing to me. Again, the notion of a church gradually declining from purity until it is reformed is not the only paradigm, and it is one which, with qualifications, we reject.
The argumebnt that Peter did not preside at the Jerusalem COuncil also cuts no definitive ice. I've been in a number of situations where the "president" is not the supreme officer.
In any event, the unparalleled accounts of interactions between Jesus and Peter and his primacy in every list is dispositive for me. And, title or not, an apostle is a vicar (where vicar is related to the word "vice" as in "vice-president").
I don't mean this to be an argument but a setting out of differences.
You’ve lost me - where am I picking Psalms over Peter?
Posting http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2421970/posts?page=4340#4340 in which you say: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).”
This is what I mean.
“One does need an understanding of Kingship and authority and the role of the steward of a kingdom. The keys are specific. Very specific.”
Yes, Jesus so specifically made Peter the Steward in His absence that just over a chapter latter, we find:
“Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Who says that the steward is the greatest? The steward is merely the stand-in to keep things going until the King returns. Nobody said that Peter was the greatest. In English history, the steward's position was normally named formally. In the ceremony, sometimes the keys were actually given in a public fashion. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm has some good Protestant commentary on not only the passages of Matthew 16, but also Isaiah 22 and in their comparison.
Don’t you mean, let’s stroll thru the first few chapters of Acts?
Peter was sometimes called Apostle to the Jews, and as the main thrust of Christianity left the Jews and turned to the Gentiles, much more emphasis fell on Paul.
< In the first 12 chapters of Acts. Peter’s name is mentioned 55 times in 53 verses. He is mentioned once in the rest of Acts.
In Chapter 15, in the Council at Jerusalem, Peter speaks, and then “they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me... 19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles...”
Peter was no preeminent in the Council. I have no problem with this, nor do I think it denigrates Peter in any way...I think Peter was an awesome Christian, and a man so far above me in faith that it is ridiculous to use my name in the same sentence.
The establishment of Peter's leadership is what was demonstrated here, especially during the ministry of Jesus and in the transition to the Church after the Ascension. Paul does not lead the Church; he leads his see.
But he sure wasn’t the Vicar of Christ.
Where does it say that? I didn't find anything in the NAB, nor the KJV.
Timothy is told to use scripture for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The result of doing that “the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Every good work is important, but we are not Arminians. Good works are not sufficient for salvation.
MB “The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.”
Well, the TRUE church is. If a church requires one to go beyond scripture, then it isn’t true. By definition.
Whose definition? Not Scriptural, is it?