Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.
Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.
Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.
This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not.
The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.
The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.
Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.
In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [1]
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." [2]The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the Early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
"The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis". [3]Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church:
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". [4]
The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.
He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.
"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [5]
"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". [6]
Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.
It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.
Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [7]
These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations. By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.
It is true that the Early Church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.
An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.
Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a certain Church Father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles.
There are numerous practices in which the Early Church engaged which it believed were of Apostolic origin (listed by Basil the Great), but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle".
Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.
Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God's revelation from the Apostles.
What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.
This was the belief and practice of the early Church
. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.
The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.
Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.
What does the Bible teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414. [up]
The other link is official, and allows one to search the same document.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
It’s all so convenient and simple!
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit for Your Church and the Catechism that is a sure guide to help us in understanding Your Word as You inspire us to do.
Thank You for giving us the gift of mother Church.
Thank You for loving us so much that you graciously provided us - we who are weak and imperfect - a firm rock to assist us in knowing You more fully that so that one day we can know You completely in Your heavenly Kingdom.
The prior Vatican link is official, and this one is not official, but allows you to search the same document.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
It’s all so convenient and simple!
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit for Your Church and the Catechism that is a sure guide to help us in understanding Your Word as You inspire us to do.
Thank You for giving us the gift of mother Church.
Thank You for loving us so much that you graciously provided us - we who are weak and imperfect - a firm rock to assist us in knowing You more fully that so that one day we can know You completely in Your heavenly Kingdom.
Game. Set. Match.
Next question.
You have done a wonderful job here and I hesitate to make any criticism, but I must correct your use of the American Catholic church. There is no such thing. It is the Catholic Church in America.
I haven’t seen your sobriquet here before but I am greatly impressed with the contributions you have made here and look forward to seeing more.
You make a good point and I’ll endeavor to be more careful with my words. Thank you for your compliments. May my efforts be to God’s Glory. Amen.
Ah, CynicalBear, you have just inadvertently made the case for Peter as the first pope. Jesus is speaking to ALL OF THEM, and it is Peter that responds for ALL OF THEM. Then Jesus affirms that the TRUTH that Peter has just spoken for ALL OF THEM, has been revealed by the Father, revealed to PETER and not to ALL OF THEM.
You have admitted that Peter spoke for all of them, that Jesus affirmed what he said as truth, and revealed to those for whom Peter spoke, that it was the Father that revealed it to him.
It is a point of irritation for me since I believe that Catholic politicians who would support abortion and gay marriage believe in the American Catholic Church. It is this nonexistent church which allows them to support those things that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching under the “belief” that there is a distinction which pertains to the Church in America because of the liberties granted Americans in the constitution.
They thus refuse to acknowledge that Christ’s Church is the same the world over and they are indeed subject to her no matter their place of birth.
Ah, Jvette I thought Catholics were against personal interpretations but you just added your own version of what those verses mean. You assume things that are not explicitly stated in the verses.
“...revealed to PETER and not to ALL OF THEM.” The verses do not state that only Peter believes that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. You are assuming that because Peter’s answer is recorded that he is the only one to believe that fact then and later on. Nowhere in the verses does is state that because Peter was the disciple that professed faith in Christ he would have authority over the other disciples.
In fact, as has been pointed out in the thread, the Bible points out the Paul publicly challenged Peter and considered himself equal with Peter. James also made the final decision for the disciples during their conference with Paul.
There simply isn’t any Biblical basis for having Peter as a pope.
You want me to search for your Apostolic traditions??? Why's that, because you can't find them either???
There aren't any Apostolic traditions as your religion claims and we all know it...
LOL I know you want it to be so but alas you would be in error. You want it so badly that you didn’t read the rest of the post, or dismissed it out of hand.
Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. Then after acknowledging who Peter was as Peter had acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of the living God, Jesus says that it’s on this Rock (The living God) that He would build His church. There is sufficient evidence in God’s own words who the Rock is as I have shown in my previous post.
What you have seen was an erroneous article.. the man who did it counted every Baptist church and every non denominational or independent church as a separate denomination
Eric Svendsen notes" twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation." So do not get to comfortable :)
BTW - the saved are in the Church, not outside. Acts 2:47.
The saved ARE the church of God ... You need to read that verse again ..
Young's Literal Translation
Acts 2:47 praising God, and having favour with all the people, and the Lord was adding those being saved every day to the assembly.
The word church MEANS an assembly of BELIEVERS NOT A BUILDING OR DENOMINATION.. The early NT church was composed of only the saved.
Now who do you think came up with those numbers? An independent group or a Roman apologist??LOL
, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality).
Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome.
An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant)......
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism.
The entire Catechism is the deposit of faith as handed on by the Apostles and preserved and clarified by their successors.
If a man won’t even search its thousands of numbered paragraphs, then he will continue to live in willful invincible ignorance.
Jesus gave the keys to Peter.
Peter was the first pope.
His peers recognized his special role.
This same group of fallible men actually chose a successor apostle to replace Judas, and that apostle was a real apostle.
The apostles had the authority to name new apostles, and they did so, and this is in the bible, and it continues to this day.
Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
>>Peter was the first pope.<<
>> His peers recognized his special role.<<
In Luke we see that the disciples themselves did not think that Peter was the designated leader or they would not have asked the question of Jesus they did.
"Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'" (Luke 22:24-26)
If Jesus had designated Peter the leader He would have told them at that point but He clearly didn’t. The RCC uses Matthew 16:18 to try to justify the papacy yet 26 years later when Luke was written it was clear that Peter was not the leader.
For the record, I was responding to CynicalBear's assertion that Peter SPOKE for all of them when he made this declaration of faith. I never said that only Peter had the revelation or belief. But, Peter confirmed the belief for all of them when He spoke, as the pope does when he speaks ex cathedra for the beliefs of the Church.
Also, for the record, what I wrote is the Church's interpretation of that Scripture.
As for your remarks regarding Paul. I do not reject your assertion that Paul challenged Peter, and considered himself an equal. Nor do I reject that James reached the decision at the first conference regarding how the Gentiles were to be received into their ranks.
But, let's look back a little here before we so cavalierly toss out that there is no Biblical basis for Peter as the first pope.
Saul is converted and brought to the disciples in Jerusalem, but they were afraid, and rightfully so considering his past persecution of them.
But, read ACTS, it says that he spoke boldly of Jesus and then the believers brought him down to Caesarea. What happens next in Caesarea?
The Holy Spirit leads Cornelius to call Peter to Caesarea. Now Cornelius was a Gentile who was greatly respected by the Jews for his devotion to God. Before the men sent by Cornelius come to Peter, Peter has a vision, given to him by God and the vision confuses Peter and he is not sure what to make of it.
In the midst of this comes the men sent by Cornelius to get Peter. The Spirit tells Peter to go with these men for God is the one who sent them. And so Peter goes and realizes that the vision was meant to show him that the Lord is the Lord of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. What does he say to the Gentiles?
Acts 10:28-"You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean."
Cornelius tells him he was praying when a man appeared to him and told him to send for Peter and now that Peter has come, Cornelius and his household are assembled to hear what God has commanded Peter to say to them.
What follows is Peter preaching to them about Jesus and then the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles, just as it had on the Jews and Peter orders them to be baptized.
Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and reports to the others about the vision and the meeting with Cornelius and his(Peter's interpretation) that the vision meant that the Gentiles were also to be given the gift of belief in Jesus and redemption. It is from this testimony by Peter that the Apostles and other disciples say, "Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life."
Now on to the conference at Jerusalem when the disciples contemplate whether or not the Gentiles would have to undergo circumcision. Peter stands up and says to them this,
Acts 15:7-11 "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And god, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting god to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
After this, there is discussion and then James pronounces his decision.
It couldn't be more clear that Peter lays out what God, through the Holy Spirit has led him to believe and proclaim and that James has only agreed and affirmed it.
Note that though Paul was in Caesarea before Peter, it was Peter whom the Lord told Cornelius to send for and from whom they first received the good news and believed and were baptized. Now I must note that Scripture does not explicitly say they were baptized, but does that mean they were not?
And in Jerusalem, Peter has made the case, Paul and Barnabas support Peter with their testimonies regarding the signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. and James' "decision" is to agree with Peter.
Now I firmly believe that we are all equal in God's eyes. Equally loved and equally called to believe and be saved. But, that equality does not qualify me to authoritatively assert what any Christian is to believe.
I do not need to desperately believe it. On the contrary, it is the protestant who must desperately reject it.
Jesus does not acknowledge WHO Peter is, rather He acknowledges WHAT Peter is and that is the small rock, with the authority of the big Rock who is God.
There is no question that the Rock is God. Peter is the rock upon which God built His church.
Why stop at 26? Christ in verses 31-32 Christ singles out Peter to pay special attention to what he says next, then says Satan wants to sift him like wheat and tells Peter to strengthen his brothers. That is, to serve his brothers.
He tells Peter to serve his brothers right after saying that he who is chief should become the servant of the others. That's a pretty clear designation of Peter right after defining what the chief should be like and how you would know the chief among them.
There is no contradiction at all unless you take part of the verses out of context, quote them, and ignore the rest.
Even if it agreed that Peter had some sort of leadership role with regards to the other disciples, the Bible doesn’t say that Peter had ultimate authority over the other disciples when it comes to theological matters.
The Bible also doesn’t say that once Peter passed onto to Heaven then another head apostle (pope) is to be appointed over all of the other apostles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.